Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19940503 ~;J - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 3. 1994 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll David Brown. excused. Bob Blaich, Bruce Kerr and Hunt and Tim Mooney were call were Sara Garton, Jasmine Tygre, Roger COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Sara: Asked regarding the next step for the Superblock. Bruce: My understanding is that at this point they have 2 choices. One is to scale down their proposal based on the public comments or to forget the Superblock concept and come forward with individual applications. So I am guessing they will probably respond to the public comments and downscale to some extent. Bob: The general impression I had is that the planning process should go on with the various parties and try to come together with a u~ified plan. But look at the scale and the magnitude of it and that will affect all of the cost. It will juggle all of the figures around to see what happens STAFF COMMENTS "'-... There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. LANGLEY AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORK SESSION TAPE IS AVAILABLE ASPEN MEADOWS SPA AMENDMENT Bruce opened the public hearing. Kim, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. Chuck Roth, Engineering: We are bringing this up again because we are in the amendment process and we are looking at the approvals again for the detention ponds. We still have the same problem today we had in 1990 with the possible need for the City of Aspen to comply with the Clean Waters Act and other possible needs within the State and Gold Medal Trout Waters and any interests that the City might have in maintaining water quality in the Roaring Fork River. ',__ We have checked with the City Attorney's Office and he thought it PZM5.3.94 was reasonable to renew our request for the easement at this time. We are not proposing to build anything. Maybe when Aspen's needs come to improving water quality in the Roaring Fork in time of high storm runoff perhaps there will be some other technique that the City will choose to adopt. But it is our feeling that this site was identified in the plan and that the City should obtain the easement within the appropriate time which is such as this. On my original proposal was not to have a specific location for the easement. But a note or an agreement on the plat that there would be an easement--2 acres will be provided when needed somewhere on this parcel where it was best suited at the time it was needed. David: That wasn't approved at the time of the original SPA? Kim: There was a fear on behalf of--it was driven by I think Savannah for the most part--the current owners of the property that it would create an impact to the race track area. r'~'" Sara: I remember that the neighbors had already felt that Savannah had compromised the race track with this back door, back room negotiating to allow them that road to create a new road. And that the race track was the home of fox and should be wild life there. So part of that is to stay open space. Then Chuck was asking for this. Everyone saw where it would be in that race track area and that frightened everyone and City Council backed off because they had already taken so much flack in allowing this road to go through. "-- Roth: Again they might not decide that this is where they want to do it and what they want to do. But this is in an adopted plan and we think that we should cover the bases and obtain it now. The idea is to intercept the flows so that they don't all go to the Roaring Fork River at once. There would be some percolation. You would trap a lot of the sediment and it would get into the river. So the water that goes from the pond to the river would be of a higher quality than if we just dropped it right into the river with the street sand, etc. Ted Guy, architect: The Institute has been under a lot of criticism for not meeting the electrical requirements for this particular building. At the present time there is no place on the campus in that general vicinity that provides handicapped access facilities as far as rest rooms and this type of thing. So the whole proj ect started off being driven by the fact that the Institute wanted to represent an open mind and comply with ADA requirements and provide handicap access to the campus. We looked at 3 or 4 different options and it seemed to create the ",,,- 2 PZM5.3.94 least impact by taking the existing Laughlin Seminar Room and turn that into restroom facilities for the rest of the campus, the state of the art as far as AV equipment and this type thing. It is our intent to bring the whole facility up to a more energy- efficient environment. Gideon Kaufman: What this small 2,000 square foot addition enables us to do is accommodate the participants in a much better and a more efficient manner and enables us to present seminars that are capable of dealing with 1994 technology and brings us up to date in terms of the Disability Act. I think it is important to bring a little perspective to issues regarding drainage. There were a lot of concerns expressed at the time of this particular approval. One of the concerns had to do with the fact that part of the Meadow--the race track was being compromised in that there was a road going in and there was also going to be 4 houses added. So there was a real sensitivity about additional intrusions. There was a major debate about a mound of dirt that had been left there when they did the original building and they didn't have the money to remove it. That took on some very historic perspective including a fox