Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19980707ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 Sara Garton, Chairperson, opened the Regular Aspen Planning and Zoning Meeting at 4:35 p.m. Commissioners Bob Blaich, Marta Chaikovska, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, Jasmine Tygre and Sara Garton were present. Steve Buettow was excused. City staff in attendance were Nick Adeh and Ross Soderstrom, Engineering, Chris Bendon, Stan Clauson and Mitch Haas, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Sara Garton noted that guidelines were available for review by the commission, especially when David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, was not in attendance. Bob Blaich distributed an Australian news article concerning housing in Aspen. Roger Hunt asked about the West End temporary signs at 4th & 6th Streets. Stan Clauson replied that 2 stop signs were suggested; one each on 4th & on 6th. He said during rehearsal times the buses were using 4th & 6th Streets and using 3rd & 5th during concert times; the compromise was a temporary experimental arrangement. The commission requested copies of the draft west end resolution to comment on with regards to the minutes from that June 16th meeting. Clauson stated no application had been submitted for the music tent; HPC would review as advisory committee; a design orientated look. It would be scheduled as a substantial amendment to the PUD before P&Z and Council. Tim Mooney asked if the traffic plan and expansion of programs would be discussed. Clauson stated that Robert Harth requested to go before Council on July 27th to discuss the P&Z Resolution. Clauson said Harth wanted to express no expansion of programs. Ms. Garton requested any disclosure of conflicts of interest. There were none. CONTINUED ACTION ITEM (06/30/98): LIFT lA AREA, TOP OF ASPEN STREET, ASPEN SKIING COMPANY WORLD CUP REGRADING IMPROVEMENTS, 8040 GREENLINE Chris Bendon distributed a memo on the 8040 Greenline Review dated 7/7/98 which centered around the regrading and re-vegetation around the Gondola Plaza. Victor Gerdin, Mountain Planner, pointed out the FIS was requiring the SkiCo to do 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 these improvements. Gerdin illustrated areas with an overview map and photos. Gerdin said there were requests for computer simulation of these areas from different vantage points in town. He explained the cuts, contours and filling in on the horizon line from the west to the east. He stated the erosion retention materials needed would be used along with silt fencing to mitigate any erosion while the road was opened up. Gerdin stated the road would be continued along the slope, not a main access, but as an alternate access up the mountain. There would be an under- drain off to the side and be directed away from the area. Gerdin noted that City Engineering requested cross-sections and a smaller representation of the same thing. He said this project would be taken care of in a responsible manner. Their engineer was looking into issues; the amount of clay in this soil which was higher than the optimum for the dirt to stay in place. He said the plasticity index was 7-9. Nick Adeh, City Engineer, replied the TI was 0-7 with the liquid limit at 14-20. Gerdin said their engineers stated the soil would stay in place. He said that Schmueser Gordon Meyer had been contracted to provide a drainage plan with run-off in the disturbed areas appropriately. Roger Hunt inquired about the dealings with the Savannah pond. Gerdin answered that Savannah requested a temporary structure for this project only; to be taken out afterward. He said that John Sarpa wants in no way to tie that sediment pond as a permanent structure to anything which could inhibit his project or proposal. He said he did not want to speculate on anything further what was between Savannah and the City. Bill Kane, SkiCo, said a point of clarification the sediment pond plays an important role while the soil is disturbed; after the slope is re-vegetated the hydrologic requirements were different. The role of the sedimentation pond usually goes away; there may be another drainage feature that could deal with big discharge, more of an urban facility. Kane said it was not an unreasonable request for the City to require a sub-surface concrete wall as part of the land use application. He said after vegetation was re-established, that goes away. Gerdin requested a letter from the City stating the ponds are a temporary facility and in no way binds Savannah to that spot in the future. He utilized computer-generated photos to illustrate the point. Garton asked Nick Adeh how he felt about the proposal. Adeh replied that SkiCo satisfied the concerns; the drainage plan and erosion control plans, resulted from working together. He said the end results were to mitigate the stability of the soils and they were waiting for the other consultant to supply information on the water collection and conversion results. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 Garton asked Gerdin about the Hepworth-Pollock report requesting consultation during design and field service during construction. She stated it was important for people to be present during construction and that the city engineering make a daily check. Adeh stated that was part of the engineering routine to work with the developer and contractor. Gerdin said they would do the density testing throughout the project. He explained if something showed up that was not described or represented by any of the test holes so far; at that time the project would stop and wait for experts. Garton noted that Steve Ellsperman, Forester, pointed out that use of straw bales and silt fences did not seem adequate with a project of this magnitude. Gerdin answered that would be addressed by their drainage consultant. Adeh said one of the city requirements was that the drainage design consultant certify their design be built without causing damage to adjacent or down stream properties. Tim Mooney asked if that included the amount of water placed on it from snow-making as well as natural drainage. Adeh replied that the amount of snow-making would be reduced by placing the fill in that depression. Mooney said it would depend upon the weather for making good snow where it really functioned. Adeh replied there was a conversion factor involved; 10" of snow to 1" of surface run-off. Bendon reviewed the condition changes included in P&Z Resolution 98-14. Gerdin said that he wanted to make sure they were dealing only with 4 trees and not the entire condition #4 This requirement is specific to this land use approval, as requested by the City Parks Department, and should not be used as a precedent for overall management of Aspen mountain. He said that there was a different impact of taking off a 10" tree from a lot in town rather than a 10" tree off a 1,000 acre ski area. Mooney inquired as to any permanent year round improvements above ground that are not currently there. Gerdin said there was snow-making in the area already; some hydrants would be re-installed. Mooney asked about the Little Nell. Gerdin said there were additional hydrants. Mooney asked if they would have orange bumpers. Gerdin explained the hydrants were 2" galvanized pipe with a lever on the top that were protected in the winter with bumpers so that skiers wouldn't run into them. Some may be placed underground. Mooney questioned the additional number of truck trips for rock or soil removal. Gerdin noted there would have to be a traffic management plan if material was to be imported for a more suitable situation. He hoped to come up with a solution to satisfy everyone's concerns. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt P&Z Resolution #98-14 approving the SkiCo FIS regrading 8040 Greenline Review with the conditions as stated: 1. The applicant shall comply with the Fugitive Dust Control Plan as submitted. The applicant shall water all disturbed soils as necessary during construction 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 and as additionally requested by the City during the construction process. A construction manager shall be available during all hours of construction to address specific needs as necessary. 2. To minimize soil erosion after construction, the applicant shall tamp the disturbed soil, provide water bars to direct runoff away from the disturbed areas, seed and mulch the affected areas, place hay bales or silt fencing where runoff may accumulate, and any other mitigation measures provided in the land use application or as requested by the City Engineer or the Forest Service. 3. All disturbed areas shall be re-seeded and mulched within ten (10) days of final grading and irrigated on an ongoing basis until proper germination. All areas which do not germinate in the 1998 growing season shall be re-seeded in the Spring of 1999. Seed mixes used shall be approved by the City Forester. The applicant shall not use White Dutch Clover or Alsike Clover in the seed mix. 4. The applicant shall replace the four Aspen trees removed in kind with double the total caliper. Placement of these new Aspens shall be proximate to the area of impact, or as otherwise approved by the City Forester, and shall be accomplished in the 1998 building season. The applicant shall guarantee the success of these replacement trees for one year by posting a bond with the City Parks Department for the replacement value of the removed trees. This requirement is specific to this land use approval, as requested by the City Parks Department, and should not be used as a precedent for overall management of Aspen Mountain. 5. The applicant shall provide a section of gravel at the end of Mill Street to minimize sediment loaded drainage from entering Mill Street and shall develop a temporary sedimentation pond on the Savannah property with written approval from Savannah Limited Partnership. The applicant shall continue to work with the City Engineer in adopting the Aspen Mountain Drainage Area Master Plan. 6. Prior to construction of the improvements, the applicant shall gain final approval from the City Engineer for the improvement's drainage system, the stability of materials being relocated, and mitigation of underground water conveyance in pipe trenches. If soil conditions require importation of large amounts of fill material, the applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a traffic control plan and the dust control plan shall be expanded to address Mill Street. Approval to include these provisions may be approved by the Community Development Director as an insubstantial amendment. 7. The City Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends Pitkin County approve the portions of this development proposal within Pitkin County with the same set of conditions as provided herein, except condition #4 related to the City's tree replacement Ordinance. 8. This City Planning and Zoning Resolution may be enforced by the Environmental Health Department or by either the City or County Zoning Enforcement Officer. 9. Prior to construction, the applicant shall pay the Community Development Department $1,505 land use application fees. This represents 6 hours of planning time at $180/hr. and fiat fees for the City Engineer ($270) and the Environmental Health Department ($155). 