Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840918 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 1984 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5: 05 p.m. with commissioners Jasmine Tygre , Pat Fallin, 11elton Anderson, Lee Pardee, David I-,Ihite, Roger Hunt, and Mary Peyton present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS -lin addressed the issue of dismantling the joint status of t li pl an j,4 11g -f7 i . S I .L �LJL dle remeiitbered that the Comi-Assion wrote a resolution or letter which did not support the Planning office split . Y'llhat happened with that document? Sunny Vann, planning office, explained the complaint; the planning office is not getting the job done and progress is not fast enough. Practically, he has run out of ideas on how to explain to Council what it takes to produce that which Council wants. He encouraged the commissioners to approach councilmembers and explain what the Commission has been doing. Express the progress the Commission is making. Hunt recommended a joint session with Council . Such a meeting never has transpired. It would be nice to enlighten some of the councilmembers. Vann continued. The blame is not directed at the Commission . The complaint is directed toward the planning director and the work program. The sketch plan which was asked for last year still has not been addressed. Harvey encouraged the commissioners to talk with some councilmem- bers. Harvey will approach the mayor about a joint session . Vann said the staff has assumed that the program the Commission has signed and endorsed represents a reasonable way to accomplish the goals. There has been progress . If the Commission does not feel satisfied with its progress then the planning office needs to know that. There has been frustration over moving ahead on certain issues. But, the process has been adhered to achieve the goals . It does take time to finish the work . Council has identified a host of issues that have not been addressed. Planning agrees with the issues, but there is a logical process to accomplish this. Bil Dunaway, publisher for the Aspen Times, interjected that the the Council does not feel that the Planning office is advocating their view. The Council does not like the planning office making and expressing decisions which are contrary to their decisions. Vann said the issue is a philosophical discussion about the roles . Ile advocates that the planning office ' s role is to provide apolitical advice in both the county and city jurisdictions and to serve as a bridge between those two jurisdictions. Tygre said the commissioners are appointed not elected to their positions. The commissioners are removed from the pressure to accomplish things within a reign. Elected officials have a need to feel that they have accomplished something tangible during their elected term. Continuity is not as important to the elected official ; they focus on accomplishments. The commissioners have the opportunity to see the continuity and evolution of I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning_ Commission September 18. 1984 projects. It is less important to get something quickly accom- plished as it is to get something logically accomplished. Short cuts generate real problems. Taking time may be a good approach. From the elected point of view it can be frustrating. Pardee stated it is important that the commissioners and the planning office know what is happening with Council . All parti- cipants spend a lot of time working on the issues . He wants to know if Council wants rubber stamp advice from the Commission and planning office. He does not want to waste his time reviewing and analyzing the issues if Council will not receive the conclu- sions because Council has already reached its own decisions. I-ie wants to know Council ' s position now. Council can appoint people who will represent what Council wants. Vann noted that many in the audience at the planning' s budget hearing disagreed with the Council ' s interpretation of the planning office ' s role . Pardee requested a joint meeting with Council . There is a need to establish basic philosophical roles, objectives, and obligations. Vann said another area of discussion was the lack of direction from the top down. Pardee noted not one council- member has attended a commissioner ' s meeting. V-7hite reported a move to reduce some of the boards from seven members to five members. The Commission has been involved in a tremendous amount of work this past year. There were major issues addressed. If the Commission was composed of five members many issues would not be resolved. Express this to Council. A five member Commission might have some difficulty with the big issues. Hunt reported he had a conversation with Paul Taddune , city attorney, about his expired term on the Commission. There are two other commissioners in the same position. Until Hunt is advised otherwise Hunt and the other two expired commissioners (Tygre and Pardee) are to continue as members. Hunt addressed an issue about open space in the L-3 zone. Gideon Kaufman contacted Hunt. Kaufman did request that this issue be placed on the agenda this evening for short discussion. Hunt requested this issue be placed at the end of the agenda. MINUTES August 7. 1984: Hunt corrected "Ludine ' s" to "Lou Deane ' s, " page one, paragraph one. Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the minutes of August 7 , 1984 , as corrected; seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor ; motion carried. August 21, 1984: Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes of August 21 , 1984; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor; motion carried. September 4. 1984: Pat Fallin moved to approve the minutes of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 18. 1984 September 4, 1984; seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor ; motion carried. OLD BUSINESS ROUSE EXEMPTION FROM MANDATORY PUD RECONSIDERATION OF TRAIL EASEMENT Leslie Lee, planning office, said the Commission is reviewing a reconsideration of one of the conditions of approval for the Roush duplexing. Exemption from mandatory PUD was approved in flay, 1984. One condition of approval was that a trail easement be dedicated on the eastern portion of the property. Lee presented site plans of the Roush property. She oriented the Commission as to the location of the Roush house. It is located on the Castle Creek subdivision, lot number six. Roush received approval to duplex the single family unit under construction at that time. There is not a problem with square footage for duplexing. There is no specific trail alignment designation. On the 1973 and the 1979 trail ' s plan an alignment is designated through the property. She indicated the property on the city map on the wall of the council chambers. The property goes to the river . The applicant feels that it is inappropriate as part of an approval for an exemption from a mandatory PUD to condition the approval with a trail easement. The applicant believes that the trail easement condition is beyond the scope of the proposal of the application. Lee referred to the staff memo dated September 18, 1984 , ("Roush Exemption. . .City Case No. 014A-84" ) and to a letter written by I:aren Smith, dated July 19, 1984 . She read from the memo: "For reasons described in the letter the applicants find objectionable the requirement of granting a trail easement to the city as part of the special review approval for exemption from mandatory PUD. It is true, as stated in the applicant ' s letter that the special review was for an exemption from mandatory PUD and that dedication of trails is not among the eight specific criteria of mandatory PUD, it is not a general review requirement. The granting of trail easements, however, is part of the subdivision regula- tions for the city of Aspen. A PUD or mandatory PUD, prior to its approval, must be in compliance with the subdivision regulations. . . " It is now the Commission' s decision as to whether or not trail easements are an appropriate extraction through the special review process. Lee concluded it was appropriate to condition the approval with the trail easement requirement. Harvey asked if it is within the Commission' s purview to condition the approval with a trail easement. Barry Edwards, city attorney, remarked that the Commission has the authority to request tnat condition. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 18. 1984 David Finholm, architect for the applicant, commented the reason for duplexing was to build a legal second kitchen. The appropriate process to establish a legal second kitchen is through a duplexing zoning . It is a housesitting unit. The size is not changed. The structure exists. The second kitchen does not exist. If the Commission denies the reconsideration of the trail easement his client will not duplex. Harvey said the project is zoned R-30/PUD. The project is exempt from mandatory PUD. The project is zoned a duplex lot. I•Iandatory PUD prior to its approval must be in compliance with subdivision regulations. The determination here is whether that exemption from mandatory PUD has to meet subdivision regulations. Lee interpreted that the Commission can request that condition. Hunt asked if there is a trail plan for the site. Lee said there is a trail alignment within the adopted master plan. Hunt noted the city is trying piecemeal to get the easements to conform with the master plan. If a trail plan is designated on the adopted plan then it is perfectly logical to get the PUD in conformity with subdivision. Harvey asked about a private picnic area on the lower portion of the site near Castle Creek. Does the trail easement interfere with the aesthetic and scenic values of this lower portion of the site? Paragraph three, item three, of Smith' s letter addresses the desirability and suitability of the trail location as questionable : "the bank above is steep making access for maintenance and repairs di.fficult . . . it is marshy, subject to high water , and comprised of very dense riparian vegetation. . .construction would be difficult and could have adverse impact on wildlife habitat. " Is the trail located in the same area as the quiet, secluded outdoor retreat? Finholm answered yes. During high water there could be problems. The bicycle path could be forced to detour. The path may erode. His client bought the land for its beauty. They do not want to sit next to the river viewing bicycles. His client does not want to be forced to agree to a trail easement in order to receive the duplex zoning. Harvey asked if there are any other parcels in this location with trail easements. Lee said the Roush property is the first segment along the Castle Creek section. Harvey asked if the bicyclist will have to hike through the riparian underbrush to get to this section of the trail . Lee explained the intent is for the city to get the segments bit by bit. This is the first segment. The property was subdivided in 1965 prior to any master plan for trails. Peyton asked what are the chances of acquiring enough parcels to build a trail. Lee explained trail easements can be acquired in • number of ways : through the subdivision process , through • gift or donation of easements, and through condemnation. Aspen has never received a trail easement through condemnation. The city prefers receiving easements through donation or the subdivision RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 18. 