Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840207 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fCRlll'O C.F.HOECHLB.B.&L.CJ. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1984 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with com- missioners Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, David White, Roger Hunt, and Paul Sheldon, alternate, present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Roger Hunt expressed concern with the parking and road clearing situation in town. He proposed this as an agenda item for study. The engineering department is in favor of this as well. He noted that the west end has a severe parking problem, and the east end is practically the same. The roads are used for long-term storage parking by employees. He recommended imposing no parking one day of the week to one side of the stree in those areas for road cleaning. At least once a week the cars then would be moved. P&Z does need to discuss this because it effects land use; if all the streets are effectively narrowed to one lane, the city can not tolerate more growth. Perry Harvey questioned if the street cleaning crew is capable of keeping up with that kind of demand. Hunt said they have the capability. Barry Edwards, city attorney, commented that Council made an identical statement at last night's council meeting as to the danger of crossing over the yellow line driving down Cooper Street. Hunt requested P&Z pass on a resolution to Council that this issue needs to be addressed; let Council discuss it from an operational point of view. Harvey asked if this should be discussed as part of the transportation site planning or sooner. Sunny Vann, planning office, commented there will be recommendations soon for the transportation issues, including this one. Harvey questioned the statute on transportation. Vann said he would be coming forth this month to talk about the overall work program and the sketch plan program; the sketch plan which includes transportation, utilities, etc., will be detailed. Harvey asked Hunt if he wanted the issue put into that discussion. Hunt said it is not critical now, but it will be, and will affect tourism. For example, S. Aspen street up until today was one-third normal parking capacity. He has been work- ing since Christmas to get engineering and the street department to clear Aspen Street. There is a need to do this to serve the tourists. Alan Richman, planning office commented that their upcoming agendas would allow this to be put on as a discussion item. Hunt suggested discussing it as it relates to the transportation,and cleaning the streets to the gutter should be given a priority. David White said City Council wanted some specific direction with regards to transportation, he would like to give the Council specifics. (Pat Fallin arrived at 5:07 p.m.) Vann said when these conversations commence, P&Z will be able to move immediately. White requested that P&Z be informed what their schedule is each month, and yearly. Richman said Vann is going to present a whole work pro- gram, then Richman will present what is happening week to week. Hunt questioned if the parking and street cleaning issue needed to be a separate agenda item. Richman said he will present it for a short discussion at the next meeting for a conclusion by P&Z. Hunt asked if the workload could be rescheduled. He noted substantial workload over the holdiays and light workload over the past two meetings. Paul Sheldon noted he was in poor health over the holidays and looked seriously at cutting back commitments. As an alternate member of the commission and a full-time manager of a ski lodge he said he is not avail- for more than two meetings a month. On an exceptional basis he could come in; four meetings a month, four hours a meeting, he cannot support that level of commitment. He seriously is looking at resigning from the ____l1ijrw. .."~...,_."..,,. "._.,,"_..._-~. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1984 the commission or limiting his participation to the regular meetings of the commissions and reading whatever supplemental materials are necessary. He sought the advice of the senior members of the commission about this. He said a decision does not need to be made now. Vannrecommended that the commission think about Sheldon's request; let Vann present and discuss the work program. He advised Sheldon to re- view the commitments which will be required then decide. Sheldon agreed. Richman mentioned at the last meeting when P&Z scored the residential growth management, many commissioners felt uncomfortable that plan- ning office did not have a firm quota, and P&Z could not make a recom- mendation to Council. Richman reported the Ute City Place is going to the Board of Appeals this week to determine whether their allocation can be resurrected. This will help clarifY the status of the eight units. He said he does not expect to go to Council with an action request on the scores of the residential GMP until the last meeting in February. That will give P&Z time at the next meeting to find out definitely what the status is of the units; to make a motion or a recommendation on allocation, future year borrowing, etc.; and time and opportunity to make comments before any action takes place. Richman noted there has been an appeal filed on portions of the GMP scoring. P&Z will be informed later of the appeal before action takes place. Vann said he scheduled a work session for next Tuesday to begin P&Z's deliberation on the top of Mill aspect of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The