Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060321 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 21. 2006 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 LONG F AMIL Y - 802 WEST MAIN REZONING ................................................ 2 HANNAH DUSTIN MIXED USE ADDITON........................................................ 2 MOTHERLODE ....................................................................................................... 2 414 NORTH 1 ST STREET - HALLAM LAKE ENVIRONMENT ALLY SENSITIVE AREA REVIEW .................................................................................. 3 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES _ MARCH 21. 2006 Jasmine Tygre opened the Regular Meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting in Council Chambers at 4:30pm. Commissioners Mary Liz Wilson, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, Ruth Kruger and Jasmine Tygre were present. John Rowland, Brandon Marion and Brian Speck were excused. Staffin attendance: John Worcester, City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Joyce Allgaier, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Joyce Allgaier noted in the packet was a memo from Environmental Health regarding the Recycling Center affiliated with the Obermeyer project. Allgaier requested a commissioner serve on that COWOP. The approval of the minutes from 2/7/6 and 2/21/6 were postponed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Ruth Krugt:r had a conflict on the Long Family. Jasmine Tygre noted changes to the agenda were that Items A, Band D would be continued. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (2/21): LONG FAMILY - 802 WEST MAIN REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Long Family Rezoning. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the Long Family Rezoning to March 28th; seconded by Ruth Kruger. All infavor, APPROVED, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (2/21): HANNAH DUSTIN MIXED USE ADDITON Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Hannah Dustin Mixed Use. MOTION: Ruth Krufer moved to continue the Hannah Dustin Mixed Use Addition to March 28' ; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. All infavor, APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING: MOTHERLODE Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the MotherLode. MOTION: Mary Liz Wilson moved to continue the MotherLode to April 4th; seconded by Dylan Johns. All infavor, APPROVED. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 21. 2006 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02121/06): 414 NORTH 1ST STREET - HALLAM LAKE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA REVIEW Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on 414 North 151 Street - the Hallam Lake Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Review. Notice was provided. Tygre stated that public hearings have certain requirements in terms of the way the meeting has to be conducted and the order in which things happen. Usually staff gives a presentation or overview of the project; the applicant will give a more detailed presentation; commission questions or clarification of items presented; public comments with letters received for the record and comments from the people. Chris Bendon stated this was a public hearing to review the Hallam Lake Bluff Review for 414 North 151 Street; this ESA review was not seen all that often. The review protects all land below the top of slope that borders Hallam Lake; it limits development that is within the 15 foot setback of that top of slope and creates a progressive height limit that originates from that top of slope. Bendon said that it was similar to a Stream Margin Review in which the top of slope was designated based on where the edge ofthe bluff turns into the top of the mesa; there were setbacks and height requirements that originate from that top of slope. The standards of review for this should be kept front and center because these standards implement the purpose of the regulation and insures that there was not an ad hoc decision but that it was a reasoned decision based on criteria. Bendon said that there would be some emotion in the room about the nature of the project so it was important to focus on the standards of review. The decision that is made tonight needs to be based on the evidence that is provided in the record, which consists of the application, the memo, findings and exhibits that are part of the commissions packet materials and the formal record that is created here and not based on things as an editorial that might be in the paper or something said outside this public hearing. Bendon said the standards do not relate to "what would I do if this was my property?" The standards do not relate to if you like the applicant or the people who are for or against the project; it really focuses on does the proposal comply with those standards ofreview. Bendon introduced the site at 414 North 151 Street with Hallam Lake below. The ownership of 414 North 151 Street was the Jonathan Lewis and Roberto Posada Trust represented by Giles Thorne1y of Design Workshop and Dave Lenyo of Garfield and Hecht. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES _ MARCH 21. 