1984 process. Lee indicated on the wall map the location of the proposed trail . Peyton asked if Roush purchased the property with the right to build a duplex without a trail easement. Harvey explained Roush would have been required to go through the PUD process. The trail easement would have been requested as part of the PUD. White , Pardee , Hunt , Fallin, and Tygre supported the trail easement. Anderson reasoned the chance of a trail actually being built is pretty remote. He supported the trail easement because it will not impact the residents. Hunt emphasized the more easements that are acquired then the better is the chance a trail will be built. It is time to start. Harvey noted it is the Commission' s policy to pick up easements when it can. Finholm requested the Commission not vote on the issue. Ilis client will probably not duplex if the trail easement is required. His client does not want the trail placed on his property. Fie requested the withdrawal of the application. Edwards noted duplexing was already approved with the condition. Harvey said the client has the choice not to build the duplex. The present request is for reconsideration of the trail easement. Therefore, the Commission needs to vote on that issue. What is the status of the trail easement since approval of duplexing has been granted with this condition? Edwards replied until the duplex is met then the condition is not met. The Commission needs to move or not move to reconsider. Roger Hunt moved to reaffirm the Commission' s position to maintain a trail easement. The Commission will not reconsider the trail easement , the original approval stands as is. Seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor ; motion carried. OLD BUSINESS HEMMETER 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW RECONSIDERATION OF DESIGN Welton Anderson declined to participate in this hearing due to a conflict of interest. Colette Penne , planning office, said on July 10 , 1984 , the Commission established an ultimate buildout for this property. The buildout is 13 ,475 square feet. There were seven conditions attached to that approval that are reiterated in the planning office ' s memorandum of September 18, 1984 . Some design changes are being proposed. They are substantial enough that the Commission needs to reaffirm that the 8040 greenline approval stands. The elevator tower is being lowered and moved eastward . The new design responds to a condition that all effort should be made to make the elevator tower lower. The Commission should review the relocation eastward. The elevator tower ' s height reduction is six feet. The bridge is reduced in length from 87 feet to 50 feet. The number of bends in the bridge have been reduced from r- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Sentember 18. 1984 two ninety degree angles to one 127 degree angle. One pylon is eliminated. There is less bulk. The floor area of the structure is being increased to its maximum, 13 , 475 square feet . The applicant submits that only 612 square feet of that additional area, which is slightly over 2 , 000 square feet, is actually visible. There is an extensive landscaping plan proposed for the hill, the area above the 8040 greenline . It is questionable within the guidelines of 8040 whether the Commission should review the landscaping. But she believes it is appropriate because the landscaping is pretty extensive. The plan may also change the natural character of the mountain above the 8040 greenline . The Commission therefore should review the appro- priateness �of the landscaping plan. If the Commission approves the changes this action can be added to the caseload file of the original 8040 . The approval of changes is considered an amendment to the original approval. Harvey asked if 8040 greenline review requires a public hearing. Larry Yaw, architect for the applicant, presented plans of the project . The improvement in design was initiated by a request from the Commission. He indicated on the plans the configuration which was approved during the 3040 greenline review. The Commission at that time requested the height of the tower be reduced. IIe located the existing position of the tower, the bridge, and the pylons. The tower will be reduced six feet . He located the new position of the tow. : . '1he bridge will b- reduced in size and the visual impact will be reduced. There will be one expanse support . The new design accomplishes what the Commission sug- gested. Hunt asked if the reduction is in altitude or height . Iaw replied the total height of the elevator tower is reduced by six feet. An eighteen foot addition is permitted. The height has been reduced relative to absolute topography as opposed to slope. The building will be built to its maximum allowed buildout with the changes. The