Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19841016 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission _Qgtqb,2r_l6. 1984 Chairman Perry Marvey called the meeting to oraor it 5 : 05 j .z. WW, co nMsioncrs jasinina Tygra , P":1,y Failizi, Witcai Twulerson, N.-, PurAcn, Roger Hunt, and Hari Peyton jrescnt . COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS 7 tad on the reorganizntion and new assignmant of narnint] jpocas for cNicial cars on thn south sidc ol City 2ali , K An , conyininK to the police chief. Tkorc i W U UiSVgrCeQenL L._ 7 J hou many spaces wore lost to the public for o,:f icial use . QunL counted three upaces . Win nroblem is moot becriuso tjjf� situntion is LeDoorary. Parking spaccs an the j A t no K My Nall Auve hs �h ratninsd for official warking ratQ�r �Wnnwrcial parking . This MLuation will 4mist until tilt ?wlic­- Wpartment !novas to m1'. 1 !_ anicc2 urn for sheriM cars. �7!YrO WaS in the audionce at the last Council necting. 70 disturtal t-'-ic dismissal procadure of the planning direcLar . Sho rocommanded that the Comoission adopt a resolution nhe Commission' s dismay at Council ' s actionp. Wn would Hnn 0 onplurn a way for the Commission to :7ritc, :� ir. Lti,--r of for Sunny Vann. Vann did 6o a really good Joe.). -'-`ie in which his job was terminated will not look good on a resuNw. Airvey sugges&0 that the planning office prepare a resoMonEnca6ing 'Vann ' s service . Harvey rcoorted on at teivolron- convcrsation with Vann. He told Vann I-Ie r.,-,ould be more thon happ- to write a letter of recommendation . But nerhaos those _ _ n -_ r. come from the MOM& commissiondrs. The question V---, whathur to prepare a resolution com.-aenl�in�! Va nn ' �. servica or whather to prepara a resolution disclai-..,,ing CoUlIcil ' s Alan RicNaan, planning office, intarjected it is not appropriat,,- Cor the planning office to draft a resolution patting its21! nl- tho back . Tic asked the Commission to write the resolution izsclf given the personnel nature of thr-. TI -- agreed co attempt to write a resolution or letter, but, he novieu sono direction from the Commission as to whether the statemenIL- shoult be pro Vann or anti Council . Tygre favored both a lwtWf sugporting Vann and a reSOILItion expressing the Commi3sioni .- Cis .:.tisfaction with Council ' s handling of Vann ' s dismissal . Y :rvey talked with Hill Kirling three times in the last couylL of Says ahout this issue . Uarvey reported that Stirling was iryin-:j- Lo nteeL with (Council to DersuDde Council to reconsidwr its, acuions . Harvey did not Galieve Stirling ' s idea wouli go over vcry well . Melton Anderson arrives in tho chambers . ) Stirlinr,, alaw requested a macting riont Tuesday, October 23rd, a 000 p. m. in the chambers with the Commissioners. Harvey told Stirlin,_-,- An was ontremoly u?set with Council ' s handling of tho ict oplitn , 77agan i5i Nerriam, at the Octobcr Tth Council - vntinU. Cauncil ' .71 nci.isns appoarac. -,tu contr7diction Lu the city ' s iso"incj 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular f4geting Plannina and zoning Commission October 16, 1984 T 1 o t i I i b _ or c t r o u,-.,, 3 U I':I. i or, 6 t t 17 r o co,s o u nc s C-_i ons !­s v� 2 t'..ro t._: t law.,�uit- . Harvey sai,_ t'ac­ com"'Anatiof: o- 3 1-,1 IL 7i"11,10i2s over t1l­ r)" anning o__F i ce a,i d t 1­1 ,, I o'L -,71 ts cou­_, �,d t 7 c_::,.-icellat-.ion of the� scheduled joint isle-'tin `;J Council aria t he i So i -on for Octobcr 15th ,,7ithout resc ..ate v7 a s a s 1 a- in t1(2 t i r 1 i n tole! T T a r­..7 o.-v h e f-ro-'%1 t c o 1 s s 1 o n e r s a,n d ,'i ants to P. t wit i- C 01-1-m i s s i o n e r s for one nour on Oct-ol,,-)er 2 3 rG1 Harvel., 1" u: J_ 07cl" ss tliion if on,_- hour 1. 0 sufficient aml) nt o-� timc, to tl _T is sues. Stirlinc told 74arve-v he will tr-,.7 to t,°!:)l e U 1­1 _ouncil IiaS an opportunity to �,Ieet With IC I Co,',',71 c c of: s s i o na 11 v in i ts; h,-,-, i i1 C� C, agr-_ed Council acted un-,)_ r, buy „ e is r e a 11 v a n o r v at t lh1 r2 Council ' s l3cl, of i., --'c-r- no to ,�.,h;� ik-11 e Com-Assion has I:)c-e n doing for r i n q� t issues which th�, Council cited as to %,71`y It -:710 4L J r a r i_ 1 s s u S, t h3,t t'a e C o r.um i SS ion i- about ready to s 00.. f- ot `icicnt ti-m­. 