mound. There was great controversy of even removing that particular mound of dirt. So there was great concern raised by both neighbors of the "" Consortium and certain members of the environmental community in terms of trying to preserve that area. Not just for the fox but for the other animals that live in that particular area. There was concern about the loss of Sage Brush in that once Sage Brush gets removed, it is very difficult to replace. So there was great concern expressed about introducing into this area a detention pond of the magnitude that is necessary. This is a major detention pond that addresses a lot of the west end area. So we are not talking about something that isolated this property or this development. It is something that is City-wide in magnitude. After great discussion and debate I think Engineering Dept made their arguments very eloquently. Both the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Council determined that this intrusion on this particular piece of property was not appropriate with the perspective of what it might do to the campus, what it would do to the environmental aspects, what it would db to the loss of open space of the race track. And so they determined that they should not ask for that particular easement at that time. There was discussion at that time about underground easement. But the Engineering Dept was not interested in any underground easement because of the expense associated with it. I think it would be very inappropriate at this point in time to then go back and ask ""-..,,- 3 PZM5.3.94 ~ for that particular easement when you are looking at what we are asking for. One of the basic thresholds when you go through Planning is you examine what you are asking for and the impacts of what you are asking for in terms of exactions. And I don't think it is appropriate when you are asking for a 2,000 square foot addition to come in and ask for a major 2 acre detention pond that has really nothing to do with what is being requested. I think that our position is the same as it was in the approval process and we do not feel it is appropriate to grant that easement at this time just as it was not appropriate at the time of the original approvals. Bruce asked for public comments. ?: I do approve of the application. I don't approve of 7 people at least who did not receive notice. I just don't understand who is the selective few. Gillespie Street is the entrance to the Meadows. And there are 7 people--Bruce Peterson, Steve Marcus, Bill Martin, The Durands and the Kause's who live on Grove Court. None of these people are notified. Guy: I think what happened is the property was subdivided as part of the original SPA. We are now modifying a small part of the SPA ~ rather the entire SPA. So we only notify those people within 300 feet of this structure. .......- Kaufman: We are asked to supply people within 300 feet of the particular property that is owned by the Institute--the property that goes all the way towards the Music Property and goes all the way down 3rd Street. That is no longer owned by the Institute and so under the code no notice is given. David: That is the advantage of public property notice with a sign on the property. The neighbors, if not notified by mail, are apprised of hearings in this way. Guy: Even before the application, we held an open house at the Institute with the model and invited many of those neighbors. It was to try to explain what we are doing and how we were doing it. Decision was made to proceed with the hearing and if the City Attorney decided proper notice was not given that would be dealt with later. Bruce asked for other public comments. There were none. ........-- 4 ,- PZM5.3.94 >;'........ Bruce: Why is this considered an essential public facility? Do we have a definition in the code as to what are essential public facilities? Kim: No. There is a definition in page 4 I quote out of the code that essential public facility that serves and is also taken into consideration for profit venture". the definition section. On "It shall be considered an an essential public service that the development is not Kaufman: It was also a finding that was made by the City Council during the SPA process. Kim: Historic to the cultural development of Aspen is they were considered part of the life blood of the City and were essential. Bruce: I just want it on the record that we do recognize because they are getting a growth exemption that we do make a finding and understand that this is an essential public facility. I would suggest some sort of additional condition that there be an additional contingent condition of approval that reterences the continued responsibility of the Institute to comply with the traffic mitigation plan. ....~- Sara: I recognize Chuck's concern and his custodianship of our water. I went through this 4 years ago. I am concerned that we are going to have to have these kinds of ponds. I don't know where we put them but I don't know if this campus is the appropriate place. Allowing the easement does open up the door that it could be on the campus. Bruce: I guess the part about condition #3 that bothers me more than anything--more than the granting of the easements the part that says "Such easement shall be determined by the public works department". I am not sure exactly what that means--the location of the easement or the ultimate design of whatever gets built there. Guy: In reference to this piece of property in particular it would be very difficult for an easement. Right now there is a utility easement that the Aspen Consolidation District has that goes right down here. And so I don't think that