public hearing on the associated rezoning is scheduled for the second regular meeting in February. The applicant has asked to cancel next week's work session given the fact that the nature of the hotel review is bogged down in Council. Because of the delays in Council, and, the applicant's desire to get a more definitive direction from Council as to acceptance of the hotel application, the applicant thinks it is pre- mature to initiate discussion on the top of Mill since it is all inter- related to the FAR considerations of the hotel project. At this time the work session is pulled. Vann said continue to have on February 21st the published public hearing on the rezoning question. Open the public hearing at that time and if the applicant requests to table, do it at that time to a date certain. MINUTES Harvey addressed the minutes of August 2, 1983. He noted a correction: the second page on the last sentence, change "off-side" to "off-site." Welton Anderson moved to approve the minutes of August 2, 1983; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. David White moved to approve the minutes of August 16, 1983; seconded by Welton Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Pat Fallin moved to approve the minutesof September 6, 1983; seconded by David White. All in favor, motion carried. Perry Harvey suggested holding approval of the minutes on December 6, 1983. David White moved to approve the minutes of December 13, 1983; seconded by Perry Harvey. All in favor, motion carried. David White moved to approve the minutesof December 20, 1983; seconded by Perry Harvey. All in favor, motion carried. David White moved to approve the minutes of January 3, 1984; seconded by Welton Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Pat Fallin moved to approve the minutes of January 17, 1984; seconded by David White. All in favor, motion carried. ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE-BENEDICT/LARKIN REZONING, GMP EXEMPTION Vann said the applicant requests tabling this consideration of rezoning. The rationale is the applicant wants a more definitive statement from Council as to the size of the hotel project. It is a bit difficult to explore alternative solutions until the size of the hotel is indicated. ___~r~_"__"--'-" . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ORM '0 C, F. HOfCKfl B. 8. 8< L. CJ. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1984 -2- That has been a problem with Council. Vann believes the applicant is going to request tabling by Council for one to two weeks for them to re- think some solutions and comments that Council has made to date. This may remain tabled for a period of time, until a more definitive program can be reached with Council. Vann said since it has been published twice, that P&Z continue the public hearing on March 6, 1984. Harvey opened the public hearing, then closed it. Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing and table action on the Aspen Mountain Lodge rezoning request for R-6 RBO, pursuant to the request by the applicant to March 6, 1984; seconded by Paul Sheldon. All in favor, motion car- ried. White mentioned he deducted points on the GMP residential scoring because an applicant did not provide employee housing on-site. He said P&Z awards approval, but parts of the application process are not fulfilled. Some applicants do not handle employee housing, but are scored for it; others who score do build employee housing on site. White said some applicants do not complete their commitments. Vann said the applicant cannot deviate from the approved GMP application. White sited Hans Cantrup and the Alpina Haus. Vann noted Cantrup came back and requested permission to substitute some employee housing solution from his original proposal. P&Z and Council granted that permission. Edwards stated that one has to score the application as it is presented. One cannot assume that the applicant is not going to build the project as presented. Harvey commented that there is no differential between on-site and off-site employee housing. in flexibility to allow for both. in the scoring system Vann specifically put White stated that if the applicant builds employee housing down in the Pitkin County part of Basalt, in his mind they do not deserve points for employee housing. Vann explained that there is a formula in the code on how to award points in employee housing, discretion is not allowed. Points for the provision of housing must be given. However, in order for that housing to be built, it must be exempted from growth manage- ment. Council must exempt it from growth management plan based on the recommendation of planning and zonimg. Vann suggested indicating in the review by P&Z that the applicant did score points, but P&Z did not feel the solution meets the intent, therefore P&Z does not recommend the proposed solution. Richman said he has to make some housing policy and growth management code amendments, and White's issue is one that needs to be addressed. The code needs some specificity, i.e., Aspen metro area v.s. the pitkin County line. Hunt asked if location and design in employee housing can be added to the growth management plan. Vann said that P&Z and planning office have deferred housing policies to the independent employee housing authority. Planning office takes the hous- ing authority's recommendations as to the appropriateness for scoring, P&Z is asked to do the same thing. If there is a land use related issue that should be considered, then the appropriate place to address it is in the request for exemption or to amend the codes with regards to the scoring criteria. Vann wants the subjectivity from the allocation of employee housing removed, the applicant is left up in the air other- wise. Vann briefed the commissioners on the Aspen Mountain Lodge status in Council. Four members expressed the position that the applicant not deviate from the underlying bulk requirements. He noted that there was confusion over what the intent of the PUD regulations were and the extent to which such variations were consistent. Vann cleared that at last night's council meeting. The application is progressing much slower .._-_..............