2006 Bendon stated that in 1998 the property went through approval for Hallam Lake Bluff Review with a series of approvals, which were seating walls (referenced in the packet Exhibit E); the reconstruction of an overlook; a fence wall between the subject property and the Given Institute; a flag pole setback from the edge of the bluff and a fire pit. Bendon stated the amendment was what was being reviewed tonight, which was for a pool, some decking that goes around the pool (sheet Ll-1), an underground connection to the existing residence that comes up to a stair tower to access the pool, a fire pit located along the pool decking and fewer seating walls. Only one of the seating walls was developed from the 1998 approval so the relocation of these seating walls was subject to an insubstantial amendment, which was approved. Bendon said the standards of review were in Exhibit A and they were distributed to the public. Bendon said there were 7 standards of review. 26.435.060,C Hallam Lake Bluff Review. No development shall be permitted within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development meets all the following requirements: 1. No development, excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting, shall take place below the top of slope. Bendon said the top of slope was defined in the 1998 approvals and has not changed. Staff felt this criterion was met. 2. Any development within thef1fleen-foot setbackfrom the top of slope shall be at-grade. Any proposed development not at-grade within the f1fleen-foot setback shall not be approved unless the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the following conditions can be met: Bendon noted there was only a little silver ofthe pool decking at-grade that was for P&Z review tonight. Bendon said the remainder of the development was already pulled back 15 feet from that top of slope; the seating walls have been approved. Bendon stated that there was no reason to go into standards that were not at-grade since this portion of the deck was at-grade. a. A unique condition exists on the site where strict adherence to the top of slope setback will create an unworkable design problem. b. Any intrusion into the top of slope setback or height limit is minimized to the greatest extent practical. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 21. 2006 c. Other parts of the structure or development on the site are located outside the top of slope setback line or height limit to the greatest extent possible. d. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or development in the setback from all adjoining properties. 3. All development outside thefifleen-foot setback from the top of slope shall not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at aforty-five (45) degree angle from the ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and the method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020. Bendon stated the development that was presented meets this criterion; there is a site section (Exhibit B) in the memo. Bendon noted the top of slope on the site section with the 45 degree angle drawn on the site section, which was a progressive height limit; the stair enclosure was underneath that progressive height limit by 7 feet or so. Bendon said the edge of the stair tower was about 17 feet 10 inches for that top of slope. Staff felt P&Z should find this criterion met. 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall include native vegetative screenings of no less than fifty (50) percent of the development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same or comparable material should it die. Bendon said the location of this development was behind a significant stand of trees and staff believes the proposal meets this criterion for its screening; the Parks Department has reviewed this and requested that there be no more vegetation provided along that bluff. Bendon said that P&Z should find this criterion met. Bendon noted the pictures on the first page of the memo showed a mock-up of the proposed stairwell enclosure and as seen from ACES, which staff believes is in compliance with that criterion. 5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with section 26.575.150. Bendon said there was no lighting proposed that was directed toward the nature preserve and P&Z should find this standard met. Bendon said the lighting code applies to everything in town and there was a condition of approval to reinforce it. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES _ MARCH 21. 2006 6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down slope. Bendon stated there was no disturbance below the top of slope; maintaining the historic drainage patterns was recommended in the approval. Bendon said the Sanitation District requires any pool or hot tub be drained through the sanitary sewer as a matter of building permit review. P&Z should find this criterion to be met. 7. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope and pertinent elevations above sea level. Bendon said there were site sections demonstrated in the application; Giles Thorne1y is a landscape architect for Design Workshop as the principal designer for this project. Bendon said that staff recommended approval. Bendon noted that letters were received and distributed in P&Z mailboxes from Garfield & Hecht dated March 20th with Exhibits A through I; he distributed a follow up letter from Garfield & Hecht dated March 21 5t which corrected the mis- designation of two of the Exhibits E & F were flip-flopped. Bendon stated there were more letters since the packet went out from Charles Hopton, Ann Altimus, and an emai1 from Susan Wooley. Dave Lenyo, attorney with Garfield & Hecht, introduced Jonathan Lewis and stated that Mr. Lewis has been actively involved at all levels in connection with this particular application. Lenyo stated that Giles Thornely was a principal at the Design Workshop and responsible for ensuring that this application complied 100% with the review standards for the Hallam Lake Bluff Area. Lenyo introduced architect Michael Ernermann who was very involved in this design process going back to the 1998 approval. Lenyo said this was a relatively straight forward land use application for an accessory use, a swimming pool that normally is allowed by right in this residential zone district. Lenyo stated that because a portion of the project falls within the Hallam Lake Bluff Review Area that Mr. Lewis is required and perfectly willing to have his application to the heightened review of the clearly defined measurable and objective review standards applying to this district. Lenyo stated concern for some of the letters and editorials that they have seen so P&Z understands that this application is not and has never been a request for a variance or a request for permission to construct an otherwise non- conforming use in this area. Lenyo stated the issue is whether this proposed 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 21. 2006 development complies with the review standards contained in the code; the issue is not whether it meets some subjective or vague purpose statements contained in the purpose statements as urged by some of the opponents of this application. Leno said that the project clearly meets the objective in land use code. Michael Ernermann, architect, spoke about the 1998 plan that was developed with a set of objectives for the house; the full expanse of the lawn and garden were included as part of this living room visually. Ernermann said that the original pool was never built; they have the right to apply for a building permit and build it. Lenyo presented the certificate of no negative effect from HPC referencing the pool as being approved in January 2006. Ernermann stated that the new pool placement was far more sensitive from an environmental standpoint and regard to the neighbors; he showed (Exhibits 4 & 6) the 1998 plan and the new plan. The old plan interfered with Hallam Lake and the new poo11ocation leaves a window to Hallam Lake. Lenyo asked how the City, ACES and the applicant worked together on this plan. Ernermann replied that by pulling back the pool it would provide more privacy for ACES and Hallam Lake with the 80 to 100 foot spruce trees and they built a mock-up of what the stair cover would look like out of two by fours and visquene on a sled so it could be moved around to different location. Ernermann stated they had numerous conversations with Tom Cardamone; a letter was received from Tom Cardamone dated 12/07/05. Ernermann stated that they also met with James Lindt, Sarah Oates, Amy Guthrie and Steve Ellsperman from the City (Lewis Exhibit #7). Ernermann stated that Mr. Lewis has gone through an enormous effort to restore the p1antings and stabilize paths; he hired a botanist to identify plants and saving the name tags. The gardens were important and so were the trees; the trees were root pruned and they are now flourishing. The gates and fencing allow wildlife free access to the property. Lenyo stated the bluff itself was restricted from development and there was a 15 foot area where development was allowed and the 30 foot area was where some development was allowed. Lenyo asked Giles Thorne1y how these areas were determined. Thornely noted the top of the Lake B1uffline, which was offset 15 feet and the 30 feet line was beyond that. Lenyo asked Thorne1y which standards apply and what you did to ensure that the development within the 30 foot zone and the 15 foot zone complies with the land use regulations. Thorne1y responded that they were not doing anything in the 30 foot zone and in the 15 foot zone there was an at-grade section of the deck. Thorne1y illustrated the 45 degree angle from the stair enclosure, which was well below what was permitted. There was no 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES _ MARCH 21. 