Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19960521PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. with members Timothy Mooney, Robert Blaich, Marta Chaikovska, Steve Buettow and Dave Johnston present. Excused were Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mooney asked what is happening with the "tree" issue. Dave Michaelson, Staff responded that there appeared to be a discrepancy between the existing tree locations that were shown when it went through ordinance 35, the latest proposal is to trench around the tree to get a root ball to crane, the "tree expert" is unavailable and we are looking for a new expert to tell us if that is possible. Michaelson said that the reason this all came about is that they wanted the applicant to take access off the alley and not off the street, the applicants have agreed to relocate the tree if at all possible. Blaich asked Jake Vickery how high the tree he moved was. Vickery responded that it was a 40' high Spruce tree. This tree is about 50' - 60'. Vickery said he had a 12 ton root ball and it appears to be doing really well. Garton asked about the assessment of SCI down by the Trueman property and across the way, she said things are creeping in that are really retail, office and retail. Garton stated that we should look hard at the uses of those spaces because that zone, in actuality is disappearing. Michaelson responded that Staff is not working on it now, but they can. Buettow said he has noticed outside, sidewalk seating next to the deli, along the walkway under the awning. Blaich asked in regard to the May 7th meeting with regard to ADU' s, to quote Chaikovska "preclude interior entrance", "the rules are not fair and to be fair to the public those sections should be clarified", if any action had been taken. Michaelson responded that he built that into the ADU revisions that we are working on. Michaelson said that he agreed with Chaikovska that his interpretation of a separate entrance was much broader than the common use of that term, in other words, you need a separate door to get into the ADU and does not really address whether another link can be made between the primary structure and the ADU. Blaich responded that it is hard for P&Z when we challenge this and Staff is letting it go by and we need a clarification very quick on that. Michaelson said that the Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer gave his interpretation that there was loose language and he agrees with Chaikovska in that PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1996 Staff has been making requirements that are not explicit in the code. Hoefer stated at this point it would be discretionary with the Board. Blaich said that he challenges the intent of the ADU. Garton stated that until it is clarified in the code, she agrees with the Staff and Attorney that it is a conditional use and we put conditions on it. There were no public comments' on items not on the agenda. MINUTES Garton made two corrections in the minutes of May 7, 1996. Changed mixed to "nixed" and bowhouse to "Bauhaus". MOTION: Blaich moved to approve the amended minutes of May 7, 1996. Seconded by Chaikovska. All in favor, motion carries. 123 West Francis, Conditional Use Hoefer stated that the board has jurisdiction to proceed. Garton opened the public hearing. Amy Amidon, Staff said that P&Z already reviewed and approved two accessory dwelling units, the applicant and property owner, Jake Vickery has brought back an amended ADU proposal. Amidon stated on one part of the property, with the historical structure there will be a voluntary ADU studio, approximately 500 sq.ft. that will be above grade, on the other half there will be a new house with a required ADU, below grade studio, 500 sq.ft. Amidon said it is consistent with the AACP, the intent of the zone district, the application fulfills a fundamental goal of the AACP to create housing opportunities for the work force up-valley, both units are attached to main living units, ADU "A" is above grade and has private entry off the alley with southern exposure and a 250 sq.ft. FAR bonus will be requested, ADU "B" is below grade and also has private entrance from the alley, that unit has two lightwells and a stairwell for access to light and air. Amidon said the stairways to the units are protected by overhanging roof elements and parking for each unit, in the plans previously approved for these two units, ADU "A" had a direct connecting unit between the house and unit, that condition is proposed to stay, ADU "B" does not have an internal connection but does share a basement level courtyard with the house. Staff recommends approval as shown with PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 conditions, finding that the units do comply with the AACP and all other applicable conditional use standards. Vickery addressed the prior approval in Mary Lackner's (Staff) memo, dated June 20, 1995, G'there is also an interior stairway to access this unit" and GGStaffbelieves the basement location of this unit is marginal and would prefer to see the unit relocated above grade", he also noted that the prior memo from Cindy Christensen (Housing), dated June 13, 1995, did not restrict the internal connection. Vickery said there are two ordinances that created ADU's, the first is ordinance 1/1990, a replacement housing ordinance and the second is ordinance 60/1990, a proactive ordinance intending to create incentives to encourage property owners to provide additional housing opportunities for employees, GGwhereas the City Council of Aspen wishes to encourage and provide for incentives for the development of affordable