Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19960807PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 7 1996 SPECIAL MEETING Vice Chairperson Jasmine Tygre called the meeting to order at 5 :3 5 p.m. with members Roger Hunt, Robert Blaich, Steve Buettow and Timothy Mooney present. Members Sara Garton, Marta Chaikovska and Dave Johnston were excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Blaich asked about the area in the Meadows next to and behind Harris Hall, how did it get redesigned when it was dedicated to be natural. Blaich said there is a complete landscape plan with boulders, walking paths, ect... Mooney asked if it is a dedicated park or open space. Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director said he knows this went through HPC because the Meadows was landmarked, he does not know how the prior approvals would affect it not coming before Planning & Zoning. John Sarpa, Savanah Limited stated recently HPC, in conjunction with the various owners revisited certain sites to either categorize or recategorize certain areas as protected or not protected, this change may have resulted from that review. Blaich stated that he had talked with the architect of Harris Hall and this was to remain the natural meadow, he said if it was done without the proper authority it should be challenged. Michaelson responded he would check into it. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Aspen Mountain PUD, Top of Mill Michaelson stated we have had three hearings on the conceptual review, specifically for the Top of Mill site, the Geotech report and the response from the State Geologist has been included, conceptual conditions have been identified. Michaelson said the applicant has provided photographs to get a handle on some of the visual impacts, there are two issues in terms of the conceptual PUD, that is _ the PUD itself and the Subdivision, step three will be the final PUD and at that point in time P&Z will provide a recommendation to Council on both the Text PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 7 1996 SPECIAL MEETING Amendment and the Rezoning as well as the ESA reviews, in terms of 8040 Greenline and Viewplane. Michaelson noted that a condition included in amendment M of the PUD agreement, "the owner shall fund the sum of $250, 000 towards the following; a comprehensive Aspen Mountain Drainage Plan, the implementation of the Plan's recommendations and the provision of drainage easements", to clarify the "unresolved" issue it comes down to the city has never implemented that drainage plan, they have had that money in escrow for nearly ten (10) years and have never fully either funded or selected a consultant or started developing a scope of work for that drainage plan, the Engineering Department says they have gotten some response to a conceptual scope of work, they haven't selected a consultant and expect it could take 6-8 months. Michaelson stated at what point do the applicants continue on through the review process while these drainage issues are still out there, he is not sure anyone has a handle on when that study will be completed or how it will affect the project. Michaelson noted there is an easement platted called the Top of Mill Trail that goes through the middle of this lot, Parks, the applicant and Community Development walked an alternative alignment that would push the easement up and over the site, it would be on land controlled by the Aspen Ski Company (ASC), Staff noted there would have to be a formal agreement with the ASC in terms of granting that easement. Michaelson said new information are some of the site specific geotech recommendations in terms of soil & foundation conditions, underground mine workings, storm water drainage, debris flows, also included is the most recent review by the State Geologist in which he referenced his 1985 letter describing specific mitigation that he felt were prerequisite to any final approval.. Bill Poss, Architect reviewed computer generated photographs from several viewplanes, The Wheeler, Lift IA, Summer Road (lower magnifico). Sarpa said the topography as it is today comes up and bowls out flat which permitted these units to be placed in such a. way that from the main view points they are tucked back in, if they handle the vegetation right and preserve the existing trees as well as additional plantings it will be hard to see those units from almost 80-90% of the views. PUBLIC COMMENTS Lowell Hager, public owns a condo in Fifth Avenue asked if the flat talked about it artificial flat created by falling dirt into the side of the mountain. 2 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 7 1996 SPECIAL MEETING Sunny Vann, representing Savanah Limited responded it is and will be removed back to natural grade, the fill was placed there during the construction of the Ritz and various other projects. Sarpa stated the photographs are based not based on today's topography but the one that will be built on. Ms. Joe Bruman, public said in the past Fifth Avenue has had a lot of soil problems, as in water coming into Fifth Avenue and flooding it, with this large area they will be building on her main concern is water drainage. Bruman stated it does not seem .as though anyone has done the geotech surveys that need to be done for the soil to find out what is happening up there, the bottom of Aspen Mountain shifts, the North of Nell shifts, all those buildings that were built in the 60's and before all have problems. Doug Nehaus, public submitted a letter from Ziska Childs for the record. Joe Edwards, public .representing Michael Teschner who owns the house at the top of Mill Street above