2006 landscape plan submitted with this proposal because the pool and stair enclosure were surrounded by 80 to 100 foot trees. Lenyo asked Thornely to explain the stair enclosure (Exhibit 10). Thorne1y stated the mock-up was shown in pictures in Exhibits 11A through lIE. Lenyo inquired about the interior lighting in the stair enclosure. Thorne1y responded the lighting proposed was a LED System with specs (Exhibit 18A & 18B) below grade with no up lighting and no outside lighting expect in the pool, which was LED lighting at the bottom of the pool; the pool was black. There was no outside lighting proposed above grade. Ernermann stated there was a lighting plan; the steps were non-reflective with LED lighting, which was a low lighting. Thornely stated the lights would only be turned on when the pool was in use for safety reasons only. Ernermann stated the lighting system was a very small tube with little tiny lights that runs in a strip. Thorne1y stated the mechanical for the heating of the pool (Exhibit 5) was well below grade and was the same hot water heating system that was in the house plus the filtration pumps. Thorne1y stated the stair enclosure would be constructed with non-reflective transparent glass, with mullions, almost a greenhouse effect. Ernermann stated the glass was a faceted piece that was greenhouse like supported with a steel tube substructure 4 inches in diameter with small stainless steel clips; this was not meant to be a spectacle, simply an enclosure to shelter that stair for the purposes of keeping snow and leaves out of it. Ernermann said the purpose of that enclosure was for someone getting out of the pool in the winter and the water left on the steps would be frozen if the steps were not enclosed. Thorne1y showed Exhibits 15 & 17 for the pool cover that could support bears or an entire family. Ernermann said the entire easterly edge of the pool was a flight of stairs (Exhibit 5); the depth of the pool was 5 feet at the deepest; it was 23 feet by 23 feet 6 inches (about 550 square feet). Thornely stated Exhibits 12A, 12B, 12C and 12D showed the access to construct the basement with excavation in an area that tht: soils were already disturbed and back filled with all the surrounding trees root plUned that are flourishing 8 years later. Lenyo stated that they fully comply with the criteria applying to the 15 and 30 foot zones with every effort taken to be sensitive to all of the neighbors taking in considerations of wildlife concerns, which were not strict requirements of the revIew. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 21. 2006 Chris Bendon distributed letters from Amy Beio1emain, Ruth Brown, Matthew and Kay Bucksbaum, Briaccy Church, Lee Cotsen, Noel Congdon, Susanne H Goldstein, Shirley Bush He1zberg, David Hiser, Charles Hopton, Kristin M. Kaplinski, John Lassa1ette, Roger Marolt (Aspen Times article 3/17/6), Steve Marolt, Donna McFlynn, Thomas Fenton Smith, Bill Stirling, and Janet Urquhart (Aspen Times article 3/19/6). Dylan Johns asked ifthere were public comments on the 1998 hearing. Chris Bendon replied that it was not reflected in the minutes. Steve Skadron asked why the Parks Department determined that no more vegetation be applied on this site. Bendon replied the 1998 review and approval from Parks wanted some restoration of vegetation in the area of the trail and suggested the species; now Parks feels that the B1uffhas been restored and do not need any additional vegetation; further vegetation would take it away from the natural state. Skadron asked if that precluded the applicant from planting additional trees. Bendon responded that the planting of vegetation below the top of slope does require review so one of the standards was to require native vegetation and rely on the Parks Department to indicate whether or not it was a native species. Skadron asked if the term technical compliance with the ESA roughly equivalent to the phrase to meet the standards of the Hallam Lake Bluff Review. Bendon replied that it was the same. Skadron asked if the change in the placement of the pool was a philosophical one. Ernermann responded that the wisdom that come into this decision was that the easterly portion of the property should remain at rest; rather than consuming the whole property with physical use lets consume it with our eyes. Skadron asked if Mr. Lewis'was affected by the outdoor parties from the Given Institute. Jonathan Lewis responded that they were aware of the parties and they were great neighbors and it is what it is. Ernermann utilized Exhibit 6 to illustrate the Lewis property. Skadron asked the approximate square footage of the section that was inside the 15 foot zone. Thornely answered that it was 3 feet by 2 feet. Ernermann replied it was at an angle. Jasmine Tygre asked if the lighting under steps was like movie theater lighting. Ernermann responded that it was a soft light to illuminate the treads, the walking surface. Tygre asked what happens to the 10 feet of the enclosure above grade. Thorne1y replied that it was simply a glass enclosure and was not illuminated. Tygre asked about animals and humans running into the glass. Thorne1y replied that there was always someone in the house, lights on in the kitchen and it should not be a problem. Ernermann said the lights from the house naturally radiate from 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES _ MARCH 21. 