11'1h,_ -mcctinq; s i I L _)n-cil Onz, I i ou r i s i suf v,i 11,C i-c t-i v u 7"i-ifl," 'Aceting shoulcI., 7C a. dog and pony snow ol-1 t �Manning proc­cs-z �-,as been what the s,-,etch -plans :ire: 4 �2 i ll -; l i —;ion iion is T t!"ile nlans, and how is-ie -olans i-tav', n, should -ialre Dr,_-,sent �Hscussion shoul D on(�. 'TI-1 e Commission should not deimelmi the i n i na fingers _t Council ' s lac;, o- nrofossionp.lismi. TL i to 2ducate Council on what thr-, C o,-,-r r,i i ss s ion ha lbc, �-oink; over the last year. CounCil is not aware of how mmcla I a s s-D e n t d i s c u s.- s J_n h i s s u e s o r mmiss;ion h has accomplished. T7anW 0!- the. Com-l',,iission ' -0 acco­i-pli __. arc-, exactly what Council 4J,- Irl'S i Council were to thinl: it ,-,oul(-,' ha e I-,,-) -Z g r c r F,o e 1 -1 A 71 T1 t 'n u n C c,� C o mm s s o n for several hour-- that L Dack Out S h e� -rre(i to _j r 4..e to t, _ . 00 p. i., ._._. rd -o that a diz;cussion of t.'ric issue_--- could at ­ri i t J_ tedl Thr:n t2o .qneting coul(` 10-- continue,6. rlrhr_> 13SUC.'s c F_l 1 1 J t red 1 P, a o,,,c- nour session. -it V 3-aid Counc wa- a joint mecting on t"c sue , +-ha n an hour. Tf SPA t` e C gill e_a ily t:;;._, iorc 4- .- 1 , ,e o b e r ?arc joint :�ie n ocussiof L Oct j t c c-),u I c]` enu- t-11-0 Joint T.icetin�_: th-c-n and t1'.'ere. Thor-e would' ti­ic. fcur diialoquc of-, the other i ysi es. 'Hunt said inform C o U,1,c I I (." .. _ -T,lil, L.11-1 a one hour rnec:'- i ng is insufficii,�.ln - amount f o r e I I a 1-1 d, �1-I �t L L- It o, cover the i,,iaterial. 11-arvey Said thC difLficultV in 4-]1 --nr- t! - n -..is T u,.,,s a t 0 0 -o.T,-,.. i S tl e r e 1 s a n ott 1-1(.,r ,ii - V i C C ,,,u at � : 'O whi-h rc-­uires Com ciil _­ L,-- f-__!.t .,:?:.. . . C ho c o r.17­1 1 s s i o ne,r t ha h c, I g to t t o r,7, t. Courcil s c: s i cl n, i-r o� 1,_p1% t-o q cn s t i­­ t- U c 1 (11 1 C11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, A - (1 0 C t I: a o gist. c _.;_-r6 0 c t o b r 91 19 1 T is z t n 2., 4 1 4- it o u 1 d" I-I-av c b n v,-2 r y i f i u r c,S t c i r c u ias,t a n c e s i!-"(11 us s so-!actiiing, as esoteric as goals tat tlnc -:oir)t mee t i n _V !3 1,JC�Qtiil��j T-,7,' -a so c::,,nceiled be—ause s o o t il ., I - - L_�-,C, -i+7t to�.;_ra. 71,i c hmi a n d 1C1 a 1:e It u,-)o,,, h ims) I wc,r c. t1le SPi'll me—to t7r t 1 next Council _)Ctol r t Q,.::o a n t r s C o 7,1 c i I s r_-�uost-ions in t 111 w a v t h c- C_o.-L-t,,).I J., s"7 red the r1pu e s,t i on s in t 11 c S P' r e s o 1 u t i o n —ch-1.,Lan t I I-,,_ :^:r'_:L C o u,,c i ic e t i n q. n v o-L t.7h r2- S:)T3. _J c Vt�lfl SO tl-iat t',-ie- ? :,)int M c-�etinq on t 13r -il I i Ir-)L c I 1U t c r C. w i t C7. C i i 4 Ur G; S PA. r r-" Ot_ .1 4- 4- .41 C U S S c r -Iior c s i r-1 I j i I`i c a n t i s s L, s- that a t s:I'l o u 1 d 1 - ( i t1l., I "',f- -'�or -1- 1-11 1 l3:,r,, 6i recti! n ra t i n 9 -w ':dill o ou ncrage t ma -r t - c city fa_ g�_- 1:�01 S i Z�-2 0 O't(�j s C L,S Z,4 rec:-10,1 C J d U 1 L il n a �D C!-Z, L I to iii 4 r ,7 e-v 17 u L t a 1 i r rig b o ut r e shoulf-, b c o i n 7 i t:: t-I- one hou r J t.nt again reC,,uestc-C, that Counci I c in- o r in J t.,1 t 71: t­- n icienl- to -a!' th"i issues. f (7 ded -hat -he Com..-aliss, or, Would a� e":DC-Ict Ll L J. concl.1- on Octobc r 23 ru -)ressinq d i s- �ly at Co;�in. 11t U, about tlne resolution c­.- 1 n c, ?.i1 t1 i r s o,n nil d i s im i f,s a I v g r n r e r r c, o g Ir -eco rr' her ooinion oil Council s ct *1 or -inci' of formal 0.,_, on action. 17--,rv'--y said h,-:! aou-IC�. try to write _:-, r c,s o I u I-- i',D ,ssin� this. MINUTES QqtQb 1 CCf- 4 OnS 2 1984: liarve,,-, mad--2 t'4,.e -E'o11o,,-iinq corr �L 'ITT 0", one_ 4 n paragraph two, cpl�_MCJ Llarve�. in cou- _TILAI)t ancl Tygr,'-, to defftnitely rearxi,.)1y" to "Ilairve n C(_-'c r: _T1 ul P,t , j,,c,r E. , a n,1 P a r 6,-,2 to d e f i n 1 t e 1 y re p,,:)1-y, T_arJL SeVC111, il-I t12e 1,-Ist paragr%a:)h, chL-mg1c J rfurntion is Si­ i:,, am:l nine" to "t.1-le coi,1fi(,1ur,­ Lic.,i, SIX, S I.A thous lnwnj scfuare fcet, si:. t iousand sc-uare '...,;ousand souare fcet, and ninc thousand scivare� feet. " 3 . Jr: -)agf_, th,ree, in th- third oaraorap'h, Changcl "cjrcrr.­, - nc, l- _ (Q r?g 1i n a 1 1 1 cation n r o c c s_s a s ,74 .7 -- 2." ' t c f:i r F.t iDie-ce t r o o I t 7,7 U m S 0",1 C Cc C- 717 into too7r3" to o r L,7 't C) (D r,e s e onc RECORD OF PROCEEDINGO Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission gctober 16. 