--,,_.-.,......."...-..I"_-~, . Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1984 in Council than was anticipated, slower than at the P&Z level. Council has restricted the discussion to one hour per meeting every week. This leaves little time for public comment or for discussion among the Council members. Harvey asked if Council has reviewed P&Z's resolution 84-1. It appears Council is addressing the same issues P&Z addressed. P&Z tried to deal with the issues on a conceptual level and agreed it is a good idea to put a hotel on that piece of property. Council appears to want to come to grips with all the anSWers before the application is approved. Vann said Council has reviewed the ten points why this makes sense and why the need for multi-year allocation. The week before last, Council indicated they did not want to vary the requirements. Last night the mayor took a straw vote, three of the four present said they basically favored the project on that site. One was non-committal. Vann perceived a lack of support for the extent of exceeding the underlying and zoning requirements that this application contains with respect to the bulk and size. The applicant will probably take some time and rethink the solution to see if he can come up with a reduction in bulk and number of units. This is speculation. If applicant comes up with something reasonable, Council will wade through the more specific conditions attached to conceptual PUD. Strict compliance by the appli- cant is unobtainable given the constraints of the project. But the ap- plicant is looking at something closer to the restrictions, than is currently proposed. Harvey recommended to the mayor that if Council is concerned ..about the fact P&Z alone was going to consider the project at the preliminary level, P&Z would set aside some time for work sessions with Council during the preliminary process, and confirm that P&Z is addressing Council's concerns. Harvey reported that Stirling said Council should evaluate the application and P&Z left free to do the same. Vann said Council is dealing with the extent to which the variances of some of the underlying, i.e., height and FAR, are going to be allowed in the con- ceptual point of view. Council is reluctant to send it back to you without giving direction to the applicant. If the applicant cannot come up with an amendment, Council may deny it at conceptual level. GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY PLAN UPDATE RESOLUTION Richman said this is a public hearing although the state statutes do not actually require the adoption of a plan in a public hearing, a public hearing is suggested. Richman addressed the resolution. Richman requested some reaction from P&Z on the specific points invoked by Council on January 9, 1984. He suggested that P&Z direct him to draw up the resolution which would essen- tially be a slight variation of the draft stating P&Z's intent. County P&Z this morning adopted a similar resolution. It states that is is hereby adopting the resolution with some changes, which Council proposed. The County was extremely complimentary of the work and supportive of the resolution as it was proposed to them. Richman summarized the comments. First, Stirling was uncomfortable with the statement "dynamic and flexible." It lacked definition. Richman felt with the level of discussion the commissioners and the planning office have a pretty good idea of what the statement means. Harvey interjected that the nature of "flexible" is not defineable. The flexibility is needed to deal with an unexpected problem. Harvey recommended sending a memo along with the resolution dealing with the fact that "dynamic and flexible" cannot be defined. Richman also suggested not defining it in the resolution, but present reason for each case, i.e., the L3 and multi-year allocation of the lodge. Support the rationales and resolutions. Richman said Blomquist's comments evolve around the point that the resolu- tion is brawling in its nature. Blomquist wants more specificity; and wants the plan not so city- and county-oriented. Richman said that the specificity of the resolution will evolve out of the comprehensive planning. The County Commissioners made the same comments to the County P&Z, it is not the time to give all the answers, it is a time to point out the issues and the general approach. Harvey asked if this was relayed to Stirling. Richman said no. Knecht's comments are the opposite of Blomquist's. Knecht states Aspen "./ - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F GRM ~I C. F. H OECKE:L 8. a. II: l. ~ J. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1984 -3- is a community, not a city in an island. Knecht likes the idea of looking at city and county problems. Richman reported the one specific suggestion was to look at the city's growth rate as opposed to the community as a whole. Richman said the city's growth rate is well below 3.5%, it is about 2%. He recommended writing the resolution to specrrically recognize that that is the city's growth rate. Fallin questioned Knecht's request, is it to specify that the city is not pursuing a 3.5% growth rate. Does Knecht think the city is doing more or less. Knecht wanted the resolution to reflect the accomplishment of 2%. Welton Anderson said the stated objectives have been at 3.47% per year since 1977, those were based on sound reasoning at the time. He does not see why this document needs to retrench this to reflect reality. Rich- man clarified that the old plan only recognized that the different areas would grow at different rates. He said that the old plan recognized 39 residential and 18 lodge, now there are 39 residential and 45 lodge. The old growth rate for Aspen was 1.3%, it was never 3.5%. Harvey asked if P&Z sites a goal in the growth which does not exceed 3.5%, and puts it in at 2%, are there potential legal problems. Richman said no. Richman explained that the growth quota system meets a county wide growth rate. It is also designed to meet a city wide growth rate of 2%. It is not how many units have been built, the quota is actually 2%. Anderson said that in 1977 it was 3.47%. Richman said that is incorrect. Harvey opened the public hearing. Gideon Kaufman questioned if the county adopts phase four, and there is a tremendous growth rate in the county, is there anything in this document stating that city will have to cut its growth rate to meet the overall county-city combined growth rate. Kauf- man suggested including a comprehensive plan to protect Aspen from reduc- ing its growth rate. He is concerned including Snowmass and pitkin County in any kind of plan with P&Z. Harvey agreed. Richman said there is nothing in the document to compel P&Z to change the growth rate. As part of the code amendments on the growth management quota system, County Commissioners will request that P&Z look at a reduc- tion of quota in the residential area to respond to centennial. Richman thought it was a reasonable suggestion. The Commissioners are responding to the city's employee housing problem. Kaufman said P&Z does not make decisions as to what is necessary employee housing. Richman said that is why P&Z will make the decision as to whether it is appropriate to change the quota. Harvey asked if including 2% would destroy potential flexibility. Rich- man said no. It is a guideline, P&Z is not adopting a regulation. The system is designed for 2% city growth rate. It is designed for 3.5% county growth rate. It is designed to be flexible. It is designed for multi- year allocations. Harvey encouraged comments from the commissioners about including the 2%. Sheldon said it is fine,butunnecessaryWhite, Hunt, Harvey, and Fallin concurred. Anderson disagreed. Harvey said note to Council that the growth rate is an historic fact. Harvey questioned the meaning of "greater emphasis to be given to an annexa- tion policy for Aspen." Harvey felt policy seven covered that, it is urban in character and is affected by decisions in adjacent units. The Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1984 primary purpose is not to increase the land's development potential. He suggested adding "primary purpose is not to increase the land's potential" to "substantial increase would not result from an annexation." Municipal services have been covered. Kaufman said Aspen Grove, Knollwood, East Wood, Mountain Valley, places that are platted subdivisions, places that are already on city water, places affected by City Council, and yet cannot vote, have to be considered. Harvey said that Council should take this document in the spirit it was written; it is a general policy, specifics will be handled later. P&Z has established the guidelines for an annexation policy and that in conjunction with site specific analysis of areas, P&Z will present a priority list. Harvey instructed Richman to outline to Council what the program is, and how the planning process works. Richman mentioned the County hoped the comprehensive plan would address what Aspen would look like when built out at 3.5% per year county wide for fifteen or twenty years. What does zoning potential look like physically? Does P&Z like that? If so fine, if not, should the city be upzoned? P&Z needs to give some sense of a final or ultimate picture of this community in a fifteen or twenty year period. Harvey asked if there is a mayor's commission exploring what Aspen looks like in the year 2000. Richman said no, there are a series of goal statements. White supported the idea. Richman suggested adding to objective seven a sentence that one aspect of the comprehensive plan will be to look at the ultimate level and form of developllent of Aspen. Richman addressed the ski area policy. On page three of the resolution, policy four, it states "ski expansions are preferred which are found to have minimal impacts on land development, in the base area..." The County preferred to delete "in the base area." The rationale is that the ski area will have substantial land development impacts every where in the community. Hunt noted Ruthie's Restaurant impacted the base area, not land development. Richman clarified the County's comments. The County is concerned with impacts in the base area and outside the base area as opposed to being solely concerned with the impacts within the base area. If one deletes "in the base area" the concerns are more encompassing. Sheldon suggested to delete "in" not "the base area." Harvey suggested using "on" for each item. Harvey instructed planning office to rewrite the resolution incorporating the changes: amending objective seven, amending policy