2006 the house and that would not change; that was a good question. Thorne1y said this was nestled between trees and was not in the middle of the yard. Letters that were part of the packet include John M. Lassa1ette, Leslie Holst, Wendy R. MacPhail-Brigham, Bob and Crispen Limacher, 3 from Tom Cardamone, Timothy McF1ynn, Brian Nichols, Mary Owens, Jennifer Liddington, Fonda and Charles Paterson, Sara b. Garton, Oates, Knezevich & Gardenswartz. Jasmine Tygre reminded the public that comments should be kept to the criteria. P&Z's authority and responsibility was limited by the code and they were following the procedures as outlined in the code. Ruth Kruger said that she was disturbed by the personal attacks that have been in the newspaper and the sheets that were passed out contained the subject by which they have to judge. Public Comments: 1. Kirk Baker, public, stated that he visits ACES regularly and he was surprised how the pictures do not show how you can see the glass structure from the edge of the lake and the deck. Baker said the LED lights were used on trucks to make them visible at night so the glass structure would glow at night and thought that the wildlife would be impacted from this. Baker said that this would impact Hallam Lake. Baker wanted to stop this development now. 2. Ted Gardenswartz stated that he represented Jack Nicholson who was the neighbor to the West of the Lewis property; Mr. Nicholson truly loves this community and ACES and Hallam Lake. Gardenswartz said this was not a personal issue but about a community making decisions for our community and the generations to follow. Gardenswartz said there was a 10 or 12 page statute that deals with the environmentally sensitive area; he said that the reason this requires P&Z review was for the oversight to look at the whole statue and intent of the statute and ESA. Gardenswartz said that you can see the stair tower from the deck at ACES; the deck was roughly 600 square feet; the pool was close to 600 square feet; a fire pit on the deck; seating walls (well over 100 feet) proposed around the deck. Gardenswartz said this was not a typical homeowners application, this was a historic piece of property with an environmentally sensitive area; this property over looks Hallam Lake and the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies; this was an area that was supposed to have heightened sensitivity. Gardenswartz said this was the only public comment that we were going to get on this application; it is important to consider this in light of the community goals, what are the environmental goals. Gardenswartz said there was discretion in the code and 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 21. 2006 Planning and Zoning has the oversight for this review. Gardenswartz provided the code provision that this area was subject to heightened review to reduce noise and visual impacts to the nature preserve, protect against slope erosion and landslide, minimize impacts on surface runoff, maintain views to and from the nature preserve and ensure the aesthetic and historic integrity of Hallam Lake and Nature Preserve. Gardenswartz said any proposed development shall be at grade within the 15 foot area unless the criteria are met; part of the deck was within the 15 foot area and there were seating walls within that area. Gardenswartz spoke ofthe 1998 review process being flawed and the walls and deck materials were not on the drawings or in the packet. Gardenswartz said the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies teaches our children about the environment; there are school programs day and night. Gardenswartz asked how this application reduced the noise impacts. Gardenswartz submitted excerpts from letters opposing the Lewis application including John Katzenberger, Tom Cardamone, The Aspen Times Editorial, John Bennet, Robert Braudis, Hal Clark, Sally and Christopher Faison, Bruce Gordon, William Gruenberg, Shirley Bush Helzberg, Eve Homeyer, William O. Hunt, Mick Ireland, Richard McCulloch Jones, Suzanne Leydecher, Delia Malone, Lisa Marka1unas, Timothy McFlynn, Barry Mink, Jack Nicholson, Paula Paepcke Zurcher, Garry Pfaffmann, Barb Pitchford, Barbara Reid, Roine Rowland St. Andre, Thomas Fenton Smith, Andy Stone, Annie Teague, James R. True, Kevin Ward, Mary Elizabeth Wolfer, and Selim K. Zi1kha. Gardenswartz stated the lighting plan was just submitted and there was no survey submitted. Gardenswartz said this was not an environmentally sensitive application but a grand entryway for a pool. Gardenswartz said that on Drawing Ll3 he showed 15 feet of deck into the 15 foot area, which was 1/3; he said that there were too many inconsistencies. Gardenswartz questioned the construction management of the project and asked how much was in the 15 foot zone. 3. Bill Weiner, public, stated that he was an architect; he said just because you can doesn't mean you should. Weiner said Hallam Lake was a sanctuary for solitude for people and animals; where kids can relate to nature. Weiner said the real villain is the noise. Weiner submitted drawings for the project as a member of the public to illustrate the tower being moved by flipping it to where it should be located with a lot less impact or just have a stair and not the tower. Weiner asked P&Z not to take any action at this time to develop criteria for a quiet zone. 4. Nicklas Paepcke deGrue1, public, stated that he spent time on this property and wanted to discuss the impact on the ESA; he said that it seemed to be the choice of glitz and glitter or nature. 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES _ MARCH 21. 