aggregate visible elements, which will have a minimal impact , total 612 feet . He located the bulk of the additional square footage which brings the building to its allowed floor area. Yaw indicated the three areas which constitute the additional 612 square feet. Since the previous review 2 ,000 square feet have been added to the design. The bulk of the addition is located underground. Harvey asked from what vantage points are the additions visible. Yaw answered the additions will be blocked from the streets by the Durant condominiums. The addition will be visible from one vantage point, between the two condominium buildings. Harvey asked what is the height of the roofline. Yaw explained the peaks of the roof remain the same. The roofline is not visible from the mountain. He presented existing elevations. He pointed out the three additions. The Commission convened around the plans and discussed the changes. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting_ Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 1984 Pardee reminded the applicant that he opposed the earlier motion. He said that there still has not been enough information (graphics of the original design and the proposed design) presented for him to say the new design is substantially better. He objected to an image of a Grand Central station clock tower . Yaw argued that the Commission approved the design earlier with a suggestion to reduce the height. Yaw has returned with a change in the design, although the change is not necessary. Pick McGrath, counsel for the applicant, commented that there is now a 33% reduction in height. Yaw introduced the landscaping plan. The owner wants a path in the area to the north, the upslope and west facing slope of the house. The natural landscape in that area is oak and Aspen. The Aspens are diseased. The landscaping plan addresses the request for a path and the replacement of the diseased Aspens. Robin Crie , landscape designer for the applicant, made the presentation of the landscape plan. She referred to landscaping plans posted on the wall. She highlighted the addition to the house , the bridge , and the tower . An evergreen edge will be maintained between the residence and the mountain. Indigenous plant materials will be used. There will no disturbance to the grade on the northwest corner of the property. Dead Aspen trees will be removed. Groves of Aspen trees will be introduced to one part of the property which is consistent with what already exists. There will be a self-contained water feature that runs through the garden. The water feature will be contained with an impermeable layer. The water feature is a circulating system. Stone walls and stone pathways will be introduced. A fire access will be provided also. Harvey asked the location of the 8040 greenline. Crie pointed out the 8040 greenline on the landscaping plan. Harvey asked what is the vertical feet of the garden. Yaw commented the garden will not be seen above or below. The only regrading is for the path. Hemneter committed to locate evergreens on the property. Since trees are dieing this is a nice opportunity to carry the evergreens up the slope. Tygre asked for a description of the stone wall and path. Yaw assured the Commission that the stone wall is not an architectural wall . The paving is done with stone. Fallin supported the changes. Hunt questioned the viewplane on the south side of the house. Yaw answered the existing topography walls the house from the mountain. Hunt asked if the addition of trees interferes with the view of the Fasching House. Yaw did not think so. Hunt supported the plan. Pardee argued the 8040 line is sacred. One property owner is being allowed to go beyond that line ostensibly. He is still concerned the tower will look like a clock tower . The applicant has done an admirable job in reducing the tower is height and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 1984 visibility. The landscape plan is more than acceptable. He will vote no . Harvey explained the base of the structure is well below the 8040 greenline. 8040 is a review for construction above the 8040 line, not for projections above the 8040 line . Pardee complained about the insufficient amount of elevations present at this meeting. White preferred to see more graphics. Hunt favored seeing elevations. The Commission proceeded to the next item on the agenda so that the architect could retrieve more drawings. PUBLIC HEARING RESOLUTION 84-11 ASPEN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES Harvey directed Richman again to highlight changes in resolutions. Richman noted the only changes were to the language in transpor- tation : the words "convenience and safety" are added to goal six; and objective four is clarified to say that "a bus link be provided between Aspen and Glenwood. " Harvey opened the public hearing. Ratie Smith, member of the goals task force, complimented the Commission for incorporating all eleven of the task force ' s goals in the resolution. She emphasized goal number five. That goal incorporates four of the goals task force conclusions. She is now a member of the goals task force which is investigating the city' s involvement in resorts. She stressed the idea of Aspen as a community is equally as important as Aspen as a resort. Harvey closed the public hearing. Roger Hunt moved to adopt Resolution 484-11 , ( "Recommending that the Aspen City Council Endorse the Goals and Objectives of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan") ; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor ; motion carried. HENNETER 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW/RECONSIDERATION, continued Yaw presented a roughed in sketch of the new plan. The sketch is superimposed over the original design. Pat Fallin moved to approve the changes to the elevator tower as outlined in the letter from Larry Yaw, dated August 30, 1984 , and in the plans as shown; to further approve the landscape plan as presented; and to add the changes to the documentation that represents the caseload file for Hemmeter 8040 greenline review; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Discussion. Hunt recommended the reaffirmation of the previous conditions and eliminate number seven. Fallin amended her motion to reaffirm the conditions of the July n RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 1984 10 , 1984 , approval with the elimination of condition seven ; seconded by Tygre. All in favor ; motion carried with Lee Pardee opposed. Harvey requested from the applicant a copy of the landscape plan for the record. PUBLIC HEARING ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Welton Anderson returns to his seat on the Commission. Penne asked if the commissioners were supplied a copy of the Aspen Mountain Lodge Gr4P. The Commission responded no. Penne retrieved copies for the commissioners. Harvey commented this is a public hearing but the commissioners have not received the packets. The Commission perhaps should not take action on this case tonight. He recommended the Commission table the hearing to a future date. Let the applicant make his presentation this evening. Penne commented this proposal is not different from the commercial application discussed throughout the extension review of the lodge. The proposal is now only half of the original size; the 4 ,500 square feet rather than 8, 500 square feet. The proposal is consistent with everything the Commission reviewed in the past. The planning office reviewed and scored the application within the context of the entire Aspen Mountain Lodge project. To take this application out of context and look at the 4,500 square feet as a discreet matter is not feasible. The area of employee housing is reviewed separately. The applicant does commit to an employee housing solution for this particular segment. Harvey emphasized he has not had the opportunity to prepare for this review. Pardee stated strongly that the Commission has an obligation to review this application, which is the most important submission before the board, thoroughly and carefully. He discouraged approving the application without a reading. Postpone action on the application. Harvey opened the public hearing. Harvey suggested tabling the case until October 2 , 1984. Penne said there is time to review the application before it goes before Council . Edwards advised the Commission that the GMP states that the Commission must consider this during a meeting in September. Harvey said the public hearing will be continued to October 2nd. Joe Wells , consultant for the applicant, wished to clarify a couple of points in the scoring. Harvey requested those comments be postponed until the next meeting. Dells made his presentation. Originally the applicant requested that the entire front portion of the site, the north facing side, be rezoned CL. That rezoning did not happen. The applicant ultimately withdrew the request. n RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 1984 Since the request was rejected only one portion of the site that is zoned CL, located at the northeast corner of the site . Only a portion of that corner is eligible for CL uses. The ice rink occupies most of that segment of the site . There is only 4,500 square feet of footprint available for CL use. Typical commercial core type CL uses, for example retail shops, will be included in the space. The area in the northwest corner of the overall site is still a restaurant , that is accessory use to the hotel . Harvey said the 4,500 square feet will accommodate new commercial space . The Aspen Inn and the Continental Inn currently do not have commercial. Wells explained all the space in the existing lodge is considered accessory space. There is some commercial office space in a building at the northwest section of the parcel, but that will be removed. Pardee asked if the applicant would like to expand on the employee housing proposal. hells said the document is pretty straight forward . The intent is to supply employee housing for six additional employees who were not included in the prior employee housing program. There will be a reduction in the employee housing program as a result of the reductions through the approval process for the lodge. Pardee asked if the employee units will be in the metro area. Wells said the units will be located at the Airport Business Center. Penne wanted to know if the Commission agrees with the assumption that the only way to score this application is to score it by considering the entire project . There is no amenity space specifically for the 4,500 square feet. She checked referral comments that came in as part of this scoring and she checked how various categories were scored in the lodge competition. The infrastructure, sewer and water and roads, is exactly the same. The architectural and site design have been through conceptual review. The Commission has refined the designs to a point where the designs must be considered standard or the applicant would not have received conceptual approval. It is the Commission' s choice to grant bonus points. The scoring is straightforward and consistent with the past scores . Pardee agreed this is an appropriate assumption. Wells mentioned that the applicant linked 700 South Galena to the hotel since it is impossible to implement discreet pieces if the hotel is not successful . The applicant has always taken the position that there is one project. Penne said the point is that there is no new information . Harvey reiterated that it is still the Commission' s obligation to review this application. 