any ecologist would tell you to put a retaining pond up next to a building. Bruce: Is the easement you are requesting, Chuck, inside this lot? Bob: It is in the center of the race track. '- 5 - PZM5.3.94 ~ David: Having listened to the evidence here and what is presented in the packet I think it is absolutely reasonable to consider the need for storm drainage. Looking at this particular application relative to the entire SPA and relative to the west end and it's impact on the community that at this time I am comfortable with letting this move forward and granting the amendment to the SPA without condition #3. I do think it would be desireable to have some study that determines whether or not drainage to analyze whether there is a need for retention pond in this area. Given the runnoff from the entire west end in this neighborhood--what is the appropriate way to do it and what is the least impactful way of achieving that. I have a hard time believing that that additional runnoff will not be absorbed by the adjacent grass seed surfaces. I just don't see this as being the threshold that kicks in for retention ponds. My hunch is also especially looking at the parking lot I think one of the reasons that is there for water is the parking lot drains in the other direction. I think it is worth studying. Sara: They have already studied. That is Chuck's point. It is on the engineering plan that that is where the pond should be. Kaufman: This is a 1973 study. This is a property that was identified because it was one of the few large pieces of undeveloped property. There never was an analysis done or a design .~ done for a pond on this particular property. David: What I am saying has there been a study done that says there is a need for a poind. Roth: That is what that says. There is a need. You have got X thousands cubic feet of water coming from the streets allover Aspen. Where is it going to go? Well here is a place where it could go. Guy: But there is no Federal requirement that such a pond exists. The concern is there will be such a regulation in the future. David: So you are saying there is no storm sewer system. If there were a storm sewer system in place and there is no storm sewer system through the whole City. It could be directed to this area and then to the sewer. Roth: The urban runnoff masterplan breaks the City up into 6 areas. Some of it flows to the Rio Grande Park. Some of it to the Jenny O'Dare. Some of it which isn't developed would flow to the Institute or Meadows. Kaufman: I have a problem with the concept of your asking for this ~- 6 - PZM5.3.94 '-- amendment on this particular property given the magnitude of what we are adding and the magnitude of what is being requested. A 2- acre easement is quite substantial for a 2,000 square foot addition. I don't see the nexus between the impacts of what we are asking for and what you are asking for. Leslie: Every single time now when Lot #1 or the MAA or anybody comes in they say "Well, this is just a tiny little thing that we are doing here and there is no nexus". Kim: Realistically there is not necessarily a nexus develop-ment on this site and the drainage needs of certain of the City. And there never will be. between portion Bruce: My feeling is that if the City of Aspen feels strongly on obtaining this easement they will go after it and not try to do it through this process. That coupled with the fact that 4 years ago when this project--overall SPA was approved the request was made at that time for the easement and City Council obviously said "We don't want to require that easement at this time through this process". And I find it pretty much of a stretch to now come back on almost an insubstantial amendment to the SPA and go after an easement now. I think we very well may need the drainage pond and I think if we do then Chuck needs to go through the proper channels of procedure and go to City Council and say "Let's get this easement". I don't think I am willing to recommend by P&Z that we ~~ require this easement. Bob: I am of the same mind. I think we ought to disconnect it too. It should be approached separately and not try to have a package deal on this one. Everything else in the application I think is valid and needed. And from my experience in that seminar center for 25 or 30 years giving lectures in there I would be very happy to have something that was up to standard. And I don't think it has a negative impact on the environment nor is it going to have an impact on this condition. I am not denying it is an issue. It should be confronted. But separately. Sara: I think we can't hold this application hostage to the detention ponds. Bruce: Other than condition #3, does the applicant have any problem--including condition #6? Kaufman: No. MOTION David: I move for approval of the Aspen Institute Seminar Facility expansion as an amendment to the Aspen Meadows SPA Development Plan '''''-".....- 7 "-. PZM5.3.94 ,'~".,~. including GMQS exemption for this facility with conditions #1, #2, #4 and #5 as described in Planning Office memo dated May 3, 1994 with the addition of condition #6 that the applicant acknowledge continued responsibility to comply with the traffic mitigation plan through the west end as part of the Aspen Meadows SPA. Bob seconded the Bruce closed the Roll call vote: motion. public hearing. David, yes, Sara, yes, Bob, yes, Bruce, yes. MOTION Sara: I move that our discussion pertaining to condition #3 of Planning Dept memo dated May 3, 1994 be presented to the City Council. Bob seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was then adjourned. Time was 6:15 P.M. Deputy Clerk ...."""', '"".'" - 8