1984 sI':-_t;I_, ­_-rucr-.5" to on A C, V e,TI L 1T1 last pr-,iracjrap C A r.1 cl C-1 o-,.- ­r allocatioli 15 r cc ui red Y "ouncill -action" to 11 . . . ca _ GtC n r uir= council action. Motion: Ilunt :dove di to a-o p r ov e t h c i io,i n u t s of 0 c t-o I)c r 2 A 'U� T d; econ-dr� b y Pat Fallin. -All i i f av,, motion carri—i. PUBLIC HEARING SUNNY PARK ANNEXATION ZONING "lorn, planning o-_`LHce- , r-e'c�rrcd to L two iaps, in the c ._)_--rcel und(_--r (1-iscussion is located at nortl on6 7 -12i r Circ"Le,, on tle right side of the cul-de-sac, across thr,., __ 1 I-lico Fisher/PrI.ealville duplez. '7 p- r - :i 111. �I Ll That building was ,L e, r oy e J b a f i r e i n tile' s urim,e r 0 1 3 . II"Ihe site is t;,c--, St"e,_)- slop,,�s, of Srtiuggler lountain. .��e sitr_ i" I tr .verse,d by the Salvation Ditch i,7hich .-Iialkes access to th_' i t c- if-cicult. 4 r c_t n o ne a r s lannimi" y Ji pr000s N, ed the e xt­ d nsion of Park Circle fro-.q t1ne cu - c- L;.L 3�_a n c E: �S_c tC S-oruce Stroct. "nat e::tension L%,ill -rovido -A-Ces:.� 4 C) 4 1 pro]ect :_:LnJ ,,7111 dtivert some of th_­ tra-f"Eic o.EI-7 1 C i C)n :V i I U i >Scn 3 a iia r r c),I s t r: et n d cla-11not .i, o-(-u�r to 'build the �ro.,.i Park ("irc]-e last suitr-Lelr o-an t y acquirecl Lot -Seven. he county purcha s e d, Lot S C,v or,'­­.,r to utilizte the front portion of the lot (6 , 900 L) o r tI �7 L lic, road right-o-f-T. ay. rLlhe county also owns tlhe lan"; i `i is to tI-ie north, to the- east, and is contiguoots to 'A'O`t_ C 7 11. h e� lot is not subdivided and is vacant . T, c(),u L n Js to Morro-,.? 5 , 900 .s c, fr_,et a:ro,-,i t-he contiguous v. reshape Lot Seven. The new road extension will be Sri ite--f-I ji; front portion of Lot Seven. Lot Seven will take on a new confi- guration with the 6, 900 square feet borrowed from the adjacent county owned land.- The new configuration- will be sold to recoup the county' s original investment, the purchase price of Lot Seven. There is only one portion of the site which is buildable, near the top of the lot where the 6 , 900 square feet will be added. The purpose of this public hearing is to clean up the zoning in the area. The county has petitioned the city to annex the 6 , 900 square feet which is located just to the north of Lot Seven. The City Council has expressed its intent to go forward with the annexation. The city is required to rezone that parcel within ninety days. 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 16. 1984 The planning office proposes that the piece of land, the 6 , 900 square feet, that is being added to Lot Seven be zoned R-15 (A) . That is consistent with past city policy. The city usually designates annexed land with the R-15 (A) and not with R-15. The difference between the two is that a free market duplex can be built on a R-15 parcel; half of the duplex has to be deed restricted for employee housing on a R-15 (A) parcel. Duplexing is not an issue. The slope density reduction calculation for the site allows only for the development of a single family unit. The R-15 (A) is therefore not that necessary. But, he supported consistency with annexations and zonings and advised the designation of R-15 (A) . Horn reported he received calls from neighbors in the area. He explained to them there probably would never be a duplex on the lot. The lot ' s maximum square footage is 15,191 as shown on map two. After the slope density calculations the adjusted buildable area is 11,000 square feet which is not close to the necessary square footage for the construction of a duplex. But with the R- 15 (A) if there were a mistake in the slope density reduction calculation at least one half of the duplex would be deed re- stricted. Horn recommended the zone designation of R-15 (A) PUD for the annexed 6 , 900 square foot piece and the designation of R-15 (A) PUD for Lot Seven. The new parcel therefore would be zoned entirely R- 15 (A) PUD. The land in the Park Circle vicinity is zoned R-15 PUD. Harvey clarified that the application addresses the current Lot Seven of Sunny Park North subdivision. Will the newly defined parcel have to be renamed? Horn explained the new parcel is identified with a new surveyed legal description. Harvey emphasized that