11hite asked if there are public bathrooms connected with the commercial space and the ice rink. Doremus said there will be a restaurant associated with the use on the west side of the rink as opposed to the side with the commercial use. The restaurant will house restroom facilities. Lee Pardee moved to table the Aspen Mountain Lodge commercial GMP l A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Cnmmiaainn September 18. 1984 consideration to October 2 , 1984 , and to continue the public hearing at that time; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor; motion carried. OPEN SPACE IN THE L-3 ZONE Kaufman requested some clarification. This issue was discussed with the commissioners during the adoption of the L-3 lodge. A 35% open space requirement was imposed for the L-3 lodge as opposed to the 25% requirement for the other zone districts. It has been discovered that not only is there a 35% open space requirement, but swimming pools, areas around swimming pools, jacuzzi areas do not count in the open space percentage calculation in the L-3 zone. Effectively, there is a 50% open space requirement for many small lodges. This requirement allows one only to build vertically. This requirement eliminates any flexibility in building horizontally. The implication of the 35% open space requirement was not thoroughly thought out. The capabilities for expansion by the small lodges is now restricted to vertical construction. This is not the intent of the requirement. During the original discussion over this requirement there was a concern about the intrusion of expanding lodges in the L-3 zone. But the floor area ratio is not affected by the open space requirement, only the architectural capability and flexibility. Perhaps this issue can be discussed as an agenda item at some future meeting. Kaufman noted the Nugget is experiencing a limitation not in the size but in the architectural design. Two other cases are experiencing this problem also. Anderson responded he would prefer to leave the requirement of 35% open space in the L-3 zone as written in the code but amend the code to reflect that swimming pools are included in the open space calculations. Kaufman stated that the code reads that parking lots and other recreational amenities are not included in open space. Pardee explained the reason for the 35% open space requirement. many of the lodges are in residential areas. The intent was to protect the residential areas from the additional flexibility granted to the lodges. The L-3 zone should have a higher open space requirement than other zones. Should swimming pools, other recreational uses, and parking lots in any zone be included in open space? This should be a subject for a future meeting. Assign the planning office the responsibility to evaluate this. Harvey said the definition of open space has always been vague. Open space on one hand is space opened to the public; no one' s yard for example. On the other hand there is visual open space, no buildings or parking lots or swimming pools area allowed. !,,That is the practical affect of removing swim-, - c pools and recreational uses? Kaufman did not favor lodge owners eli1:; nating swimming pools and other amenities for the ability to built horizontally. He favored the 350- open space requirement is swimming pools and open space are included in the open space. The problem is by not including swimming pools in open space, the III RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 18. 1984 open space requirement is really 50% . He favored Anderson ' s suggestion . There needs to be a discussion on what is open space, and what is accomplished with certain things included in open space. Hunt said for new projects in other areas other than L-3 that the code remain as written. This open space issue may not be a problem in other areas. The approach in the L-3 area may be to include pools in the open space through the L-3 conditional review. Harvey noted that swimming pools, etc. , are excluded from open space in other zones. Pardee said this should not be exclusively for L-3 . The reason for the exclusion is because of the requirement for a certain size fence around swimming pools. Pools should not be included in open space if high fences encloses the pool. Harvey remembered there is a requirement for a fencing a pool for insurance reasons . Pardee said the pool is not open space if the pool is fenced in. Harvey said the planning office needs to provide current definitions of open space. The planning office needs to evaluate the status of pools. Kaufman assured the Commission that he would talk to the planning office. Harvey adjourned the meeting at 6 : 35 p.m. Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk