Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19710601 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves f~" C.'.HO!CKELB.B.lil.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning June 1, 1971 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Robin Molny at 5:00 p.m. with Charles Collins, Irwin Harland and William Tharp. Also present Regional Planner Herb Bartel. Harland moved to approve the minutes of May 25th as prepared and mailed by the Secretary. Seconded by Tharp. All in favor, motion carried. Charles Worth Stream Margin Request Charles Worth, Stream Margin Request Bartel - "What I have is a memorandum from Charles Gilkey City Engineer, I'll read this: '''I have met with Mr. Worth in the field on the site as well as examined the same with you and Mr. Meyring. Based on fiald observation and information submitted by Mr. Worth, it is my considered opinion that it would be in the best interest of all parties con- cerned to place the area lying Easterly of Black Birch Dr. more specifically, Lots 11, 12, C, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 as common ground and that the area Westerly of Black Birch Dr. be re-subdivided for residential development.'" "Let me stop at this point in the letter and let me show you this subdivision plat of record which you can see what we are saying. The comment is that the area from Lot 11 on be left open and area above the street be re-subdivided." '''I base this decision on the fact that although Mr. Worth did submit information relative to water flow, etc. on both Castle Creek and the Roaring Fork River, this does not cover the probem which we should give the utmost consideration, which would be the 100 year storm or something greater and the fact that this is a point of conversion of both streams and the possibility of extreme flooding under even semi=extreme conditions could be quite hazardous. I would like to point out specifically that by using this approach of re-subdivision, there would be no loss to Mr. Worth as far as density or the ability to obtain monetary return on his investment in this subdivision. I would agree that the information furnished to us by Mr. Worth is probably accurate, however, the proximity of the reports and readings which he obtained are not in the specific location that we are considering. As an added point, I would most definitely recommend that at the earliest possible time budgeting be arranged for a flood plain study in so much as we have en~cted an ordinance that makes this almost mandatory 1n order for us to give intelligent and proper consideration to problems such as these.'" .--,,~,"-'.. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F~'O C.F.HOECKELB.B.!tL.CO. P & Z, Reg. Meeting, 6/1/71, continued. "I'll just put that letter in the file and if you want to read it, you may. The other thing that I have done since the last meeting is a concept not intended to be a sub- division plat which shows the possibility of taking some of the larger lots, putting clusters on them so that the over all lot area remains the same so could, in fact, be increased. The advantage of the sub-dividing is that it would make the river frontage available to or available for use by all the lots within the subdivision by designat- ing that as common area. To reemphasize the intent of the stream margin regulations, was to insure that development would not occur in areas that are . subjectto flooding as well as to protect the natural character of the stream and to prevent any damage to it by removal of vegetation and erosion. I have shown that general concept to Mr. Worth and I think at this point it would be proper, Robin, to hear from him at this time." Mr. Worth - "Could I answer a few points in this letter? because it does have some bearing on the subject. I passed out some zerox sheets probably everybody has seen. They are very pertinent to what actually goes on here. I would like to point out that it does cover the period of 100 year storm and the information is pertinent to the site in particular because that is where I did all the surveying and work. First the flooding of the Roaring Fork, its a pretty good curve because there are records from 49 years and I projected 100 year flood 3652 c.f.s. is a godd projection. I worked out a similar curve on Castle Creek and unfortunately there are only 8 years of record for Castle Creek. Two of the years were extremely high water, they were years, 1917 and 1918 when there was high water on the Roaring Fork. The projection that I took for Castle Creek of 1600 c. f. s. for 100 year flood is extremely high because the two highest years were 50 year flood and not a 10 or 8 year flood. That put the curve up to 1600 c.f.s., quite a high figure for that stream. I worked out several other surveying for this cross section taken just adjacent to the lot, you can see on the last page, the map where those cross sections are, they are adjacent to the lot that is in question. The approach to flooding of the stream is usually taken on some basis such as this, this is the approach that the U. S. D. S. uses and most engineering firms use when building at the bottom of the river. So in one case here, I figured out what it would be to fill the river up and I did that on two cross sections and then what that would be is well over 2000 c.f.s. and that does not include over-flowing of the right bank which is lower than the bank where the building is located. I did another figure which would assume the water would be within l' that is l' below