Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19960807TO: FROM: RE. DATE: MEMORANDUM Planning and Zoning Commission Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 3 ("Top of Mill") Planned Unit Development (PUD) Conceptual Review - Continued Public Hearing August 7,1996 SUMMARY: The Planning Commission has held three hearings for Conceptual Review of Lot 3 of the Aspen Mountain PUD. At this time, staff has compiled comments and concerns from these three meeting into one staff memorandum. In addition, staff has provided the Commission with the Geotech Report for Lot 3, a response from the State Geologist and conceptual conditions of approval to be forwarded to Council. Staff intends on providing similar conditions of approval on August 20, 1996 for Lot 5 (Dean Street, and to finalize a "unified" resolution for Lots 3 and 5 to be presented to Council in early September. The conditions proposed are considered preliminary and should be the focus of discussion. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW: The project is being processed as a four -step application, with .reviews occurring at different steps. Staff has summarized the timing of specific requests below. Step 1 - P & Z Step 2 - Council Step 3 - P & Z Step 4 - Council Conceptual PUD Conceptual PUD Final PUD Final PUD Subdivision Subdivision Text Amendment Text Amendment Rezoning Rezoning July 2, 1996 September 1996 Conditional Use August 7, 1996 8040 Greenline Not Scheduled Notes: Italics represent public hearings Viewplane Not Scheduled APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership, represented by Sunny Vann and John Sarpa LOCATION: Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD. Lot 3 is located at the southern end of Mill Street, adjacent to the base of Aspen Mountain. The parcel lies between two fingers of ski terrain which extend to Lift I to the west and the Little Nell gondola to the east. The parcel is bounded on the north by Fifth Avenue and 700 South Monarch condos and Lot 2 of the Aspen Mountain PUD, which contains the Summit Place residential project. The .Mountain Queen condominiums are located immediately west of Lot 3. The Aspen Mountain Ski Area borders the parcel on the south, and an unnamed ski run traverses the southwest corner of the parcel. 1 ZONING: Lot 3 is zoned L/TR PUD, Lodge/Tourist Residential; R-15 (PUD) (L), Moderate Density Residential; and C (PUD), Conservation. The entire parcel is designated PUD, Mandatory Planned Unit Development. The R-15 portion is also designated L, Lodge Overlay, which permits lodges as a condition use subject to compliance with the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. An existing conditions map depicting the current zoning is shown on page 20 of the application. Existing zoning regulations would allow one single-family home on the site. LOT AREA: 242,813 gross square feet, or approximately 5.5 acres. When the vacated portion of Mill Street and the Summit Street Easement is subtracted, the remainder for purposes of calculating FAR is reduced to 236,320 square feet. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: Savanah proposes to subdivide Lot 3 into eight development parcels and two open space parcels. Six townhouse units are proposed for Parcel 1 adjacent to Mill Street on the northernmost portion of the site. Each of the three story units will contain four bedrooms and approximately 4,500 square feet of floor area. Two duplexes are -proposed for Parcel 2, in the vicinity of the existing Black duplex. These four units will also contain four bedrooms and approximately 4,500 square feet of floor area. Parcel 3, located immediately south of Parcel 2, will contain a single duplex in similar configuration as the two lower duplexes. Parcels 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, located at the southernmost portion of Lot 3, will contain a detached single-family dwelling unit. The units will contain five bedrooms and will range in size from approximately 5,200 square feet to 6,500 square feet of floor area. Open Space Parcel A is located at the terminus of Mill Street between Parcel 1 and the development parcels. Open Space Parcel B is located at the southwest corner of Lot 3. The applicant is requesting that the open space easement be modified from the precise configuration approved with the original PUD. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Planning Office received referral comments from the following departments. Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit "A" with summaries as follows: Environmental Health: Environmental Health has reviewed the project, and does not anticipate impacts to downstream water quality, air quality, noise or water/sewer services. In addition, Tom Dunlop has reviewed the Phase Two Environmental Audit, and approved of all proposed mitigation. Engineering Department: The Engineering Department is now responsible for compiling comments from Parks, Water, Electric and Streets as well as comments from Engineering staff. The memo from Engineering is lengthy, and reflects the need for further discussion regarding utility needs and drainage issues. The actual meaning of the $250,000 contribution for a drainage study cited in Engineering's memo has not been resolved. Housing: The Housing Office has reviewed the project, and Dave Tolen has jndicated that no additional housing will be required for the residential portion of the project. The applicant has provided 198.5 units, while current employment is 185. The mitigation requirements assockded with prior PUD approvals and amendments assumed the development of the 47 units proposed for Lots 3 and 5. 2 Parks Department: Parks requested that all previously granted easements should remain in place, which is not consistent with the intent of the applicant. A meeting was held on June 28, 1996 to refine potential options regarding the relocation of the proposed trail easement shown on the plat. One option favored. by Parks would re-route the trail over the top of the site, and descend in the vicinity of the water tank. The proposed alignment would require easements from the Aspen Skiing Company. Staff would suggest that. final resolution should occur prior to submittal of a Final PUD plan. State Geologist: Jeffrey Hynes, Senior State Geologist, has reviewed the current application, and his July 18, 1996 letter is attached. The recommendations contained in the Geotech Report are the same as those presented in prior reviews, which recommended additional analyses prior to final approval. Staff has attached Mr. Hynes' March 8, 1985 letter which specifically addressed additional analysis required for the Top of Mill Site. Additional Comments: Due to the historical complexity of the project, the City contracted with Alan Richman to review the application from the perspective the past agreements and amendments to the PUD. Mr. Richman's comments germane to Lot 3 are summarized below, and attached as Exhibit B: 1. On page 2 of Mr. Richman's memo is a summary of the previous approval process that was conducted for Lot 3 in 1984. The previous proposal for 33 units was granted conceptual approval, but was tabled due to issues arising from a review by the State Geologist that recommended further analysis for landslide, debris movement and mudflow potential on the site.' 2. The description of the Ski Club condition on page 22 of the application is accurate. The applicant has indicated that discussions are on -going in regards to relocation, although a definitive site has not been finalized; 3 . On page 25 of the application reference is made regarding the payment of $250,000 to the City for the preparation and implementation of an Aspen Mountain Drainage Plan. This payment relieved the applicant of a prior commitment to provide on -site detention facilities within the open space easement at the top of the property. The study has not been conducted, and the money is currently held in escrow by the City. Mr. Richman points out that the representation regarding the statement that "stormwater generated as a result of the development of Lot 3 is to mitigated by the City" may not be' accurate; 4. The proposal to rezone the portion of the property currently zoned R-15 to L/TR was also considered in 1984, and was rejected by the Planning and Zoning Commission due to inconsistencies with the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan and FAR issues.2 5. Park dedication fees are still applicable to the proposed residential units on Lot 3. 1 Staff has included the July 18, 1996 response from the State Geologist, who recommended similar additional studies, but also indicated that the "resolution of the problems are much easier than before. " This is primarily due to the reduction in density from 30 units to 17. t Staff notes that the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan was a traditional land use plan including use designations and proposed densities. The AACP, which superseded the 1!'73 Plan, is a character -based document which makes compliance analysis difficult. STAFF COMMENTS PUD CONCEPTUAL REVIEW: Pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, a development application for PUD review shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Staff has framed the responses in the context of conceptual issues, consistent with this stage of the review. General Requirements A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: The 1993 AACP did not make any specific recommendations regarding Lots 3 of the Aspen Mountain PUD, which is primarily due to the "character -based" nature of the AACP. In addition, the abandonment of prior lodge allocations are not specifically addressed. The "Proposed Pedestrian System" map does identify the "Top of Mill Trail", which crosses Lot 3, as a recreational trail component. The applicant proposes to vacate the easement due to topographic constraints, as well as proposed building envelopes that overlay the current alignment (see page 45 of application). Staff notes that the Parks Department and the applicant have identified a conceptual solution to re-route the trail onto land owned by the Aspen Skiing Company, but formal agreements and precise alignment have not been finalized. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Response: The area in the vicinity of Lot 3 is a diverse mix of multi -family condominium structures, duplexes and scattered single family homes. Based on existing development in the area, the project does not represent a design, or use incompatible with existing land uses. Height: The allowable height in the L/TR and C zone district is 28', consistent with the proposed structures. One issue identified during fieldwork was the viewplane impact of the duplex on Parcel 2 on the Fifth Avenue Condos.. Staff would suggest that the applicant consider stepping down the duplex, reducing the overall density or modifying the building envelope to reduce this impact. Bulk: The architectural design of the proposed units is transitional in nature, and does not have the urban character of the Dean Street Building. The design also provides a transition from the existing high density multi -family structures to the north and west and the low density single-family and duplex units which are proposed on the upper portion of Lot 3. The design proposes articulated roofs and facades which "step up" the slope. A critical issue from Staff's perspective is that the visual impacts of the project are not isolated to adjacent structures, but should also consider the viewpianes from Aspen Mountain and Lift IA. Staff has suggested that the applicant provide either computer -generated images (similar to the Dean Street photographs) or other depiction methods to assist staff and the Commission in evaluating the impacts of the project. The applicant intends on presenting depictions on the August 7, 1996 hearing. Compliance with Ordinance 30: All residential projects within the City of Aspen are required to comply with the design criteria outlined in Ordinance 30, series of 1995. A final review occurs at the time of building permit submittal, howel"er there some issues that the applicant should address prior to conceptual review by Council. For example, Ordinance 30 requires that all portions of a garage, carport or storage 4 area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of 10 feet. It appears that the relationship between the street and the garage entrances for the duplex on Lot 3. is not consistent with this requirement. In addition, it also appears that several proposed units may have to be modified in regards to window' placement. Finally, Ordinance 30 requires that "all residential buildings must have a one -street facing element the width of which comprises at least 20 percent of the buildings overall width." Structures. on Parcels 2 and 3 do not appear the meet this requirement. No architectural renderings have been provide for Parcels 5 or 6. Staff would suggest that the applicant address these issues at the time Council reviews the Conceptual submission. Consistency with the Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines: The applicable section of the Goals for the Aspen Mountain Neighborhood are attached as Exhibit C. Specific components applicable to Lot 3 include the need to enhance the pedestrian experience at the street level, protect views of Aspen Mountain, and promote a sense of visual integration in the neighborhood while also encouraging a diversity of building types. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: The project does not appear to adversely impact the development of the surrounding area. The project is consistent with adjacent height, setback, and FAR restrictions. D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Response: As discussed at length at the work session and described in the application, no GMQS allocations are required for the development. Thirty-nine of the forty—seven residential units proposed for Lots 3 and 5 are to be developed utilizing reconstruction credits which were previously approved by the City and confirmed in the Amended PUD Agreement. The remaining eight residential credits were obtained via the GMQS process. Final approval can be granted to the project following the completion of the PUD review process, without further GMQS approvals or allocations. Staff notes that the GMQS allocations are maximum ceilings for development of Lot 3 and 5, and in no way should be considered approved densities on either parcel. The applicant has viewed this issue from the perspective that these allocations represented a binding "good faith" agreement between the City and the applicant, and ratified by a vote of Aspen residents. During discussions regarding Lot 5, the Commission agreed with the applicant, with an exception that if geologic or physical constraints reduced -the buildability of either parcel, the Commission could approve densities less than those contained in the PUD agreement. Staff notes that the City failed to rezone Lot 3 to accommodate the requested densities contemplated in the application. The applicant is requesting both a text amendment and map amendment in order to develop the proposed project.. Both of these issues are reviewed at Final PUD review. Additional PUD Standards Density: The L/TR zone district requires 1,000 square feet of lot area per bedroom. The applicant is proposing 83,600 square feet of floor area, which represents an FAR of .88:1. The L/TR zone district, assuming rezoning approval, would allow an FAR of 1:1. 5 Land Uses: Multi -family dwellings are a permitted use in the L/TR zone district. Dimensional Requirements: The dimensional requirements of the project are consistent with the L/TR zone district in terms of height, FAR, lot size, minimum required lot area and setbacks. Off-street Parking: 46 off-street spaces are provided, which exceeds the requirement of 34 spaces per Ordinance 30, Series of 1995. Additional parking is available on the garage aprons. Open Space: The L/TR zone district has a minimum open space requirement of 25%,- and the conservation zone has no open space requirement. The current R-15 zoning requires no open space. Assuming rezoning approval to L/TR, the applicant would be required to provide 34,170 sq. ft. of open space, and is proposing 60,260 sq. ft. Landscape Plan: A detailed landscape plan will be provided and reviewed with the final PUD Plan application. Staff notes the applicant has represented that landscaping will be used to buffer the project from adjacent properties, and this should be reviewed carefully at final PUD submittal. Architectural Site Plan: An architectural site plan will be provided with the Final PUD application. Lighting.- All lighting will'be designed to minimize impacts on neighboring development and streets. A detailed lighting plan will be provided with the Final PUD application, and the applicant should be careful to ensure that all lighting is compatible with existing fixtures. Clustering: Due to the unique topographical conditions on the site, it appears that the building envelopes have been proposed in a configuration with limited visual impact to adjacent properties. Staff notes that existing grade is approximately 12 feet higher than the proposed finished grade at the upper end of the site. This effectively "tucks" the units into the existing bowl following removal of the existing fill and waste. Public Facilities: Existing facilities are adequate to service the project, and all costs associated with the provision of facilities will be born by the applicant. Staff notes that the applicant has had on -going conversations with Engineering, and staff would suggest that the majority of infrastructure issues should be discussed at final PUD submittal. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation: All units will have access to a public street. The duplexes on the lower portion of Mill Street are accessed from a single cut off of Summit Street. The units on the upper portion of the site are accessed from private driveways off of the cul-de-sac. SUBDIVISION REVIEW: The specific review criteria for subdivision, as required by Section 26.88, are summarized below. A. Laird Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding , drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topogrq by or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harpp ful to the health, safety, or iw1j"are of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Response: The Geotech Report is attached as Exhibit D. The ability to address previously identified geologic constraints is a threshold issue for the development of Lot 3. The Geotech Report reached the following conclusions regarding the Top of Mill site: 1. Soil and Foundation Conditions: Based on information presented in previous studies, no unusual soil or foundation conditions are present. However, it was recommended that additional soil and foundation studies be conducted to evaluate site -specific subsurface and foundation conditions at each building site; 2. Underground Mine Workings: A possible tunnel may be located near the eastern side of the proposed building site on Lot 3. This should be evaluated further, and may require unspecified mitigation; 3. Storm Water Management: The report suggested that debris flow mitigation and storm water management should be evaluated together, due to the interrelationship between these types of constraints; 4. Debris Flows: The Top of Mill site is located in an area of potential flash flood and debris flow hazard areas. The recurrence frequency was placed in the range of 25 to greater than 100 years, and that large debris flows set off by intense precipitation or rapid snow melt are more likely than small debris flows. Probable mitigation would include flood proofing and direct structural reinforcement of the buildings, which could constrain the architectural design and site grading; 5. Landslides: The June 1984 slope movements triggered a monitoring effort funded by the Aspen Skiing Company, which concluded that slope movements were approximately one foot, and occurred at depths between 28 and 62 feet below the slope surface. The outcome included the identification of a series of mitigation measures that have not been implemented. 6. Rockfall: No slope instability problems are anticipated at the Top of Mill Site. Conclusion: The Geotech Report concludes that the analysis was based on a review of previous studies which are nearly 10 years old, addressed a different design concept, and did not cover parts of the currently proposed project. The report recommends site specific studies to address the Geotechnical and geologic aspects of the site based on the current development proposal. Staff does have concerns regarding several building envelopes and the existing topography on the site. By overlaying the proposed envelopes onto the slope analysis on the existing conditions map, the structures on Parcels 4,5 and 7 appear to be located in areas of significant slopes, and will require significant excavation to place the structures into the hillside. Staff would suggest that the applicant consider shifting these envelopes to minimize grading and drainage impacts on these parcels. B. Spatial Pattern. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication orpremature extension ofpublic facilities and unnecessary public costs. Response: The project will not cause inefficiencies, and the majority of utilities were upgraded in connection with the development of the Ritz-Calrton Hotel. C. Improvements. The Code lists 16 required improvements for subdivision including items such as szn'Vey monuments, paved streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, fire hydrants, street signs, etc. Response: Water service to Parcel 1 will be provided via the existing twelve inch main in Mill Street. Parcels 2 through 8 will be served by a new eight inch waterline which will connect the existing twelve inch main from the City's Aspen Mountain water tank to the existing main in Summit Street. Sewer service to Parcel 1 will be provided via the existing eight inch sewer in Mill Street. This sewer will be extended from Mill Street into Lot 3 to serve Parcels 2 through 8. Electric, telephone, natural gas and cable TV are all within the immediate vicinity of Lot 3. Savanah will install curb and gutter on both side of Mill Street adjacent to Parcel 1 on Lot 3 and along the sides of the proposed access road serving Parcels 2 through 8. A sidewalk will also be installed along the west side of Mill Street between Summit Street and the entrance to the access road. A fire hydrant will be installed in the proposed cul-de-sac, and all units will be equipped with automatic sprinkler systems. Rezoning Request: The applicant's request includes a proposal to rezone a portion of the property currently zoned R-15, as well as an associated text amendment. Although the rezoning and text amendment will be formally reviewed at the time of Final PUD submission, the development of Lot 3 at the proposed densities hinges on approval of the proposed text and map amendment. Lot 3 is zoned L/TR (PUD), Lodge Tourist Residential; R-15 (PUD) (L), Moderate Density Residential; and C, Conservation. As a result of multiple zone districts, the project is subject to the requirements of Section 26.40.070 which addresses parcels with more than one underlying zone district. This section of the code reads as follows: B. Proposed use allowed in all zone districts. When a parcel of land contains more than one underlying zone district and the proposed use is allowed in all of the respective zone districts, then; 1. The use shall be developed by comparing each dimensional and parking requirement of the respective zone district and applying the more restrictive of each requirements. These requirements shall, however, be calculated based on the land area and development of the entire parcel. 2. The only exception shall be when the area of the parcel which is designated with the zone district which permits the higher density constitutes more than 75 percent of the entire land area of the parcel. In this case, the use shall be developed using the dimensional requirements of the zone districtpermitting the higher density, which shall be calculated on the basis of the land area and development of the entire parcel. Since the area of the parcel zoned L/TR represents less than 75 percent of Lot 3, the ten acre requirement in the Conservation zone district would govern the development of single family homes on Lot 3. The effect of this requirement would limit the number of dwelling units on Lot 3 to. one unit because Lot 3 contains less than ten acres of land area. The applicant has argued that this would prevent Savanah from achieving the number of units previously agreed to in the Amended PUD Agreement and ratified by a public vote. To address this issue, the applicant is proposing to add a third criteria to the above language which would read as follows: 3. The above requirements notwithstanding, the City Council may determine which zone district dimensional requirements shall apply when the strict application of the provisions of Section 26.40.070 (B) (1) would result in a less desirable development. This determination may on be made for projects which area processes pursuant to the City's PUD regulations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on prior hearings before the Commission, staff has prepared conceptual conditions of approval to be forwarded to Council. These conditions are considered preliminary and up for discussion based on staff s intent to develop similar conditions for Lot 5 (The Dean Street Building) on August 20, 1996. At that time, a "unified" resolution can be developed for Council regarding both lots. ( Proposed Conditions of Approval: l . All representations of the applicant, either contained within the application or stated before the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council are considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions of approval. 2. The applicant shall submit a detailed proposal, acceptable to the Aspen Ski Club, for the relocation of the Ski Club's facilities. 3. The applicant shall submit a detailed storm water drainage plan for the site at the time of Final PUD submission. 4. The height of the Top of Mill units shall not exceed 28 feet as measured from the lowest floor elevation to the top of a flat or mansard roof, or to a point one-third of the distance up from the eaves to the ridge for roofs with a slope of 8:12 or greater. 5. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan at the time of final PUD submission which ensures, to the maximum extent possible, the retention of existing mature vegetation and the installation of adequate landscaping so as to minimize the visual impact of the project, particularly as viewed from Mill Street, Lift 1-A, adjacent ski terrain, and adjacent residences. 6. The applicant shall submit a plan for the relocation of the existing trail to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Parks and Community Development Department. If necessary, a written agreement from the Aspen Ski Company shall be submitted at the time of final PUD submittal. In addition, the applicant shall submit a site plan with 5 foot contours of the proposed alignment for review by staff. 7. The applicant shall re -study the proposed 4 duplex units on Lot 2 to address visual impacts on the Fifth Avenue Condos. Potential solutions to be assessed shall include the re -orientation of the "hammerhead" parking, the shifting of building envelopes to protect existing viewsheds of Aspen Mountain, or the reduction of square footage or units to lessen the impacts to adjacent properties. 8. At the time of final PUD submittal, the applicant shall submit a proposed construction phasing schedule for all improvements in the public right-of-way. Particular attention shall be paid to ensuring existing businesses and residences retain vehicular and pedestrian access to their units to the extent practical. Adjacent owners and residents shall be given an opportunity to review and comment on the phasing schedule prior to submission of the plan to the City. 9. The Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes that significant Geotechnical issues remain unresolved at this time, and in fact may change the site plan, density or unit sizes following adequate analysis and mitigation. Prior to the submission of a final PUD plan, the applicant shall perform specific additional studies cited in the Geotech Report dated January 12, 1996 by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., and the recommendations of Jeffrey Hynes, Senior Engineering Geologist for the Colorado State Geological Survey, summarized in his review letters dated March 8, 1985 and July 18, 1996. These studies shall be reviewed by the Colorado Geological Survey prior to a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission for the Final PUD plan and other associated approvals. Specific areas of analysis still required include the following: a. Additional soil and foundation studies shall be completed to evaluate the site specific subsurface and foundation conditions for each building site; b. Additional studies to determine the impacts and required mitigation for a mining tunnel bearing of about S22°'E, near the eastern side of the proposed building site on Parcel #3. C. A debris flow mitigation plan shall be coordinated with the development of a storm water management plan. This,shall be coordinate between the Geotech engineer, site planner, architect, design engineer and the surface water hydrologist, and the City engineering department. d. The applicant shall work with the Aspen Skiing Company to develop a method for implementing the remedial actions recommended in 1985 for the slope movement for the strawpile site. 10. All building envelopes will require 8040 greenline review. It is acknowledged by the applicant that both specific envelopes and overall density may be altered by either Geotechnical considerations or during review of the conceptual PUD by Council. Therefore, The 8040 Greenline Review will occur for each separate structure during Step 3 of the PUD process. Flee-��r --emm-endatres-regard-i -the-Geoteeh-Report-shall--be submitted--by-the-applicant aLtheA-4n-e-of-f nn4-PLD-and- other subsequent approvals: 12. The applicant shall re -study and address compliance with Ordinance 30, Series of 1995 at the time of Conceptual Review by Council. "A" - Referral Memos "B" - Alan Richman Memo "C" - Neighborhood Character Design Guidelines "D" - Geotech Report 10 Ziska Childs 12 970-925-3686 8/7196 D 1 3:41 _ i n S/7/96 Aspen City Council, County Commissioners, P&Z c / o Aspen Snowmass Lodging Company 747 Galena Aspen, CO 81611 To Those Concerned, I apologize for not being able to attend this meeting in person and thank you for allowing my opinions to be read into the record in my absence. I have written previously about my fears concerning the dangers to wildlife paths and water drainage which this project will inflict on the area above the Fifth Ave. I can only emphatically reiterate those concerns. I would like to add a few other personal observations. I frequently see BFI trucks sliding sideways down Mill street in the winter when a driver is foolish enough to attempt to go above the intersection on Galena and Mill. The grade gets steeper at this point -much steeper. More often than not I have to shovel through snow mounds over my height (5-3") when the plow has shoveled everything behind my truck on the Mill Street Fifth Ave Parking lot (I am normally adding adjetives to Fred Smiths' name at that point). Clearly there are not snow removal plans for this small stretch of upper Mill, what happens when you add 42 more units and a lot of parking and driveway? In addition I have read documentation that the 42 units which the Ritz wishes to put on this land were allocated to the hotel not to the vacant land at the top of Mill Street; that the land at the top of Mill was to remain R-15 zoning, 70�o open space, and that the trails for both two and four footed animals were to remain easily accessible. I see dozens of people walking their dogs there every morning, this doesn't even begin to take the hikers, joggers, motocross, dirt bike, and shiers into account. Clearly none of these considerations are in the current plans. Finally I cai:ulot emphasize the issue of water and drainage sufficiently. Cover over the land around Black's house with asphalt and it will be a miracle if Fifth Ave. Building D is not flooded every Spring Thaw. That's my building. I am very concerned. Yours Truly, - Ziska Clulds