the present Lot Seven will not be the same lot seven that the Commission will be addressing in its recommendation for rezoning. Horn said his recommendation is specific: "the rezoning of Lot Seven and then the rezoning of the contiguous piece of property to the north which- will be added to Lot Seven. " All this is legally described in the ordinance. Therefore, there should be no question. Harvey asked what is the zone designation for the 6 , 900 square feet which is being subtracted from Lot Seven for use as the right-of-way for the proposed extension of Park Circle. Horn said this action today is the beginning of another process. A lot line adjustment application is coming forward in a few weeks. That subtracted piece will be addressed at the future meeting. That parcel will still be zoned as part of Lot Seven. It is not unusual to zone right-of-ways. Harvey did not want a piece of city property without a zoning designation. Harvey opened the public hearing. Jeremy Flug, resident of 165 Park Circle, requested a review of the maps. Horn proceeded to explain the proposal to Flug. 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 16. 1984 Harvey closed the public hearing. Notion: Roger Hunt moved to recommend that Lot Seven of Sunny Park North be rezoned from R-15 PUD to R-15 (A) PUD and that the 6, 900 square foot piece to be annexed by the city be zoned R-15 (A) PUD. The reason for the recommendation is basically to maintain the consistency of annexing property from the county zoned R-15 to R-15 (A) . To avoid confusion over split zoning on the property the Commission recommends the entire lot in effect be zoned R-15 (A) PUD. The motion is seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION OF OPEN SPACE IN L-3 ZONE Richman summarized the points of the memorandum from the planning office dated October 16th. The 35% open space requirement which the city imposed in the L-3 zone followed on the heels of the 35% open space requirement in the residential zone. The 35% open space requirement was not determined by any real magical analysis for the L-3 district . The rationale for the 35% open space requirement in the L-3 zone was based on the fact that there was a 35% open space requirement in the residential zone and that L-3 lodges were located in the middle of residential zones. Kaufman, representative for the Nugget, did discover during the reconstruc- tion of the Nugget that the 35% open space requirement forced the building to expand vertically, the height had to be increased to meet the open space requirement. The Nugget owners were forced to add height as opposed to use existing lot area. Richman did review the regulations. He discovered the definition of open space in the code specifically excludes swimming pools and other recreational areas. If open space were to mean only green area then swimming pools would be excluded. He defined open space as that which offers variety to the building and that which offers a visual buffer between buildings . As long as there is not a structure on the open space then recreational purposes are consistent with open space purposes. He reasoned a swimming pool in open space is consistent with open space. He concluded there is some conceptual merit to the idea that swimming pools not be a penalizing factor in the calculation of open space. If swimming pools were not calculated in open space and if lodges were expected to have 35% open space on top of that amenity then a lodge owner in L-3 may be forced to eliminate the amenity and to increase the building height. The Nugget chose to build vertically. Richman preferred not to increase the height. He favored swimming pools. Pools are nice amenities especially for the lodges along Main Street. 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Neetina Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 1984 Richman concluded there is a way to deal with this issue . He referred to the solution of open space for restaurants in the downtown area. Restaurants go through special review for approval of the use of open space. Outdoor dining is a positive use of space in the downtown area. He opposed the sterilization of open space. This community has fairly scarce land resources. Perhaps create language to permit the Commission to allow by special review swimming pools and other recreational areas. Conceptually Richman supported the idea that swimming pools and open space are consistent and not mutually exclusive. Fallin remarked that a fence has to be built around a pool for insurance purposes. A fence may be considered a structure. Her definition of open space ja green grass with trees. She has a difficult time with the inclusion of swimming pool, patio, walks, cement, and fence in the definition of open space. Pardee concurred with Fallin. If there were only a three foot fence built around a pool then the fenced in area would be an acceptable part of open space. But if the fence were six feet then the fenced in area would not be open space and the area should not be counted as open space. The goal is to force the lodges to abide by more stringent requirements. Lodges which are greater in mass and FAR than the residential dwellings are located primarily in the residential zone, a very sensitive zone . A fence is really part of the building. If insurance companies accept three foot fences then include the fenced in area in open space. He would like the lodges to have the ability to count a pool in open space. However, the open space requirement is not for the lodge residents but for the neighborhood residents and motorists. The open space requirement softens the massing. He adamantly opposed the reduction of the 35% open space requirement for lodges. Lodges are the most impacting masses in the residential neighborhoods. Harvey commented that a private residential owner is allowed to build up to a six foot fence on his property line. Is fencing one ' s property a violation of open space? Pardee replied no. He recognized the inconsistency. Anyone can build a 5 ' -11" fence. A single family house has an acceptable FAR in the residential zone. Harvey reasoned a lodge, like the Nugget, could in theory build a six foot solid fence around the entire property. The fence would solve the problem of the swimming pool insurance. But, the fence would effectively destroy the visual effect of open space for a motorist or pedestrian. Bil Dunaway, publisher for the Aspen Times, interpreted the definition of open space in the code as = permitting a fence even in the residential area. He quoted: "opened to the sky and opened to the street. " Certainly a six foot fence does not open the space to the street. Harvey commented that there is a section in the zoning code which allows one to build a six foot 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning.Commission October 16. 1984 fence. Dunaway remembered that open space has just recently been applied to residential areas. Richman agreed. But there appears to be an inconsistency in the code between open space and fencing in the residential zone. Anderson said a five or six foot fence facing the street is not an obstruction to the street because the fence is not part of the building. Surface area of water is not counted in open space either. Theoretically, if there were a brook traversing a piece of property which one could swim in then the brook could not be counted in open space. There is a need for consistency in the code. He is not bothered by a fenced in area being counted in open space especially in residential zones. Fencing is required for outdoor dining in open space. Hunt asked if 35% open space is required in residential zones. Richman replied yes. 25% open space is the requirement in the L- 1 and L-2 zones and 35% open space in the L-3 zone. Hunt noted an inconsistency. The L-3 expands over many underlying zones. Why not have the underlying zone determine the open space require- ment? Richman corrected that the L-3 is the underlying zone. L- 3 is not an overlay it is a zone. Harvey asked if different open space requirements can be applied to different parts of L- 3. Hunt noted the contiguous zone to L-3 is 0 (office) . Richman responded that there may be some legal problems with the application of another district' s area and bulk requirements to a property outside the district. Hunt said if the FAR were to be defined as that which is required in the contiguous zone, for example, specifically in the case of L-3 , then what would be the problem. Richman said the city specifically examined and determined the most appropriate requirements for the L-3 . If the Commission were inclined to change all the area and bulk requirements of the L-3 zone then the Commission may do that. But do not create an area and bulk requirement that represents what is surrounding the L-3 . That is not a viable legal tool. Hunt discussed the purpose of the 35% open space requirement for L-3 . Many lodges are in the residential zone. It is appropriate to have the open space requirement for L-3 consistent with the surrounding zone. But now it has been discovered that there is a L-3 zone not surrounded by the residential zone. Richman advised the Commission against establishing multiple FAR' s for the L-3 zone. That leads to unequal protection under the law. Harvey asked how many lodges in the L-3 have the potential to expand. Richman answered eight to ten lodges. Harvey summarized Richman' s proposal : keep the 35% open space requirement for L-3 but allow through special review swimming pools and other recreation areas in required open space areas. Gideon Kaufman, representative for the Nugget, explained the Nugget has already resolved the problem of the open space issue 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Reetinq Planning and Zoning Commission October 16. 1984 in the L-3 zone: the condomimium is being built upward. He is only bringing the issue of open space in the L-3 zone to the Commission' s attention because he recognized some problems. Harvey said the proposal then is to create another special review whereby a better design can be achieved on a given L-3 lodge. There is no intent in Richman' s proposal to lower the open space to 25% . There is no intent in Richman' s proposal to give the lodge more mass. Instead the proposal gives the lodge owner the opportunity to present a better design and gives the Commission the opportunity to judge the design. Tygre supported Richman' s approach. Handling swimming pools through special review is consistent with the handling of restaurant uses in open space. She is not concerned about the color of open space; it can be turquoise instead of green. As long as there is not a specific structure on the open space, then fine. There should be more flexibility. Pools, with or without bodies in it, should be considered open space. Special review provides the Commission the opportunity to review the fencing design and to review the insurance requirements. Kaufman explained the reason for bringing the problems forward. During the designing phase of the Nugget it was discovered that the design options for restructuring were restricted. However, the Nugget was located on a parcel large enough that would accommodate both a large pool and Jacuzzi area. If the Nugget were not able to build upward then it would have had to remove the pool. Removing the pool would have been counter productive. If the special review were adopted, the Nugget may or may not take advantage of the special review. Negative effects are many times not interpreted or contemplated during the review process of the regulation. Some lodges may decide to eliminate pools to meet the open space requirement. That may not be necessary. He supported the retention of the 35% open space requirement in the L-3 zone and the inauguration of a special review. The special review provides an applicant an option to keep the pool or to put a pool in. Presently, if a lodge went through a renovation process the addition of a pool as an amenity would be precluded. Special review gives one the opportunity to present a good design. The special review tool provides the opportunity to enhance the appearance of some of the lodges. The 35% open space requirement will be maintained. A nice design could maintain the open space feeling. To get the money to upgrade a lodge, the lodge has to build additional units. If an applicant has to choose between the pool or the extra units he will choose the extra units. The special review tool provides for both the pool and the extra units. Kaufman is pleased with Richman' s solution. The solution i5 ueneficial to the applicant and the city. Pardee favored the special review. The code should list gen,:ral criteria under which the review will be judged. Fences can be built to allow people to see through them and to obstruct people. 