housing for residents of the city and as previously adopted legislation that promotes the development of ADU's within single family homes and whereas ADU's provide a mechanism to revitalize neighborhoods that have become idle due to the predominance of vacation and/or second homes", ADU GGA" is under consideration of ordinance 60, we have no obligation to provide an ADU, no requirement for housing mitigation fees or housing of any kind, and he hopes the Commission will consider ADU GGA", in that light. Vickery stated that ADU GGA" is organized to provide an interior access so a caretaker can take care of the house during the winter, 7-8 months a year, we believe it is an improvement over the previously approved ADU, has views of Aspen Mountain, south facing windows, its own heat source. Garton said that because the applicant is asking for an FAR bonus, it is very difficult for the Commission not to place conditions on ADU GGA", if the Commission could be guaranteed that the unit would always be occupied that would be terrific, the conditions privatize the unit so that it is more likely to be occupied and not become an additional room to the house. Vickery responded that he understands but feels that because these changes affect peoples property rights that the Commission should not add conditions until this goes through proper public process. Vickery also said that he did not know why P&Z would be looking at the internal organization of someone' s house, except that this has somehow evolved and P&Z ended up policing this and he believes this should come from the Housing Authority. Garton stated that the reason P&Z has been involved with ADU's is because of the FAR bonus issue. Vickery said that the bonus is only half a bonus, if for example PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 if the ADU is 500 sq.ft, we contribute 250 sq.ft, of valuable FAR to match 250 sq.ft, from the city to create a housing opportunity for a local employee. Buettow asked if the previous approval involved the 250 sq.ft. FAR bonus. Vickery responded that it did not because the ADU was below grade. Vickery pointed out that in the current memo from Cindy Christensen, Housing it does not say to replace the door in ADU "A" with a wall, it only references ADU "B". Vickery said that he checked with Housing as to why they only referenced ADU "B", Christensen said she was comfortable with ADU "A" because it is on its own level, he said they would like their existing approvals to stand and they are vested until December 2, 1996, what we are proposing are alternative configurations that we think are better than the ones approved. Chaikovska said that looking at the criteria they have to meet, regardless of what we will do in the future, she can not find that the applicant has not met them. Chaikovska stated that she has never had a problem with the separate door, she knows that this is something we may be putting into the new requirements, but given that it is a voluntary unit, it is on its own level, she does not see anything in the requirement that would allow us to say "take the door out". Blaich asked if the attic storage would be for the ADU or the owner. Vickery responded that he assumes the space is for the owner. Garton said that the applicant has come in with a reconfiguration, because he is meeting with us again, why does P&Z have to stand with the old approvals, there are new things to be considered. Hoefer responded that we have to follow the criteria that are in existence, we can only consider whatever is currently in effect. Garton said then this would not be considered a new proposal. Hoefer said that is something the Commission has to decide, if it is substantial or insubstantial, clearly this project has been approved and all they are doing is reconfiguring it. There were no public comments'. Chaikovska asked if the applicant had comments about the other criteria to be met. Vickery stated that he did not, they are the same as the original approval. MOTION: Chaikovska moved to approve the conditional use for two ADU's at 123 West Francis Street with the following conditions: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following; A) The owner has submitted and recorded the appropriate deed restrictions to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory units meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer. B) Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with the specifications for kitchens in ADU's. C) The applicant must verify that the unit is no more than 700 sq.ft, of net livable space. "ADU B" may be increased in size up to 700 sq.ft, if approved by the Housing Department. D) A copy of the recorded deed restriction for the accessory dwelling units must be forwarded to the Planning Office. 2) The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling Unit on building permit plans and shall comply with the U.B.C. 35 sound attenuation requirements. 3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Department shall inspect the unit to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 4) The applicant shall meet the following requirements of the City Engineer; A) The new development plan shall provide for no more than historic drainage flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off shall be maintained on site. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 B) The final development plan shall include a five foot wide pedestrian usable space in the public right-of- way. The applicant shall also prune the low tree limbs to a height of seven feet to allow for pedestrian use in the public right-of-way. C) The improvement survey indicates fences being located within both the Francis Street and alley rights-of-way. The fences must either be relocated to private property, or an encroachment license must be applied for prior to the issuance of any building permits. D) Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. E) The final development plans must indicate the trash storage area which cannot be located in the public right-of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as trash and recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers. F) The applicant shall consult City Engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of development in the public rights-of-way, Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from City Streets Department (920-5130). 7) The applicant shall meet with the Parks Department to review the proposed vegetation alterations on site. This meeting shall take place prior to the issuance of any permits for the property. The applicant shall comply with the tree replacement requirements of the Parks Department. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 8) A designated parking space for each ADU must be provided on site in addition to the two spaces provided for each free market unit. 9) All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Seconded by Buettow. All in favor, motion carries. Blaich added that although he voted for it, he felt uncomfortable, we have asked for a number of things, they have done and improved the ADU program, then the Housing Office says, "yes, but", just recently we have asked several applicants to replace the door with the wall and we are being inconsistent, they have the right to come back to us now, all they have to do is see the minutes of this meeting. Mooney said that the intent of the owners is very important and should be stated on the record and in the minutes, the fact that it is a voluntary unit was different and allowed him to vote yes for this and he does not think that if P&Z is revisited by other ADU' s, that we have requested walls that we are inconsistent, there where special conditions here. Blaich said we should better be prepared for a challenge if they do come back. Hoefer stated that he feels that the positions we took on other applicants are legally justifiable, so he is not uncomfortable with them, he understands what is being said and it's important to all of us to get it in uniform. Mooney said he expects that Staff is putting applicants on notice that there will be a new ordinance drafted and this is going to be one of the conditions the Commission has been voting on consistently. Mooney stated that we are looking for a quality of life in these ADU' s, we are not looking to create a duplex in a single family zone and we are not looking for an extra bedroom not creating a bonus for a developer to increase his value. AH Overlay District PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 Tim Malloy, Staff said the purpose tonight is informational to prepare this Commission for a joint meeting with the County Planning & Zoning to talk about the concept of an AH Overlay as a form of exemption from the Growth Management System, he asked the Commission to focus comments on ways he could provide additional information for the City/County P&Z Commission meeting June 18th. Malloy stated that this proposal is sponsored by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners to amend the Pitkin County Land Use Code to create a tool intended to allow exemption from the Growth Management System for a project that would be similar to an AH project but also includes a commercial component, that commercial component would be accessory and local serving but may include some tourist related commercial space. Malloy said there are a series of statements in the AACP that Staff felt this proposal is consistent with including critical mass and bringing 60% of the work force up valley of the Aspen Village, statements related to mixed use developments, micro-community, locally oriented commercial development, transportation, ect... Malloy stated that the affordable housing overlay PUD zone is intended for the production of category 1,2,3 & 4, and limited RO affordable housing, with transit oriented, mixed land use developments, the AHO/PUD could accommodate a wide range of land uses including, free market residential, affordable housing and commercial uses where the uses are accessory to the other allowed and special review uses in the underlying zone district, this is an overlay zone district so the uses and dimensional requirements are dictated by the underlying zoning. Malloy said recreational facilities, tourist accommodations and tourist oriented commercial uses could also be accommodated in appropriate locations, basically where they are already allowed by the underlying zone districts, the AHO/PUD zone is intended to provide a mix of land uses that encourage interaction between tourist, seasonal residents and permanent residents consistent with the character oriented goals of the AACP, this zone will be available for lands located within the metro area and should be located in recognized activity centers or transit and bicycle routes, the mix of land uses in the AHO/PUD is intended to reduce the need for private vehicle trips and increase mass transit utilization, use of the AHO/PUD shall be subject to review under the PUD criteria of Pitkin County Land Use Code, and shall be considered rezoning and subject to those standards and criteria. Resident Occupied affordable housing should be no more than 10%, that was so this tool would be used to generate category housing, which is believed to have a greater value to the community in terms of the affordable housing program. Malloy said that during a review with the BOCC, it has been shown that affordable housing does not pay its own way in terms of the revenues generated vs. the services required, allowing some on-site commercial activity and the revenues generated by it are believed to offset negative fiscal impacts, the mix of units is proposed to be 70/30 and 60/40 population count. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 Garton stated that she is interested in learning the rational and if there is not much difference, for consistency why not make it 70/30 for both. Malloy said they are restricting it to the metro-area because a) they want to use the metro-area as a test case, the two projects that seem most likely to take advantage of this is the Aspen Highlands Base Village and possibly the North 40 Project, b) to use the metro-area study to look at whether or not this is a useful tool, c) the projects, most likely to provide the transit oriented benefits would be located within the metro-area. Malloy stated that the area vulnerability has to do with whether or not this would create additional pressure to rezone a piece of property for a significant amount of commercial use, it would create a situation where we would lose more because we reduce the standard from 100% to 60% on the project, we may get less affordable housing through this approach than we would through straight mitigation because the affordable housing component is very large relative to the commercial component, so the 60/40 ratio generates more affordable housing than we lose when we drop the ratio from 100% commercial mitigation to 60%, the ways we would attempt to control that would be a) any use of the AHO/PUD would be a rezoning; b) the project would require a rezoning of the underlying zoning; c) the project would go through the PUD process in the Pitkin Co. land use code. Malloy said that because this is a growth management exemption, resulting in a deduction from the pools and the ceilings the City and County P&Z would review such projects, we are proposing that the neighborhood serving commercial square footage be exempt, in addition to the free market units as part of this as a PUD all tourist oriented commercial development shall be subject to growth management competition and scoring, we are providing an incentive to use this program by granting the exemptions. Garton asked about the free market units and said that once commercial is in an overlay zone it creeps into other space, apartments being turned over to commercial without anyone aware of it. Malloy asked if the concern is that some of the surrounding structures may be turned over to commercial use or that the rezoning will start expanding and come in for requests. Garton stated that they may come in for a request but she sees neighborhood commercial suddenly becoming commercial, i.e. the Trueman Property. Malloy said there was a lot of discussion of this during the Highlands review, they intended to have local serving commercial and agreed that there may be pressure in the future to see some of those spaces turned over. Mooney said that he did not understand why we want to do this, they're already required to provide affordable housing. Malloy responded at a much lower rate, 9 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 the mitigation standard in the Pitkin Co. land use code it is 33%, whereas in the AHO process we are getting substantially more affordable housing. Mooney asked if this would give the "North 40" project the opportunity to provide more than that in a trade-off for commercial development exemptions, they are providing just under what they need to provide and are requesting code amendments to have neighborhood or local serving commercial bonuses and exemptions for tourist commercial, but we are not getting more affordable housing. Malloy stated that they are providing more affordable housing than they are required, the housing the employees generated, plus. Mooney said he did not see why we are creating code amendments to give commercial bonuses and exemptions, that is a growth generator, it will have long range impacts above and beyond residential on the metro area and to change what we have now to generate this kind of growth is not in balance with the AACP or what we are trying to create in the metro area, especially when tourist accommodations and tourist commercial are included. Mooney stated that he feels the potential of that means even more mitigation and does not see where we get a better deal and better quality of life. Malloy responded that there are two other benefits; 1) there will hopefully be a reduction in traffic that goes to and from this project, by virtue of having some on- site commercial; 2) affordable housing, in of itself, and free market housing does not pay for itself, it does not generate as much tax revenue as it costs to serve, whereas commercial development generates more tax revenue than it costs. Malloy said the concern of the potential of the long term impacts on the community by virtue of this mechanism, we looked at the potential sites this may occur, any project that wanted to create commercial sq. footage would have rezone to a commercial zone within the county therefore we would have the opportunity to evaluate that impact. Mooney stated that we have a perceived idea of less impacts, we have an unstudied idea of commercial viability and his idea that it may have the opposite affect, people will be driving up Maroon Creek to shop there, it is not just a study to keep people there but what about the people that are going there. Garton stated that she feels it is important to assess the fiscal implications of the AACP, that was one of the conditions of voting for the AACP, that there would be a fiscal study of the effects of implementing the AACP within two years. 