the Fifth Avenue Condominiums said there are some fundamental problems with this application, they are asking for some extraordinary changes to zoning, he stated he was involved in the original PUD hearings. Edwards stated there were many compromises, trade-offs and variances granted with respect to the original PUD agreement, Savanah came in and asked for height variances on the Ritz and to build more units than zoning normally allows in exchange they would minimize development on the Grand Aspen and Top of Mill sites. Edwards said the only commitment with respect to Lot 5 is that "it should have no more than SO hotel rooms and that there will be no more than 47 residential units" between Lot 3 & 5, those were maximums to be allowed were not guarantee's that it would be allowed, the reason for the flexibility was because the applicant had not made up his mind what he wanted to do at that time. Edwards said no agreement was made with respect to any development on Top of Mill, amendment M states "any and all development applications for Lot 3,5 & 6 shall comply with the provisions of all Land Use and building regulations effective at the time of the application except to the extent that the provisions of the PUD agreement pertaining to the development of Lots 3, S & 6 may supersede it", for example the first agreement said they could have up to 50 hotel rooms on Lot 5 and up to a maximum of 47 residential units between Lots 3 & 5 other than that Savanah agreed to not file an application without complying with all the 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 7 1996 SPECIAL MEETING provisions of the Land Use and building regulations effective at the time of the application, this application does not come close to complying with the existing regulations. Edwards stated after this PUD agreement was entered into they were given an expansion of the R-15 zoning and the rest is LTR zoning, the R-15 has always been there it is a lower density zone, it has less height and bigger set backs, the representation 10 years ago was that most of the residential/hotel development would take place down at the Grand Aspen, they were going to tear it down and reduce the number of hotel rooms to 50 because they were allowed many more hotel rooms at the Ritz, they were going to build townhome type condominium projects a little, by some future plan was allowed to occur in the R-15 zone. Edwards stated in violation of the agreement, in violation of Section M Amendment and their agreement of a few years ago they now file a development application that does not come close to complying with the existing provisions of the Land Use and the building regulations because the most fundamental part of Land Use and building regulations is the zoning and the zoning on this parcel is R-15 now they are asking for a variance on top of all the variances granted before, in breach of their promise not to do that. Edwards stated that says to other developers to promise whatever they want to get as much .as they want today, make any limitation agreements in the future and when the future comes go back and ask for another variance and another amendment and they will probably get away with it because public minds are relatively short duration and they will not remember what was promised before.. Edwards said they :are building in an area that is the hazard area from the original filing by Mr. Roberts the Black area has been undermined with mines underground and there is danger of subsidence, the dotted area that covers virtually the entire project is an alluvial fan which is the result of downstream debris flow, he pointed out that the easterly half of the Top of Mill property is identified as old mine duct material which is equally unsatisfactory as a development base. Edwards said this will affect Teschner, right now he has a 220 degree view of Aspen Mountain with one duplex off to his left, they propose to surround him literally with a wall of buildings, it will significantly change the character of this site, he finds it incredulous that the traffic report states there will be a decrease in traffic, he also noted before Savanah was to get a CO on the Ritz they were to construct and pave the Alpine trail which has not been done, before they get their CO they were to gravel and otherwise surface an 8' pedestrian trail the entire length of the Aspen Mountain trail easement. Edwards stated they are adamantly opposed to this and will resist it to the hilt. 4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 7 1996 SPECIAL MEETING Ann Merkasen, public said the trail easement is below the ski club and the road she has been skiing down to the top of Mill Street for 3 0 years comes in right above with all the talk of moving the trail easement where will the access to the top of Mill Street be, she thinks they should be required to allow it. Merkasen stated she thinks it would be ,a big mistake to re-route all traffic around the steep terrain that in many cases is closed by the patrol in the winter, she is still concerned about the townhouses and the drainage, she has read some of the Staff memos and does not feel the water impact has been adequately addressed. Joan Rooke, public said she is a homeowner at the Mountain Queen Condominiums and asked about the 8040 Greenline that you could not build above. Michaelson responded 8040 Greenline is just a review process for anything within 100' upslope or downslope from it, it does not prohibit building on the 8040 Greenline, 8040 Greenline review can change the design of a structure, change the building envelope, change the access but does not in any way preclude development for a piece