2006 5. Sara Garton, public, said that she sat on the Planning & Zoning Board in 1998 and the only approval was an observation area; the pool was proposed but never built. Garton stated concern for erosion of the ESA; she encouraged beefing up the ESA. 6. Toni Zurcher, public, said she was a grandchild of Elizabeth Paepcke and worked at ACES as one of the first naturalists. Zurcher said that there were incremental changes on this property. 7. Sharon McVey, public, stated that she was a land owner in Aspen and shared her experience of a tour called Natural Wonders around the World and related her experience in Queensland, Australia with a canopy 115 feet above the rain forest. McVey said because if the DEET that the tourists wear the insects were gone, and with the insects the birds went and a lot of others. McVey said the impacts to this environmentally ESA could be devastative to ACES. 8. David Guthrie, public, said that he was disgusted with the Aspen Times Editorial; he said it was discouraging to hear the personal attacks and remarks. Guthrie said be objective, follow the code, value the community plan; he said the skateboard thing offended him more than this swimming pool. 9. Howie Mallory, public, said that he wanted to provide perspective on the real estate that was advertised with no picture of the house only a picture of ACES. Mallory stated that there was no guidance for the party platform and all the lights; the ESA was designed to protect ACES. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the meeting to 7:15pm; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. All infavor, APPROVED. 10. Bill Gruenberg, public, said that this development was not the right thing to do; it may be technically legal on certain standards but it is inappropriate because many of the ESA criteria were not met. Gruenberg said the wildlife as well as visitors will be impacted; 1998 insubstantial approval did not include a swimming pool such as this; a swimming could have been put in the basement or on the roof. 11. Jim Kravitz, public, stated that he served on staff at ACES. ACES had 2 concerns outlined in the March 14th letter from John Katzenberger and Tom Cardamone to the Aspen Times; the 151 concern was for the encroachment into the 15 foot setback and the 2nd concern as proposed did not address light, sound and other off-site impacts. Kravitz stated that because of these 2 concerns ACES could not support this proposal. 12 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 21. 2006 12. Melissa Erlanger, public, said the structure could not be seen from where she looked up from ACES but she could see many other roofs. 13. Summer Pannetta, public, stated that she was a school teacher who loved ACES and that she takes the kids to ACES, they are a noise impact for sure. 14. Ester Pearlstone, public, said that Jonathan has been very generous with his time and home and he was what is going to take this community forward. Pearlstone said this community needed assets like Mr. Lewis. 15. Dee Malone, public, said that she was a former ACES Board Member but wanted to speak as a biologist and scientist; she noted there was a letter from her in the packet regarding human activities. Malone said that even though ACES was surrounded by development it serves as a critical sanctuary for wildlife. Malone urged the Commission to deny this application. 16. Jonathan Lowsky, public, stated that he was a wildlife biologist and people do have an effect on wildlife with many studies done that show when you push the human disturbance envelope further into wildlife habitat there was an effect on species composition and ecological function. Lowsky said essentially those species leave and the species like robins, jays, house sparrows fill in the gaps. Lowsky said this project could be better by pulling back that disturbance area from the edge of the environmentally sensitive area, which would be positive. 17. John Lassa1ette, public, said it was a dangerous precedent to approve an incomplete application; without the engineering, the soils tests and numerous pieces would seem premature to make any kind of decision. Lassa1ette asked P&Z to be mindful of the 12 or 13 pages of the ESA. 18. Lisa Marka1unas, public, stated that she was a life long Aspen native and encouraged the Commission to really look at the Hallam Lake area because it was a special part of the community. Marka1unas said the incremental development of the area above Hallam Lake would create more noise on that wildlife sanctuary; she encouraged the Commission to protect what remains of Hallam Lake Wildlife Sanctuary. 19. Toni Kronberg, public, commented that Aspen was changing and the runaway development has already occurred. Kronberg asked that the hearing be continued for the applicant to supply the soils analysis, the engineering surveys, noise analysis, and wildlife study. Kronberg said that they had a right to build a swimming pool on their property but wanted to take out the tower and tunnel and replace it with an entryway that was a continuation of the pool. Kronberg gave a history of many of the pools in the valley. 13 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES _ MARCH 21. 2006 20. Enrico Brovsky, public, said that we live in the 21 st century. 