four, enclosing a memo on "dynamic and flexible." Harvey requested to view the memo and resolution before sending it to Council. Harvey closed the public meeting. Hunt moved to authorize the planning office to rewrite the proposed resol- ution for P&Z's adoption as amended; seconded by Sheldon. White asked if Aspen's image in the year 2000 willbe incorporated. Richman said yes. All in favor, motion carried with Anderson opposed. VIGODA LOT SPLIT/REZONING Richman presented a site plan of the property in question, the cOlmnissioners reviewed it. Harvey brought the meeting to order. Gideon Kaufman, representative for the client, stated that Lot 4 of the Trueman subdivision is SCI-SPA. The applicant made a request because he discovered a problemwith zoning. He is trying to clear up the dual zoning. Richman made the presentation. There is a request for lot: split and a request for rezoning to correct what planning office thinks is an error on the zoning map. There is a series of technical concerns, one being a series of six or seven statements by the city attorney's office. Most are addressed in terms of conditions. Richman walked the property. It is flat. It is open. There is a vacant sideyard. It is not on the bank heading down toward the Trueman property at all. It is as suitable for subdivision development as one could possibly find in a piece of land. The rezoning is being done simultaneously to ,..... - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FCRId '0 C, F. HOECK[L B. 8. '" L. ~J. Regular Meeting Planning and zoning Commission February 7, 1984 -4- conform to the requirements of the codes. Any final approval of the sub- division would wait until final approval of an ordinance to rezone the property. At Council there is a first reading to approve the ordinance, and then a second reading of the ordinance on the final plat on the sub- division exception. Fallin questioned if the house is historically designated. Richman answered yes, and it is going before HPC. Richman said as far as engineering, most of the comments were technical comments about platting. There was a question about the trail easement. P&Z agreed to sponsor the rezoning at the meeting on January 17, 1984. It appears that the zoning maps used the old city-county lines, the Trueman property line as opposed to using the actual property line of this property Planning has done some research. The history of the Trueman SPA plan indicates nothing that this land should have been considered as part of SPA. It is clear the property is part of the residential neighborhood, not part of the Trueman area. What is zoned as SPA was a mistake. The property belongs in a residential not commercial property. In terms of the criteria to bring it into conformance with the plan for the area as well as surrounding zoning, it definitely does not increase the degree of development potential on the site. In fact, Richman considers the residential use to be a lower use than the SCI-SPA use. The lot is supposed to be divided into two conforming lots, one of about 6,000 square feet and one about 13,500 square feet. The lot split is permitted under the growth management plan exemption. The applicant meets the criteria of the lot split of the code. The only issue raised is the path which is a nonformal part of the trail system. Richman understood that the trail is outside the property boundary, essentially it runs down into the Pitkin Trueman property. Harvey asked if the engineering concern is that an easement be awarded. Richman said that access from Hallam to the post office area is good. A trail easement cannot be granted for an historically used trail to these people because it is not on their land. The applicant has requested some type of easement on this land, it is not appropriate. A trail from the post office to the school was built last year. It is for the purpose of going down to thepost office, it serves that function very well and it is safer. The one used historically in the winter and spring is very dangerous. Harvey asked is there some city liability. Richman continued to say that the historical path duplicates the function of the formal path. The fenceline is the property line for the Vigoda property. Kauf- man mentioned at one point, the end of the trail may touch the property. Richman said the trail does not cross the property line. Sheldon commented that the historical path gets one from Carl's section of the business district down to the post office directly. He said the initial access to the cliff portion of the trail is on the property and it is important to maintain it. Richman said he did not know what would prohibit the trail from being used, it is not on the property. Stan Mathis, architect for the applicant, said in part of the preliminary approval from HPC, there is some concern about the footpath. His client has agreed to maintain that footpath as it exists now. The applicant has no wish or desire to close it off. And it is not on their property. Sheldon said the portion going down the hill is not, but there is a portion on Hallam Street running along the fence. Kaufman said the property line is where the fence is straight and flat; where it is steep and drops off it does not touch the property. From a liability standpoint, Kaufman said the city would not want a trail there anyway. Edwards commented that liabi- II...-..'...."....._~.. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1984 lity cannot be dealt with in the context of this application. Harvey said one cannot require a trail easement on this property. Richman recommended approval of the lot split subdivision exception and the exemption from GMP which would result in the lot split and the re- zoning of the portion of the property which is now SCI-SPA to R-6. There are four conditions recommended to substantiate that. Kaufman made two comments. First, engineering is asking for two require- ments that have not been asked for in the past. Before Gary Esary left, he and Kaufman discussed this. There is a new city engineer who is re- viewing these. One thought Kaufman and Esary had was to standardize pro- cedures so that every time there was some turnover in engineering depart- ment, one would not have to go through recreating the wheel. Kaufman talked to Taddune, who is going to set up a meeting with Dan MacArthur and Kaufman. There are two requirements in the engineering memo (dated February 7, 1984, to P&Z from Colette Penne), number two and four. Four requires title certificate. A title certificate has not been requested for a long time. The title companies have refused because of the require- ments of the city. The second problem is with number two: "a note must be placed on the drawing indicating that the interior property corners must be monumented within one year of the effective date of the sales con- tract, pursuant to..." This is a new requirement. The reason it has not been required in the past it has to deal with major subdivisions v.s. subdivision exceptions with one time lot split. Kaufman requested this not be complied with. This will be settled by meeting with MacArthur and the city attorney's office. They will come up with a standardized pro- cedure. Barry Edwards, city attorney, explained that if a title certificate is impossible to obtain, it cannot be required. The issue is who owns the property and do they own it fee simple. Any substantial compliance with that requirement would be appropriate. He recommended that P&Z adopt a resolution which recommends substantial compliance, such as proof of owner- ship. Edwards said that Kaufman's statement on lot procedure is accurate. Engineering is requesting that P&Z require that an applicant put on the plat that he intends to comply with state law. The state law already requires the monumentation for all subdivisions since 1967. There is no use in P&Z requiring someone to put language on the plat stating he is complying with state law. If the applicant does not comply he could be charged with a misdemeanor. It is a surveyor or seller problem to comply with state law. P&Z does not need to be involved. Hunt mentioned the engineering department had a problem with the subdivision exception. By interpretation, it allowed most applicants the exemption of time compliance with the necessary documentation, final plat, etc. Is that the case? Edwards said no. Kaufman said in the final, one has ninety days under the code to record, it is invalid if that is not done. That has been changed for condominiumization; it is not a real subdivision although it is called a subdivision. What one wants from the condominium plat is the internal unit configuration. Give the builder as much time to build the condominium. Hunt asked if that means three years. Kaufman said there is no requirement. Hunt requested some final time requirement. Explain it to engineering. Richman recommended language: eliminate "b" in condition four, change "CO to "bll, lid" to lIell, "e" to ndll, and the new lie" reads 'provide the necessary mortgage statement." Harvey said proof of ownership. And he suggested eliminating statement "c" which requires a mortgage statement. He questioned "construction of a single family house." Kaufman explained that a problem has come up with the 6,000 square feet. Anderson said the existing family had to be duplexed before the lot split took place. Richman said the appli- cant does not have a growth management exemption for any more than the single family. Harvey closed the public hearing. Anderson moved to recommend the approval of the subdivision exception for the purpose of a lot split, the approval of an exemption from growth management allocation procedures be granted for Section 24.11.2d for the construction of a single family house in the newly formed lot. He further recommended that the portion of the parcel zoned SCI-SPA be rezoned to R-6 like the zoning of the remainder of the parcel with the following condi- tions: '-' - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FCRIIl ~o C. f. HOECK El 8. B. B: l. CO. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 1984 -5- 1. A Statement of Subdivision Exception be approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office and recorded. 2. The plat must comply with Section 20.15 and 20.16 regarding final plat content and survey monumenta- tion. 3. The applicant agrees to join any future improve- ment district. 4. The plat requirements outlined by the Engineering Department must be completed prior to recordation. These are specifically: a. The adjacent subdivision (Trueman Neigh- borhood Commercial projects) must be in- dicated. b. In the surveyor's certificate and on the face of the plat, incorrect language is used and should be changed to "Original Aspen Townsite." c. The City of Aspen certificate has some incorrect language. The action is a sub- division exception approval, and the document is a subdivision exception plat. Seconded by Pat Fallin. approve the subdivision. in favor, motion carried. Hunt believed the motion should be changed to Richman said that is already recommended. All Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. A/iM fA' :J:~AAA Barbara Norris Deputy City Clerk