of property that has 8040 Greenline running through it. Rooke stated the 8040 is the top of the Mountain Queen, what is to keep people from building above them. Michaelson responded if it is private property and they are within underlying zoning the only requirement is they go through 8040 Greenline review, the only way to preclude development is if the city purchased the property. Rooke is concerned with the parking and traffic changes, also years ago there was concern about a mudslide, there was talk of a geological survey out of Denver. Michaelson stated the city's portion of that work would be based on Savanah's $250,000 mitigation that was approved in 1988, the city has not done that study but are in the process of trying to select a consultant. Rooke said she is always concerned about someone coming and doing something that goes unnoticed and it is a done deal, she wants to make sure nothing gets by our attention, she also asked where they would park. Michaelson responded they have provided off-street parking for all the units. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 7 1996 SPECIAL MEETING Mr. and Mrs. Powers stated they own a condominium on the ground floor of the Fifth Avenues and their front door is on the mountain side, they are concerned with view, they lose their view completely and the parking behind the first of the townhomes because they will park facing town putting their headlights directly in their front window and finally the mudslide problem because in the years they have had that condo they have had at least two mudslide problems, she would appreciate some consideration. Tygre closed the public comment section of the meeting. Sarpa stated he was sorry Edwards was getting into this late and also noted Edwards client purchased his land on or about July 3rd and a lot of the issues he raised have been discussed at some length publicly and a lot of statements are not accurate. Sarpa said they have waivers for the points made concerning the trails so anything they were required to do they did or were given a waiver for, Savanah is in no way in any breach of obligation of what it was supposed to have done concerning the Ritz or any other parcels. Sarpa noted Savanah did not make an application to rezone without thinking seriously about it and thinks they are very much entitled to it, the bulk of the 47 units is on Lot 5 there are 30 and they propose 17 on Lot 3. Vann stated it does not behoove us at this point to go into the agreement between the parties and debate the points Edwards raised, point by point. Vann said this conceptual recommendation to Council is predicated on a rezoning and if Council declines to rezone they are back to square one, they are happy to sit down with Edwards and go through the various provisions of the agreement, they clearly have a difference of opinion as to what this agreement entitled Savanah to do, the reason Edwards is so well educated about the issue is they provided all the information in the application itself. Vann stated an agreement was reached between the parties, there was conceptual approval for 33 units on the Top of Mill there were also 14 units associated with the original Ritz Carlton which the applicant agreed to move to Lot 5, that is were the 47 units came from. Vann noted shortly after the agreement was struck the city amended the Land Use Code, several amendments did not take into consideration the prior agreement between Savanah and the City. Vann said if they receive conceptual approval from City Council it will have similar conditions that were attached at the time of the prior conceptual approval it calls for very specific engineering studies to address some of the concerns raised by the public tonight, it is only appropriate that they rol PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 7 1996 SPECIAL MEETING undertake those studies at such time as they have an actual project to proceed, none of the conditions proposed by the Planning office are objectionable to the applicant, at this point. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Blaich stated the allegations that were made by the representative of the property owner is new information for him and until, he gets a clear legal position he can not have a clear response to it, there were some strong statements and the applicant has stated they were not true, he personally will need more information with regard to the allegations. Hoefer said they would be happy to review the information, our position, at this point in time remains unchanged however, he feels that Savanah has the right to go forward with their application in the form that it is presently brought in, we've spent a lot of time meeting with the applicant as well as having public meetings were public input has been offered, it is our position at this time, with a zone change they could build the 17 units up on the Top of Mill. Michaelson responded he had the identical concern when they first started talking about 47, clearly they are not going to throw the Land Use Code out the window based on an agreement, at the first meeting the City Attorney, John Worcester stated the city has an obligation to make a good faith effort, in terms of the application before you it does not mean that we had to approve 47 units. Michaelson said he referenced several times that the geotechnical considerations are really going to drive the density on Top of Mill more than any prior agreement that was established between Savanah and the city, he said one thing they have always struggled with and this is purely an Aspen notion is "nobody does it like we do", generally when you try to find case law that establishes a relationship between a growth management allocation and zoning, you won't find it and that is why he relies on Worcester's interpretation that the application would be carried forward consistent with that agreement and if there were fatal flaws that pop up, such as the physical ability to hold those units then 47 is 47 and we will go from there. Sarpa asked if the clarification of these can be done tonight. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 7 1996 SPECIAL MEETING Blaich stated he would like to have clarification from the city legal counsel, he added that it is unfortunate that Mr. Edwards comes forward at such a late date as we have been going through this for such a long period of time, if these allegations have any merit at all he thinks they should have been brought forward much earlier. Hoefer stated they have been willing to sit down with any Attorney involved in this case, he is willing to sit down with Mr. Edwards but also thinks it is appropriate that Savanah have a representative at that meeting as well because it is important that we get all sides considered, concerning legal issues there will be at least three more steps before this project is approved, at this point Staff is neither advocating or not advocating the project however, at the conceptual level he is of the opinion that Savanah is well within their right to go forward with the conceptual application. Tygre said they have an impartial legal source in the form of our City Attorney and are bound ethically and legally to follow the advice of the City Attorney in these situations, if he says it is o.k. to proceed it does not necessarily mean he is either endorsing or not endorsing the application it just means the Commission can hear it and that is what we have been doing. Tygre stated the Commission is looking at the actual Land Use itself, the issue of whether or not we think rezoning is appropriate to accomplish a certain density is another philosophical discussion and she thinks different members of the Commission have different opinions on that. Mooney stated that he thinks Staff's recommendations for the conditions of approval are appropriate, they cover all of his concerns. Mooney asked if the colors in the photographs are representative of the colors of the roofs and buildings. Poss responded they are only to help pop out the buildings in the pictures, they have not chosen colors yet. ' Mooney said he is concerned that someone may want to paint their house yellow or pink because that is their taste, he asked how the homeowners associations would be created and the restrictions. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 7 1996 SPECIAL MEETING Vann said at the next level of review they will provide additional information with respect to architectural guidelines, how it will be maintained, how it will function and so forth, he stated it has always been the intent to establish guidelines which would limit and restrict major development on the property, one of the concerns is its impact on adjacent development then those guidelines need to incorporate things like building materials and colors. Mooney stated the Fifth Avenue homeowners have some valid points maybe the duplexes and road configurations need to be addressed. Mooney said any kind of debris or water flow that comes out of the alluvial fan will be maximized by the density of those big buildings, if there is a certain amount of water in this pot and you push something into it a certain amount will come out and it is only going to make it come out that much faster for him. Mooney stated it is always a challenge to him to amend the rules because of an applicant's needs, the community is constantly thinking we are living under a certain set of parameters then as time and circumstances change those parameters are code amended, resolutioned or there is someone telling us what we can and can not vote on. Sarpa asked how do they get to the agreement they so arduously negotiated and then the voters voted on, how do you perform a good faith effort to maintain that agreement. Mooney responded he did not know. Sarpa stated if they could have thought of a way to avoid the dilemma or having to address rezoning they would have done it, they feel extremenly strong about prior negotiations and what they went through to get this last piece. Sarpa said they do not think they are overstating what it was, they have listened to P&Z and the Attorney's as to this good faith effort but it is a two way street, they believe if there are other ways that document could be honored they are open to it. Vann stated the city ammended its code, without consideration of its agreement with Savanah in such a way it essentially precludes the development of Top of Mill, that was never the intent nor the spirit of the agreement that was reached between the parties, nor did it reflect the previous approval which the city already granted for the 33 units. Vann said they are asking as part of the rezoning application for the opportunity to give P&Z the history of what transpired, what 6 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - AUGUST 7 1996 SPECIAL MEETING changes were made to the code and why at this point in time there needs to be certain amendments to it to accomplish that agreement. Mooney said they have to understand the umbrella document for him is the AACP, he does not know that any of this fits the character of what he sees as complimenting the lifestyle that exists in those neighborhoods. Buettow stated beyond the legal and geotechnical questions which still concern him, he asked if the building and parking lot that impacts the Fifth