10. The applicant shall gain approval from the City Water Department for potable water systems and any necessary improvements to the water meter and any additives to the snowmaking system, ll. All construction staging and contractor parking shall be accomplished on-site and not within public rights-of-way. The applicant shall keep the public rights-of-way clear of tracked mud and debris by washing the street when necessary. 12. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and l0 p.m. 13. Any alterations to existing utilities shall be coordinated with the appropriate utility agency. 14. Before construction, the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 15. 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 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Marta Chaikovska second. APPROVED 6-0. Stan Clauson excused himself to attend a housing meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: 920 WEST HALLAM - CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Mitch Haas provided proof of notice to the Deputy City Clerk. Sara Garton, Chairperson, opened the public hearing. Ron Robertson introduced himself and Glenn Rappaport representing the applicant. Mitch Haas, Staff Planner, noted this conditional use application was different than most reviewed. The request entailed placing 2 detached dwellings on a landmarked lot of more than 6,000 square feet in the R-6 zone district. The site was the little green and white house before the Castle Creek Bridge. Haas stated the applicant requested splitting an existing 11,048 sf parcel; creating Lot A = 3,432 and Lot B 7,616 sf. Lot A will have a single family residence. The subject of this review was to place 2 separate structures as opposed to one duplex on Lot B. Haas stated the process was quite extensive with the P&Z conditional use review as the first step, then to HPC for a partial demolition of a shed roof on a garage structure; an on-site relocation of that garage; a shed and historic landmark lot split. He said since City Council decides on the lot split and landmark designation, tonight's decisions would be subject to the Council decisions. HPC will also decide on variances for side yard set backs and site coverage which were part of tonight's review. Haas said the FAR was important to consider on this site. He said a lot split allows the FAR for a duplex on the original fathering parcel; a duplex would be a use by right on this size lot. The 4,202 sf would be divided between all three structures. Haas commented that Lot Aproposed an 1850 sfhome; the same for Lot B 1850 sf and the existing house would be 1000 sfFAR which would include a 500 sfbonus from HPC. Haas explained the conditional use was in compliance with the AACP. He said the project was right on the housing actions plan intent and the HPC and design quality statements. He noted the proposal would protect the historic resource on the property by keeping it almost in tact. The development would reclaim the use of the alley, which would be a significant feature. Haas said the curb cut on the highway ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 would be removed and closed having the access from the rear (alley). He said that cash-in-lieu would be provided instead of accessory dwelling units. He stated that 3 ADUs would have meant 3 more parking spaces and more impact on the neighborhood. Haas said this was a win-win scenario. Roger Hunt asked if the alley would serve the house to the west because that curb cut was even more dangerous. Rappaport said there was a large tree in the middle of the ally there. Hunt suggested flipping the site plan to move the historic house to the western most lot. Haas responded that portion of the lot sinks in elevation which would make the new structure look larger than it really was. Rappaport said this project kept the resource in tact without diminishing it. He stated there would be a re-study of the street-scape anyhow; the sidewalk construction would trigger many things and may include handrails because of the grade. Robertson commented the spirit of doing this project was the direction the community should take instead all of the monster additions to the little houses. Charlie Tarver, public, commented that by not messing too much with this would send a message to the other parcels to keep the smaller units. Tarver read Marcella Larson's letter which stated that the project was needed because it was appropriate in character and scale of the urban core and entrance to Aspen. Charlie Eckhart, Sagewood, said they were comfortable with the project except for the trash. He noted the Sagewood had 11 units and would like to propose a shared trash area along the common property line because they cannot give up another parking space. Garton asked if they were parking on city property. Haas stated his understanding was that at least one of the Sagewood parking spaces was converted to landscaping. He noted a transformer box sat in the alley and would have to move into Lot B on a pedestal of 10' by 6' which will take up the comer of the property. Haas said the dumpster sits in the middle of the alley and hopefully something could be worked out in the future for a shared facility. Eckhart requested a shared easement to jointly store trash. Garton noted this application could not be encumbered with another entity's trash problems. She stated homeowners had the responsibility of storing their trash on their own property. Eckhart said they may be forced to put the dumpster in the street. Garton said that was not allowed. She commented that this commission could not condition that you could place your trash on someone else's property. Rappaport said a solution may be using the large brown trash containers and roll them out on trash pick-up day. George