21. Chris Facen, public, said the spirit of that code was often by-passed and urged the Commission to appreciate this spirit or this special review process. Kruger requested continuation of this hearing to the April 11 th date and requested the 12 or 13 page ESA document. Johns was interested in hearing responses to questions, additional information and agreed with the continuation. Ruth Kruger excused herself at 7 :20pm. MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to extend the meeting to 7:45pm; seconded Steve Skadron. All infavor, motion APPROVED. Bendon responded to the discussion of the insubstantial amendment approved in 1998; this was not part of the current review. Bendon said the stone building materials to concrete for the construction of the seating walls was done in 1998 by HPC for aesthetic reasons. Bendon said the purpose statement section would answer the question of the redevelopment along Hallam Lake. Bendon said the review criteria were intended to implement that purpose statement that needs to be applied to development applications. Bendon stated the criteria do not go into the public value of the specific use; there were criteria related to setbacks. Bendon said the application was considered complete with a survey requirement compared with the application drawings prepared by a registered landscape architect, which were sufficient to what was being proposed for the Planning & Zoning Commission to effectively review the application. Bendon stated there were engineering requirements in the proposed resolution for technical engineering staff to review upon building permit submission. Bendon said that they will provide the whole ESA section of the code. Dave Lenyo restated this land use application complies with the clear objective measurable review standards contained in the code; there has not been any evidence to the contrary. Lenyo stated that they were disturbed by the nature of some of the comments that were heard tonight as they understand why public comment was permitted but they believe they went far beyond the issues that were presented to the commission as part of this application. Lenyo asked why there were no photos showing the suggested visual impacts on Hallam Lake; they will ask the commission to apply the law for the facts in this case. Lenyo responded to the question of the lighting plan and stated that a lighting plan was not required when there was no request for additional exterior light; there was 14 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 21. 2006 no exterior light as part of this application. The lighting plan submitted was lighting within the interior of the structure, mainly the pool safety lighting. Lenyo stated the survey was submitted in the 1998 approval; soils and engineering questions were not handled at the Planning & Zoning Commission review in the ordinary course of business, it was done by the city engineer. Lenyo stated that there was a list from the Building Department. Lenyo said that there was case law from Colorado Appellate Courts that when you have objective standards of review you cannot look to a purpose section of a statute in order to circumvent those requirements. Lenyo said the Aspen Community Plan was a guideline not a standard of review in connection with the Hallam Lake Bluff Area. Lenyo said there was no requirement for noise or wildlife review but they wanted to impress upon the commission how important this area was to Mr. Lewis; there was no evidence that there would be a probable and direct cause that this project would have an adverse effect on wildlife. Lenyo said it was unfair to talk about a potential ecological effect. Jasmine Tygre stated that the regulations require that the Commissioners make findings based on presentation of the staff, the applicants, what they observe, and testimony from the public; each of the commissioners will probably make different findings even using the same criteria. The commission wanted some more information on which to base those decisions. Dylan Johns said that a lot of information was provided tonight and asked how the construction staging plan works and how that impacts the setbacks. MOTION: Mary Liz Wilson moved to extend the meeting to 8:00 pm; seconded by Steve Skadron. All infavor, APPROVED. The commission requested the entire ESA, the effect of the construction staging on the setbacks, purpose clause, effects of the lighting of the enclosed stair enclosure at night or the possible requirement of more lighting on the exterior stair. John Worcester said that he would provide a memo to the commission. Dave Lenyo said that it would be helpful to have Mr. Worcester in the room. Lenyo said that he understands it that public comment will be closed; what the commission was asking for was very specific things. Jasmine Tygre said this would be a continued public hearing; that means that members of the public were invited and welcomed to attend; it was not planned at this time that additional 15 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES _ MARCH 21. 2006 public comments but that was not the intention at this point, but it is a continued public hearing. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing on the 414 North 1st Street, Hallam Lake ESA to April 11th; Mary Liz Wilson seconded. All in favor, APPROVED. Meeting adjourned at 8: lOpm. ~ ~.,~) . Jackie Lothian, eputy City Clerk l../ 16