10 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 Aspen Mountain Master Plan Rick Magill, Staff stated that the Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) has requested that the county approve improvements to Aspen Mountain for the purpose of hosting World Cup races. Magill said that to satisfy the International Federation de Skiing (FIS) requirements an area in the Spar Catwalk area will need to be widened from approximately 20ft. to 60ft., they will construct a retaining wall about 700ft. long and 25ft. high, they will have to cut back the prominent ridge above Kleenex Corner, they would also like to expand and replace the snow making facilities on Aspen Mountain. Magill stated that some of the expansion of snow making is directly associated with the new World Cup routes. Magill said the County P&Z tabled this application so the ASC would provide more information, which has been received, and he would like this P&Z to look at the visual impacts of the improvements particularly Kleenex Corner. Chris Hingst, representing the ASC said there has been supplemental information turned into the County P&Z, the plan covers three areas; 1) the race course modifications; 2) the extension of snow making system and replacement of decayed lines; 3) radio tower to connect all four mountains with one radio. Hingst said one of the delays has been the geotechnical aspect, mine locations, ect... Mark Hershberger, Design Workshop stated that one very important thing about the wall is the only place it will be seen, from a public viewpoint is from the gondola, it will not be seen from any portion of town because of its orientations and it is beyond the horizon line. Hershberger said the objective is that once trucks and equipment are on-site they will stay up there so we will not have a lot of activity going back and forth through town. Garton asked what type of material will the wall, viewed from the gondola be made of. Hershberger responded that it is a mechanically stabilized earth structure, it is built in a series of layers to provide a structural aspect, the surface will be blocks that will match the existing earth tone as closely as possible. Johnston asked if it was a manmade item. Hershberger responded that it is a concrete block wall. Blaich asked the applicant to explain why it will be block. Hershberger responded that to save as much of the existing, large vegetation as possible they will need to get as steep an angle as possible and there is a lot of variation from a color point of view. Blaich asked if it had been used locally so the Commission could view it. The applicant did not know of any off hand. 11 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 Johnston stated that there are a number of items the applicant could use. Hershberger said there were a lot of options and the final decision has not been made it is going through the final engineering process. Johnston asked if there was any way they could get around the manmade look. Hershberger responded that this wall has an angle much steeper than this will require, if we did a situation like this we would lose a lot more vegetation. Hershberger said that he feels this form, in the long run will help to stabilize some of the erosion going through that area and allow revegetation to improve it visually. Chaikovska said that with the material used she would caution the applicant to think of it in the winter, it blends in when looking at it in the summer but when it is stark white there will suddenly be a manmade wall that will look a lot different. Hingst responded that the snow will have a tendency to hold on the wall because it is not a vertical wall. Hershberger said that it will be fairly vertical and he is not sure how much snow will stay on it. Hingst said when you consider two feet of snow that will take off of the visual impact. Chaikovska asked how big the blocks will be. Hershberger said they are 18"X1 'X6". Blaich said it will look like a seawall. Garton asked if there will be footers or is it just a form. Hershberger said that instead of a deep footer there will be sheets that go back into it and that gives the structural aspect of it. Hingst said they are kind of like mesh mats tied into the wall to add the rigidity so there will not be mass movement. Mooney said that the equipment that will be working on this project will go up on the mountain and stay on the mountain, will these blocks be trucked up. The applicant responded this will have to be trucked up. Mooney asked how many truckloads that might be. The applicant said they could not give an estimate off- hand. Mooney asked what the route will be, will they go through the Aspen Alps. Hingst said that a lot of the heavy machinery will go up 1A. Mooney said that it will be crucial to our neighborhoods, to the route going through town, the impacts to the roads, adjacent parking, and to keep traffic flowing, it seems to him that there will be a lot of truckloads, how much can a truck carry going up these pitches on these dirt roads, or if it rains the roads will be a problem. Mooney stated that he felt the neighborhoods should be notified. Garton said that our street department should be notified because the deterioration of the streets with that weight will be major. 