Madsen, public, stated they shared the northwest comer of this property and felt the design was great. He said there were common problems of dumpsters and particularly cars. He said they allow their neighbors to use their dumpster. Madsen 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 said that each unit would have 1.367 cars each and assume that there would be parking on site. Rappaport stated there were 2 regulation parking spaces on Lot A with the possibility of a 3rd one. Connie Madsen, public, objected to their being turned down 12 years ago, by the same committee, for the opening of this alley. She said there was a median strip down Francis Street. Garton asked if they objected to the opening of the alley. Madsen said they were frustrated with the city for not helping them. Jeff Hafferty, public, stated that he was in favor of the proposal and that it was an interesting case study for the entrance to Aspen. Garton asked if the conditions were agreed upon. Garton asked Ross Sodersrtom if they could sign a consent agreement regarding the curb cut. Soderstrom said something possibly could be worked out as long as there was no public hazard if it was left as is existing. He said they had to be careful about grandfathering in the steps. The conditions reflected the language as #4c.and #4d. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the conditional use request to place with conditions as listed: 1. The approvals contained herein shall of no force unless and until the proposed Historic Landmark Designation and Historic Landmark Lot Split are granted final approval by the adoption of an ordinance to that affect by City Council. 2. The approvals contained herein are fully contingent upon the applicants' receiving approval of the needed variances from the dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6, Medium-Density Residential zone district; the conditional use approval shall not create any nonconformities. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall: a. Pay the applicable (at the time of payment) cash- in-lieu fee for affordable housing mitigation (GMQS Exemption) attributable to the new structure; b. Receive final significant development approval from the Historic Preservation Commission for the design and layout of the proposed development; c. Verify that the site development will meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a drainage mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado; d. In the event required, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the Parks Department for any trees that are to be removed or relocated; also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s); and, e. Provide information to the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department which documents that proposed mitigation measures are sufficient to offset increases in PM~0 caused by the development; the applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit, as well as a fugitive dust control plan with the Environmental Health Department. 4. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall: a. Remove the existing driveway's curb cut onto West Hallam Street (a/k/a Colorado Highway 82) and replace it with a standard tapered curb matching the existing curb on each side; b. Improve the alley between West Hallam and 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 West Francis Streets to City standards; c. Any and all proposed improvements or changes in the West Hallam Street right-of-way shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer; the applicant shall also sign a curb and gutter agreement; d. Install any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment on an easement provided by the property owner and not within the public rights-of-way; said easements shall be depicted on the building permit application plan sets. The proposed size and location of the transformer easement within the private property shall be modified to provide ten (10) feet of length along the alley, six (6) feet of width into the property, and six (6) feet of depth below the finished grade to permit servicing of the transformer; e. Agree to join any future improvement district(s) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrently upon approval of this application; and, f. Permit Community Development Department, Engineering and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. S. Submit as-built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprint, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements, if and when, any exterior renovation or remodeling of the property occurs that requires a building permit. 6. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way; The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights-of-way. 7. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 8. If the proposed use, density or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re-evaluation, or for referral back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 9. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. and the commission went into a work session on the Burlingame. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1998 COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS ................................................................................................. 1 LIFT lA AREA, TOP OF ASPEN STREET, ASPEN SKIING COMPANY WORLD CUP REGRADING IMPROVEMENTS, 8040 GREENLINE ............................................................................................................. 1 920 WEST HALLAM - CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW .................................................................................. 5 9