the level of the house, the water would than be carrying 4000 c.f.s. which is absurb because it just really illustrates how much water might actually go down there. What I would submit to the Board, is information that is information that was pointed to that particular spot and projections were for 100 year floods which is certainly all you can project because we don't have that much record. - 2 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIlM'O C.F.HOECKELO.8.81L.CO. P & Z, Reg. Meeting, 6/1/71, continued. The other thing that I would like to point out is that the subdivision I have was done quite a few years ago, although If I were doing it today, I would certainly entertain the thought of moving things around perhaps doing what I could to cluster houses and so forth. This subdivision is quite an old subdivision and even at the time it came under the County subdivision regulations, which specifically mentioned flooding, other hazards such as snow slides, rock slides. I assume at that point that the area was free from such hazards and I believe from the work that I have done it is indeed free from flooding. There might be some problem in relocating some of those lots, do not feel that is per- tinent. Any questions of the information I submitted to the Board?" Chairman Molny - "Any questions from the Board?" Adams _ "Chuck, have you ever walked up stream about a mile or half to see where the low spots might be on Castle Creek?" Mr. Worth - "I have been up and down." Adams _ "Do you remember any high water periods when part of the land west of Castle Creek was inundated?~ Mr. Worth - "Well in particular I can, this was also the case with Red Butte. I can tell you one of the situations up there that might have contributed to some water being on the land. The ditch that runs from Castle Creek down along Black Birch and along Red Butte and when I got this piece of ground the ditch was still there but there was not headgate and the ditch was in bad repair. In the spring time when Castle Creek comes up, there was a lot of water going down the ditch and it actually could flood the land quite a bit. I was aware of, do you know what one c.f.s. is or amounts to on flat gound? In 24 hours one c.f.s. of water will cover one acre of ground with 2' of water about 2 acres with I'. If you have 2 to 3' coming down a ditch and flooding, it wouldn't take too long to flood the ground and there probably was or were instances when a lot of water from Castle Creek covering that ground. One of the first things I did was put a headgate in to keep that water under control. We had the same problem in Red Butte and it was a long way from there with a lot of flat ground and there were times when there was water down there too." Chairman Molny - "In making our determination, we have to really keep in mind, (1) we are just beginning to enforce a brand new and important regulation and what we are trying to do is preserve what we have, in the way of what borders the stream from the area; (2) we have to be very careful in establishing a good track record here - consistency and logical and Chuck has been very cooperative and also when we went into the property there was one developed area, then there was an open spot, then we got into the - 3 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FO~M 10 C. r. HOECKEL B. 8. &: L. CO. P & Z, Reg. Meeting 6/1/71, continued. Black Birch Estates. The intervening area is in single ownership. That will have to be considered when he decides to develop also. We cannot do one thing now and another thing later in our determinations without getting into some kind of track record, we have to be careful of. Anymore questions or comments?" Harland - "Yes I do. Was this subdivision plat under the County at one time?" Bartel - There should be a date on the plat." 1967 Chairman Molny - "Lorraine do you have a copy of the stream margin regulations?" Graves - "No, but I can get them downstairs." Meeting recessed while regulations were being obtained. Chairman Molny - "1'11 read certain portions of the reg- ulations that are pertinent:" "'AND WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary to establish a stream margins district to guide development and encourage appropriate use of land in proximity to designated natural water courses and to insure provisions and regulations for adequate protection and preservation of the designated natural water courses. to guide development and encourage appropriate use of land in proximity to designated natural water courses, to promote safety from flooding, to pre- vent impediment of natural water flow, and to insure provisions for adequate protection and preservation of the designated natural water courses as important natural features. A development plan shall be submitted to the Build- ing Inspector which shows the following information: (a) Boundary (b) Contours (c) Existing and proposed improvements; (d) Construction procedure to be used; (e) Existing trees and shrubs. In reviewing the development plan the Building Inspector and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following guidelines and standards: (a) Buildings are located so as not to be subject to flooding; (b) Trails can be provided along the stream as an important element of an adopted open space plan; (c) Vegetation is not removed or any slope and grade changes made what will produce erosion of the stream bank or area adjacent to the stream; - 4 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FO~" C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. Reg. Meeting, P & Z, 6/1/71, continued. (d) Stream channel capacity changes are artifici- ally produced and stream sedimentation and suspen- sion loads are not increased; (f) Development not interfere with important natural changes as to the stream which are occur- ring;'" "I don't know if that did any good for you, but it seems to me these are the high points from the regulations which apply to this for our consideration. The regulations are here if you want to look at it further." Bartel - "In reviewing the procedures, the procedures are that the Planning and Zoning Commission comments, you do not actually make the determination as to whether a building permit is issued or not that is up to the Building Inspector based on your comments. I don't know whether that makes you job any easier or not. I feel that we have enough information to prepare the comments to the Building InspectoL" Adams - "It's awfully close to high water time, there is about one month away. This is probably one of the highest years because it has been so cold up to now. As much as I hate to see it, I really would like to see and observe that territory during high water this particular year." Tharp - "Mr. Worth's file and study on the flooding seems to be thorough and conclusive. I for one couldn't comment on that. There are severl problems which you raised in the regulations. We don't know what construction on the lots, what affect this will have. We don't know what affect it will have upstream and my major concern, I suppose is, that I would hate to see the City get into a situation where it was necessary for us to build a levy from the Castle Creek Bridge to the Roaring Fork River to prevent flooding." Collins - "I have a comment or two. I am somewhat concerned about the last item in the ordinance in as far as inter- ferring with the natural course of the stream. I think these sites are such in the flood plain of this stream, of the confluence of the Roaring Fork as well as Castle Creek. I think I can see where the situation could arise where Castle Creek perhaps would want to change its boundaries at the point of this particular site, there maybe available cross sections to handle a certain amount of flow. But there maybe constrictions or there maybe changes taking place upstream on Castle that could divert the water from its channel as it exists at the confluence of the Roaring Fork River as it is at present. The other thing is that conceivably There could be maximum flows at the sametime in Castle Creek as well as the Roaring Fork River and if this were to happen it could affect the access of Castle Creek into the Roaring Fork because if the Roaring Fork were already high, Castle Creek would have to be diverted. - 5 - "'-'. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIIMIO C.F.HOECKEL8.B.&L.CO. Reg. Meeting, P & Z, 6/1/71, continued. So I feel this is just about a marginal case where conceivably There could be some flooding in there. And to go back to the first statement about interferring with the natural changes of the stream, I think that stream could very likely change its bed or location at sometime in the future." Goodhard - "The water level down there is quite low. You don't have to go very low to get water, Charley?" Mr. Worth - "No, water is pretty close." Goodhard - "They had a tough time putting in sewer if I remember right." Mr. Worth _ 11............. II Chairman Molny - "I don't think anyone has mentioned the west bank of Castle Creek is always higher than the east bank and would be subject to under cutting, that is a laymans opinion of course. Some erosion which shollad be taken into consideration. It is too bad we have to consider one of the toughest problems right off the bat. I would just like to make another appeal to you to see if we can't collaborate on this thing. Go for re-subdividing in the interest of saving that bank of Castle Creek and Roaring Fork in preserving not only in the interest of eliminating danger of flooding but preserving the vegetation on the bank." Dunaway - "How many lots sold and the legality of that." Mr. Worth - "There are 8 lots on the river, one house and four lots are in other ownership." Bartel - "On any replatting, any owners land that would be included would have to sign as a landowner. The approach that I suggested, however, was to utilize the existing street pattern, existing drainage plan as well as the utility easements with the exception of those lots which would be additionally resubdivided." Chairman Molny - "Is there anything further?" Harland - "I would like to offer a possible solution. I don't know whether it completely meets our requirements or not. (1) possibility of providing a strip or setback along the river of about 50' along lots 12 thru 17, that could be used by all the lots, for access to the road and to that strip; (2) provide that any building on lots 12 thru 17 be protected from flooding i.e. no basements, houses be built above ground level; (3) an agreement by the buyers not to hold the City responsible of flooding in case a permit is issued on tho se lots." Bartel - " I can't answer that last question at all but certainly some agreement could be drawn that could go with the land." - 6 - -.......,-'..,~........"......., ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'. C.f.HOECKELB.B.ll L.CO. P & Z, Reg. Meeting, 6/1/71, continued. Harland - '~hat I am thinking of, there are cases in Los Angeles in particular City and County Building Department have been sued for issuing permits on lots that have slid and gone down hill." Chairman Molny - "The essence of what you are saying is that all determinations we make are based on our original charge of health, safety and welfare. And the same with the building department and so on thru the City Government. The responsibility for damage due to flooding could be placed on municipal government." Collins - "I want to say one other thing in regards to this site. This area is in the historic flood plain. This has been proven time and time again that while you can have a certain volume of water in a particular place, the whole picture can change if some maximum intensity flood hits the area and you have some kind of impediment or constriction an obstacle that impedes the flow of the stream and that stream is going to flow allover the place. And good testimony to this was the floods some years ago in Denver. The Platte went out of its banks and the reason it went out of its banks is because of constrictions floating debri etc. hung up on the bridges and put the water allover out into the historic flood plain where they have built for many years and I feel this is a comparable situation. That the flood plain is not 30, 40' that constitutes the stream that you know today hut rather in some relatively flat area such as we have here, it maybe 100' or 200'. The nature of composition of the earth, the soil that is down in this area now leaves me to believe this is the flood plain and with any problem upstream could inundate this whole, all most all these sites we're talking about, plus more." Chairman Molny - "I have a suggestion if you are willing to take this course, would you like us to table this?" Mr. Worth - "I would like a determination now. I would like to answer other points, the inference of the Platte River and Castle Creek. These are two different rivers and in two different parts of the country. There are ......., water sheds are different. The watershed of the Platte River is dry land, vegetation is fairly sparse, the holding capacity of the ground that makes up the watershed, not very good due to the lack of vegetation, lumbering, grazing and so forth. In fact, a lot of the streams in eastern colorado only have water in them when they flood. They don't flood like we have they have a big flood. Perhaps if they had a watershed with the trees in place ....... would hold the capacity as water goes. That is the basic difference between them. I think there is as much da~ger.in having a building like the Chateau Eclair g01ng 1n next to the Roaring Fork River, not very far aIbove the river, its not your problem in building where am. - 7 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOil..... C.r.KOEnELa.B.ll L.CO. P & Z, Reg. Meeting, 6/1/71, continued. Adams - "That is the reason we are having such a problem right now. I would like to make a motion. Adams moved that the Commission recommend to the Building Inspector to seriously consider requiring that all buidings on these Lots 12 thru 17 be set back sufficiently from the edge of the present course of the stream and that the buildings on these lots be built in such a way to protect from flooding i.e. no basements, lower floors be elevated etc. set on pilings of some sort and that there be an agreement in writing promoted by Mr. Worth with the owners of those lots and any fUture owners that the City will not be held responsible for flooding. Seconded by Harland. "It seems pointless to talk only about the strip along the stream and if something serious happens to that whole area. I don't know what we're going to prove by the setback, how we're going to protect the welfare by not allowing building." Chairman Molny - "Those people contact and its up to the Commision to figure if it is serious enough to contact those people and bring them in on it. Tharp - "I am not certain what we would do otherwise, but I think we are not really doing anything just passing the buck down to the Building Inspector. Its unfortunate that this extreme problem came to us almost immediately. It is compounded by the fact that we are not dealing here with a convicted land raper and therefore what we do or what we don't do is tempered by this fact I am convinced. I would feel much more at lease if we were making a recommendation not to issue a building permit and then Mr. Worth would know exactly where he stood and the Building Inspector would have a clearer guideline as to what he is to do. Then Mr. Worth could go ahead and either go to court, resubdivide or what have you. As it now stands he goes to the Building Inspector and must go thru much of what he has done here again with him and he is still not certain what the Building Inspector is going to do because there are no clear guidelines in this case." Harland - '~e are not going to prevent the flooding of this land or other lands by our action here. If it floods, it floods. If it does we want to protect the possible owners of that land from the results of the flood. That is why I brought the three points up. Nothing will change it by going to court either." Bartel - "You only have application for one lot, in fact , we have only a site plan for one lot although we have to consider that we are setting a precedent for all the lots involved, however, I feel it was not the intent of the regulations to approve development on them with- out a site plan. For that reason I bring this up that - 8 - "",.