Avenue has been reconfigured. Vann responded they have agreed to ' look at it and review any alternatives for addressing both the parking and lighting problem as well as the height problem, at the moment they would like to go forward to Council to see if they have a project before they spend the money and the time it takes to revise that, he suggested it be a condition of approval that they have to address. Sarpa stated they are worried about drainage because they do not want to go through all of this trouble and wind up with mud in their basements or even the threat because there is not a person in his right mind that will buy their lots that are sitting in the middle of a potential mudslide, for their own interests as well as those of the community they will study this thing to death, they are talking about spending millions of dollars of improvements on that area. Sarpa said they believe with all the engineers, work, drains, gutters and retaining wall or whatever winds up there will be a better situation, it will not be worse. Sarpa noted at the very least their application has spurred the city to start doing something with the $250,000. Hunt said he conceptually finds this a much more sensitive use and conceptually a much better plan for this property than what he has seen previously, he supports this going through conceptual the way it is at the moment realizing some things could change, particularly with relation to the geotechnical aspects of the property. Hunt stated that he prefers less density but is of the opinion that the city has some obligations here. Tygre stated she has a lot of the concerns that Mooney has and having been on the Commission for many years the project has changed, when they started looking at the original Ritz application they were looking at a primarily hotel type project on 10 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 7 1996 SPECIAL MEETING the lots closer to Durant Street, it was considered a short term accomodation area which she felt was appropriate given the location to the ski lifts, Durant Street, ect... Tygre said the project has changed, she was disappointed that the Dean Street building is going to be condominiumized, when changing the uses to residential she does not think the impacts are necessarily less she was very much in favor of putting as much density as possible on the lower portions of the site in hopes they would have something closer to the "one house" at the Top of Mill, the Mill Street site concerns her for a number of reasons, she thinks they can handle the visibility issues from various viewplanes in town, the size of some of the structures proposed at the Top of Mill alarm her and just because you can, technically build something at a certain elevation does not necessarily mean it is desirable for the community or for the neighbors, she will be looking at the 8040 carefully, she thinks size will be crucial. Tygre stated big walls, big buildings you really can not shrink them down too much, the bowl in the terrain gives some advantage for remedial vegetation to cover up what they consider exessive size, she thinks the traffic will be a problem on Mill street, it is very steep and she has seen cars going sideways she does not think they can under estimate getting up and down that hill. Tygre also said these are not necessarily things that can not be worked out. Mooney stated that he feels the ASC should be present at some of the discussions of what the debris flow responsibilities are, they have done a considerable amount of work up there and he thinks they have a considerable amount of responsibility for what has happened to create the discomfort of homeowners in that area, the homeowners are at the bottom of this funnel and the ASC controls the head of the funnel. Mooney said he does not want to bring them in on this but thinks we have to, they will have a whole different point of view and will manage their assets in a direction that is not going in either one of our directions. Vann stated they have a responsibility to make sure the water goes around them and that their project does not obstruct it, they believe they can accomodate this site plan and the drainage that has to be transported around this site. Vann said they are more than happy to have the ASC come in here but they are not going to hash this out at the P&Z level, they will have to have a condition from Council that says their plan will have to respond to and address this issue. 11 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 7, 1996 SPECIAL MEETING Hunt said if the involvement of the ASC gets into this process the city will be going through to study this drainage plan, the purpose of the city doing this is to get all the parties together to find out the problem and fix it. Michaelson responded a lot of information, in some peoples minds is proprietary in nature, he disagrees with that, the ASC has done a lot of research in terms of strawpile and some of the slope movement and we have never seen that data, he thinks it is appropriate that city staff approach them from a cooperative standpoint, his level of discomfort is at least as high as P&Z's. Mooney stated it has always taken the ASC a long time to get up to speed and they should have someone here to see what we are trying to accomplish here. Sarpa said they did see the Lot 3 plans and did sign off on the change of easements, they are up to speed on the general concept. MOTION: Hunt moved to continue the public hearing and table action on the Top of Mill Street to August 20, 1996. Seconded by Mooney. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:3 0 p.m. Amy G. Sconid, Deputy City Clerk 12