12 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 Hershberger stated that a series of newsletters and community information sessions is proposed. Hingst said that Ron Chauner, one of the project managers has implemented a very good program two years ago when we worked on Aspen Highlands, because we accessed the mountain through the neighborhoods. Chauner said that they have built very good protocol; 1) general safety of the project; 2) taking care of the environment, as best we can; 3) communication of what is going on to the immediate neighborhoods so they are aware of the material coming through the are and in the case of lift construction when the helicopters will fly. Chauner stated that during the last two projects they set up a dial in hotline that was updated daily so people could call in and get a construction update, he said they will continue this if they continue with this project. Mooney said that he could see heavy rigs starting at 7:00 a.m. and the residents at the Alps wondering when this will stop. Chauner responded said they will set up a well understood, clear construction traffic management plan that will include when they can go up, when they can come, how fast, escorted or unescorted, ect..., fortunately most of the excavation materials will fortunately stay on the site. Garton suggested coordinating with CDOT to have these materials come down the highway at night because of the traffic in the summer. Chauner said they could be placed in the Highlands or Buttermilk parking lot and then trucked in from there. Mooney said he would like to see how this will be scheduled through the summer crowd. Chauner responded that once they see the intensity of this haul, they will make whatever arrangements necessary to make the movement through town. Garton said that even the transport on Hwy 82, thinking of our commuters. Chauner said the impacts on 82 with the materials that have to come in for this wall are not much greater than the semi's that supply BMC West or distribution centers of products for this town, it all comes in staggered and blends in with the flow of traffic. Mooney asked how many personnel will be involved in this project, going on and off the mountain everyday, where are they going to park their vehicles. Chauner responded that there will not be a great deal of people up there, most of the people will be with Aspen Earthmoving and in the past 4-5 guys would go in each pickup. Mooney asked if the blocks are assembled by crane. Hershberger said they are installed in lifts so they do not have to crane, they come in then lay soil then come back in, they are set in with machinery but not large machinery. 13 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 Chauner said they will have a couple of layers of magnesium chloride, which is basically a saline solution that does not hurt the environment, that will settle the dust for 10-15 days and when it starts to raise again we will come back through so there will not be dust going up into the sky. Mooney asked if the applicant had a schedule of when the mountain access will be closed to recreational traffic, hikers or will it be interrupted at all. Chauner responded that if the project is approved the first stage is to isolate the area from the public, there will not be access on some of the traditional hiking paths. Chaikovska asked if there were other materials that will not look like a seawall, something that will look like simulated rock, or could it be faced with something to make it look a little more natural. Hingst said that he feels the pattern is what will catch the eye. Mooney asked how could this be camouflaged, by using different size, different colors, could the materials be varied so it is not one constant color of chunks that look like it is laid out without disturbing the integrity of it. Hershberger said they have the ability to have a certain percentage of different colors all the way through providing a variety, he said that he will need to be careful with that so that it does not stand out more, these companies can make a neutral tone that will help it go away as much as possible in both seasons. Garton said maybe they could mix the dirt of the mountain into the outer layer so its more textured and has the color of the backdrop. Mooney asked if plants could be put on this, pavers for instance, is there any way to put vegetation in and amongst these pieces. Hershberger said there is and there are wall that do that, the problem is it will significantly increase the impacted area, the objective is to get down to natural grade as quickly as possible. Chaikovska asked if anything can grow on this. Hingst said that stabilization of the slope will allow more vegetation to come in below it. Johnston stated that the wall will be virtually smooth. Blaich asked what the height of the wall is from the ground level up to the cut. Hershberger responded that it will be approximately 28fl. Blaich asked if they had considered planting enough trees at the base of the wall to mask it. Hershberger responded that they have a revegetation plan where they will come in with a substantial amount of plant materials which, in the long run will blend in there, we do not have large materials because of access and irrigation reasons. Mooney referred to a letter of recommendation that suggested a railing and asked if the Commission would see a railing detail. Hershberger said there will be a series 14 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 of sleeves, along the top of the wall there will be 7 to 8fi. posts that go down along the top of the wall on the inside and between the posts there will be the traditional nylon netting that you see on the mountain to act as a restraining device. Johnston asked if that will be permanent. Hershberger said it will be