-.., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!l C.F.KOECKELB.B.liL.CO. P & Z, Reg. Meeting 6/1/71, continued. the motion only pertain to this one lot." Chairman Molny - "It is proper, Jim, for you to amend the motion. I have a comment on the motion as it stands. I feel the motion is arbitrary and expedient. The essence of what we are doing here is the fact that those pieces of land have not as yet been built upon. And the only opportunity to evaluate this lot and all the rest of the lots is before they are built upon. Mr. Worth has said that it is to bad that we didn't to this four years ago because he would have cooperated with us even more so then he has so far. I think we should take the attitude that we should not try for the ideal right now." Adams moved to amend the motion to apply to only Lot 12. Seconded by Harland. Roll call vote - Adams aye; Tharp nay; Harland aye; Goodhard nay; Collins nay; Molny nay. Motion dies. Main Motion - Roll call vote - Adams aye; Tharp nay; Harland aye; Collins nay; Goodhard nay; Molny nay. Motion dies. Tharp moved that the Commission recommend to the Building Inspector that a building permit application on Lot 12 be denied based on the City IDngineer's report and inconclusive evidence regarding possible flood danger. Seconded by Collins. Roll call vote - Goodhard aye; Collins aye; Harland nay; Tharp aye; Molny aye; Adams aye. Motion carried. Chairman Molny stated to Mr. Worth the Commission would cooperate in anyway possible to obtain a solution to this problem. Mr. Hal Calrk, County Building Inspector, was present and request the Commissions assistance in obtaining authorization for a flood plain study in the County. Area east of the City limits will affect the area inside the City limits. Chairman Molny request Mr. Clark notify him as to when the request is to be made. Hoag Subdivision Hoag Subdivision - Chairman Molny stated he would be abstaining from discussion and voting. Mr. Bartel explained this meeting is not to review the plat but to see that all conditions made by the Commission at the time of reviewing the preliminary plat have been met. Conditions as outlined in the minutes of February 9th and 23rd were reviewed. Commission reviewed and noted the correspondence in the file with the Burea~of Land Management relating to access to lots. Mr. Blanning stated although the City Engineer's letter -9- -". RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM I! C.F.HOECKELO.B.&l.CO. P & Z, Reg. Meeting, 6/1/71, continued comments that a 10' strip along Ute Avenue should be dedicated, the Commission previously agreed the 10' strip could be reversed at this time for the eventual widening of Ute Avenue. Relative to avalanche danger, Mr. Blanning reported he had contacted engineers who state they would have to knoe what is going to be built before recommending protection measures. Mr. Blanning submitted two letters relating to the serving of this area with utilities: City of Aspen and Metro Sanitation District. Letter from Metro states they will need a commitment from the property owners prior to giving approval to service this area. Mr. Blanning stated Holy Cross has agreed to service this area, but had not written the letter as such. As multiple use of the easements, Mr. Blanning stated he has provided on the plat 50' easement along the railroad right of way. As relates to the legality of selling lots prior to sub- dividing, Mr. Blanning stated he felt the Commission would obtain an opinion from the City Attorney. Mr. Bartel stated he had talked to Mr. Kern, City Attorney, who states he would need the background material before giving the Commission an opinion. The burden is upon the applicant to provide to the Commission evidence that the regulations have not been violated. Secretary called Mr. Startup of Holy Cross and reported Holy Cross is requiring a 15' right of way on the exterior boundarys of the subdivision and 7-1/2' on each side of the interior in order to protect Holy Cross. Discussed requiring Ute Cemetery to be shown on the plat, even though it is to be deeded to the City. Mr. Bartel stated the reason for showing this on the plat is so that there is a metes and bounds description. Adams moved Ute Cemetery be included on the plat. Seconded by Goodhard. Harland stated there could be a separate plat on Ute Cemetery. Commission request this suggestion be discussed with the City Engineer. Roll call vote - Adams aye; Tharp nay; Harland nay; Collin! aye; Goodhard aye; Molny abstain. Motion carried. Adams moved that this plat be amended to include the rights of way being required by Holy Cross in case underground utilities do not go in and Mr. Blanning write a history of this property before Mr. Blanning realized ownership of the property and submit this to City Attorney Kern and Mr. Blanning be available for questions from Mr. Kern. -10- ""' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C. F. HDECKEL B. B. It LCD. P & Z, Reg. Meeting, 6/1/71, continued. Seconded by Harland. All in favor, with exceptions of Collins nay; Molny abstain. Motion carried. Chairman Molny request the Secretary clear with the Chairman before Hoag Subdivision again appears on the agenda. Tharp moved to adjourn at 6:50 p.m., seconded by Collins. All in favor, meeting adjourned. (/-y~, ~ ----- Lorraine Craves, Secretary "W'.'_'.__""......._ ,~-_._..-.._-~..._-_.- ....-... CORRECTION Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - June 1, 1971 Page 10, Paragraph 3 As multiple use of the easements, Mr. Blanning stated he has provided on the plat 15' trail easement along the railroad right of way. ~~~~ #~ Lorraine Graves, Secretary