there during the ski season. Hingst said the restraining towers will be like the "Berlin Wall" near "Corkscrew", these towers will be placed along the downhill edge and will hold the upper guideline for the cable fences to prevent skiers from going off the edge, FIS requires protection in critical areas, there will be as many as five of these towers and the final layout of those has to come from the FIS governing board and will be out here through the process. Hingst said they will be 20ft. higher than the top of the wall, we want to place as many as we can below the wall and are using the five towers off the top of Aspen Highlands. Hingst said the pole will remain but the fencing will only be used during the race. Chauner said they could be smaller but they are trying to use what they have on- site so they will not have to buy new ones. Chauner stated that if the support posts for the netting do not have to be the diameter of a lift tower there is a possibility of doing a smaller diameter post, in a sleeve it will go up for the race, after the race the nets come down and take the posts out of the sleeve and cap the permanent sleeve. Mooney stated that he feels a wooden pole or telephone pole that could be taken in and out would be better than bringing in old lift towers. Hingst said they have telephone poles on the current fence, they do not have enough rigidity we bend them too much, there is quite a bit of tension between the poles and that is why the larger diameter gives us the strength. Hingst stated that would have to be engineered, it may work. Mooney said he feels we should be as inventive and creative as possible with details such as this that can minimize the impacts. Blaich said that if the poles could be removed during the year and they are only there for a few days, it is an impact and you have to have the safest possible solution, but you ought to look at some way of getting them out when you don't need them. Mooney asked about the FIS requirements that the wall be 90ft. wide. Jon Reveal, ASC responded that they negotiated with the FIS to allow us to drop it from 30 meters to 20 meters. 15 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 Mooney said that we know they will be below the recommended 5' depth cut and we know that there will be no consulting engineer that will be able to handle contaminated water or mine tailings, shouldn't we be told there will be a consulting engineer. Hingst stated that one of the first steps is an exploration stage, we will be exploring exactly were the shafts are, the state geotechnical person set up the process, once we know what those issues are we will respond accordingly but without knowing exactly were those elements are we can't respond at this time. Hingst said they do understand that is potentially out there but until it is exactly understood he did not know what to respond to. Garton asked what does the Commission respond to, in a letter from H.P. Geotech, Ralph Mock states that ~in our opinion, the grading proposed in the preliminary plan, is too extensive for the topographic, geologic and mine conditions in the area", the mine structures could cave in during any excavation or blasting, we are very concerned about that, there will be no more skiing on Aspen Mountain if that happened. Buettow stated that on the map it specifically shows the major excavations will happen over a mine, it is a very serious condition. Garton asked if the applicant would come back once the mines have been assessed and what will be done to insure mine stability. Hingst responded that they are setting forth a management plan that will allow them, if any of these issues come up, to deal with them, to have a dialogue with the county and state engineer if, and we don't anticipate any of these coming up, but we do want to make sure that we deal with them in a very concise way. Blaich asked the applicant if the July 1 st target date is realistic. Hingst responded that the engineer has outlined several variables and has covered every base, he said a mine collapsed last year and it was capped on the mountain. Hingst stated that skiing is their life, that is how he collects his paycheck and there will be skiing next year, if a mine is opened it will be capped, through the geotech report they are prepared for anything that may come up. Garton asked if the applicant had been in the tunnels to view the supports. Hingst responded that they have discussed this with the mining company and there is no access to this particular area. Mooney said one of the reference letters states that ~a Design Build Specialist contractor should be considered for this project to handle a retaining walls, 16 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 controlled blasting design and underground mine working stabilization' s", these are very important elements. Hingst responded that through Aspen Earthmoving, they have contracted one of the best controlled blasters in the state and realize that will be one of the most elements. Garton asked if the blasts would be announced. Hingst responded that they would be through Ron Chauner's communication program. Garton said there have been large fractures on the mountain and now that we're saturating it with snow making there have been drainage programs, with increased snow making what will happen then. Hingst responded that they are doing more snow making, they are only allowed so much water, they are spreading it out if anything. Garton said then there is a larger saturated area. Hingst said if you spread out the area to saturate, the density is less, currently there are many horizontal drains in the hill to alleviate this problem and we have been maintaining that hill for a while to prevent something from happening. Hingst stated that is their job, they are not going to hurt their environment. Mooney said that the inferences should be put into the record such as "traditional draining patterns for Spar Gulch shall be maintained consistent with the City of Aspen's urban runoff maintenance plan", "final grading and construction shall meet the intent and recommendations of these memorandums", he thinks these are important points coming from these "expert" consultants. The totalpackage given to P&Z is in the record and available for review in the City Clerks office. Garton asked if there was a picture of the retaining wall will look like from town on Kleenex corner. Hershberger stated that it will not be seen from town, it will only be seen from the gondola by skiers. Blaich stated that the Commission is more concerned with the safety and long term effect not just how it will look, although the wall there is a critical thing Blaich said he has lived in Europe and spent a lot of time in the Alps and they have solved this problem in many places, along the highways, in the ski resorts, a lot has been stepping it to put in ground cover which seems to get a foothold in almost anything, but you are not allowing for that, this sheer wall isn't going to hold anything including snow and it will be a long time before the vegetation will be high enough to cover anything. 17 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 Mooney asked if the City P&Z would see a final plan if this is the preliminary plan. Hershberger said this will be an ongoing progress. Blaich suggested that we have a combined meeting with the County P&Z. Magill responded that the County P&Z is having a special meeting on June 6th. Buettow said he would ask for more details on the race fence and towers, as far as what will eventually be there. Mooney said that he would like to know how the applicant will know if they are involved with hazardous or contaminated materials, will there be core drillings or strip pieces, ect... Stan Clausen, Community Development Director said that Staff would like to prepare a memo before the June 6th meeting, for City P&Z detailing the impacts to the City, even though the County is reviewing this, there are things we may be permitting, such as moving trucks, what he would like to do is respond to some of the City P&Z concerns with information that will be provided by the SkiCo, and bring in other departments to discuss this plan they have for bringing in construction materials and equipment. Garton said she would like to know about the possible contamination of our air and water at the base of the mountain and what kind of plan would be in effect if something like that is exposed. Hingst said the blasting is 1/6 of an avalanche charge and the blaster said it would be a low muffle. PUBLIC COMMENTS Beatrice Ernemann, public said she has been a resident of Aspen since 1969, she is here as a private citizen but is on the organizing committee for the Colorado Ski games that are held in conjunction with the World Cup, she is a level two certified chief of race and is the vice-president of the Aspen Historical Society. Ernemann stated that she feels that if Aspen does not approve this new race site, without a doubt just as the Sherman Act ended us as a mining community, there have been only two sources of economic viability; mining and skiing, we will be sounding the death null for itself as a race site for the future. Ernemann stated that Aspen mountain has had serious mining desecration done to it, she does not think anything that the SkiCo plans to do to the mountain will have a negative affect, in fact in 1950 when we bid on the Alpine races the original downhill course comes down through were they have scheduled the races now, as a concerned citizen she 18 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 would urge the town of Aspen to please consider the impact economically because she thinks everyone in this rooms livelihood, originated from mining and skiing. Alan Schaffer, public said that being a long term resident of Aspen means nothing, only that he has been here long enough to observe that the SkiCo has taken care of the mountain beautifully, anything for the public good, they did it well. Schaffer stated, in terms of what they are doing now, we have to have a little fate in the fact that this is a professional operation, he said he feels there is a timing problem. Ernemann said that if we lose the moment then we have lost the World Cup, he feels that the technology and the ability of the SkiCo to take care of any problem that comes up, is there, and the oversight of the City and County P&Z is there. Ernemann stated that he is also here because on the ski team, right now, two of the finest female skiers in the world who were born and raised in Aspen, one of them, her dream is to be able to race, world class, representing the United States and skiing in Aspen, his daughter Alexander Schaffer, the other is Katie Monaghan, timing is of the essence, maybe these commissions can meet simultaneously to get this done, so we do not lose this chance. Garton stated that this Commission is just a referral agency to the County, we are concerned mostly with the way if affects the city, of course having the World Cup here affects all of us and we want to stay a racing town. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Amy G. Schmid, Deputy City Clerk 19 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21~ 1996 MINUTES 2 123 West Francis, Conditional Use 2 AH Overlay District ? Aspen Mountain Master Plan 11 20