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Co�inaion October 16, 1984 If a fence were six feet tall and a solid mass, then he would not consider the enclosed area as open space. Richman responded to the request for more specific guidelines. He quoted from the Municipal Code, Section 24-3 .7 (d) (8) : "the planning commission shall determine that such use not be in derogation of the purposes of the open space requirements of this section. . . " He argued against any more specificity in the code. Let the Commission make the determinations of the uses in derogation of open space. Kaufman explained the intent of open space which Dunaway referred to. Open space has to be continuous. It cannot be obstructed by a structure; a structure is defined as six feet or higher. A fence under six feet is not considered a structure nor an obstruc- tion to open space. Motion: Roger Hunt moved to sponsor a code amendment to be brought to the Commission by the planning office along the lines discussed in the meeting. The motion is seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor; motion carried. Harvey asked if the Commission feels there is an inconsistency between fences and open space in the code. Richman said if the fence were six feet or higher then the fence would be interpreted as a structure and therefore the enclosed area would not be considered open space. MEN BUSINESS ASPEN ART MUSEUM STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Colette Penne, planning office, reminded the Commission that the city has to put itself through the same review as the public. The Art Museum was severely challenged last year during the spring runoff. Chuck Roth from the engineering department will make a detailed presentation of the proposal . The proposal involves some widening of the channel, some levy work, etc. The proposal is the first phase of a flood control program for the area. She outlined the six review criteria for stream margin review in the memo dated October 16 , 1984, from the planning office. Lee Pardee suggested that he step down from the case. He owns the property immediately adjoining the area the city wants to do work . Roth said the work which might affect Pardee is in phase two. Penne explained during the Mill Street Bridge review the county has been requested that it show it owned the property. The county currently is asking whether any of the proposed work is being done on county property. The question has been referred to Paul Taddune, the city attorney. 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Co=ission October 16, 1984 Roth made his presentation. He referred to a map of the area in question. The first suggestion after the flooding of the Art Museum was to stabilize the bank in front of the museum with the concrete. Part of the proposed work is to clean up that man made fill in the channel. It has also been suggested to stabilize the bank with topsoil, sod, and trees to protect the museum from future flood damage. This requires a 404 permit from the Army Corps. of Engineers. It takes sixty days to acquire the permit. The engineering department also discussed widening the river . There may be beneficial effects as far upstream as Oklahoma Flats. As the river is widened more water is allowed to flow down the river in less time. Much of the material in the snow dump area has been placed there in the last twenty years. There used to be four islands in that area. The engineering department' s goal is not to recreate the same riparian environment which existed in the past. He discovered that a 404 permit is not required to take material from the river, only to add material to the river. The city' s shop and streets departments are anticipating to do the work. It is not an unlimited budget item. Roth demonstrated on the map the tip of the river bank that is being proposed to be cut off from the channel. The tip is near the front of the museum (near the bend in the river) . The channel there is very narrow. The depth of the new channel will be the same or a little deeper than the depth of the current channel. An island will be retained. Roth presented a cross section of the area. when the flood waters come next year the work the city does now will be altered. A dike or levy will be retained up the river. The city will not actually be working in the river but next to the river. Harvey asked how will the island be made. Roth graphically demonstrated how a cut will be made in the channel. Pardee asked about the levy. Roth explained the city will scrape dirt four feet from the river, it will parallel the south side of the river. Harvey asked if this work will result in a man made irrigation ditch running parallel to the river. Roth explained next spring the area will be blasted. There will be fifteen times more water rushing down the river next spring than there is now. Harvey asked if the result will be a divider of dirt and another channel. Roth said for now that is correct. Next spring the dirt divider will probably be obliterated by the runoff. After the next flood there will be sand and rocks deposited on the left side of the bank where the river curves to the left in front of the museum. Presently there is a bar on the inside of the curve. Peyton asked for the location of the island on the map. Roth sited the island on the map. Harvey asked if there used to be islands. Roth said yes. The goal of phase one is to protect the Art Museum from damage from future floods, not to restore the original riparian setting. The city would like to start as soon as possible on this work. The city has not figured out where it is going to relocate the dirt. 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 16._ 1 984 Pardee asked for a description of phase two. Roth reported he received the application for phase two today from the Army Corp. of Engineers. Phase two is the building of a gabion wall, 160 feet in length. The wall will start at the river bottom. (The wall is located on the outside part of the left bearing curve near the Art Museum. ) It will be stacked back toward the bank. Dirt will be used as a filler with sod on top of the dirt. Pardee asked if the 160 feet will interfere with any one else' s property. Harvey agreed some action has to be taken to protect the museum. A drought is not foreseeable. Fallin said there is no statement addressing environmental impacts. What are the impacts in widening the channel? Roth assured the Commission that the state will review the proposal in terms of water quality. He addressed the issue of environmental impacts. The city is attempting to return the river to its earlier environment. Harvey said the intent of stream margin review is to prevent the removal of vegetation since vegetation removal creates erosion. The potential for erosion existed last spring. That potential will continue to be there unless something is done to stabilize the river bank . Harvey ' s concern is that property on the south side of the river be for the enjoyment of people of Aspen. He wants the river to be as natural in appearance as possible. He does not favor an irrigation ditch that is equivalent to a runoff channel next to the river. Roth cited the case of the river in Basalt, natural settings are not always pretty. Gideon Kaufman understood that most problems with the river were created by filling in Goat Island. Is the proposal trying to undo the impacts resulting from the Goat Island fill-in? Harvey answered yes. The intent is to mitigate the impacts but not to restore the original river landscape. The dog leg in the river requires the city to take these measures. Kaufman asked if this action will have any negative impacts on homes that subsequently were built downstream after the Goat Island fill-in. There are always impacts when the river is filled. The city ' s action to undo something in the river will have impacts also. He wants to know if the solution that mitigates the impacts on the Art Museum will have adverse effects in the future on homes downstream. Penne remarked the solution is a localized diversion. The flow should not be affected downstream. Harvey said any time the river is tampered with there can be effects upstream or downstream. The goal appears to be to keep the pressure off the one point on the bank near the museum. Hunt said when the river is widened the volume capability is increased and the flow speed is reduced. In the immediate area of widening the impact is potentially more speed downstream at the next restriction. Widening the channel near the museum will affect the area at the next restriction. The question is where is the next restriction, near the Andrews- McFarland building. The river also erodes the bank it is running into, the outside bank. What are the potential problems at that 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission October 16. 1984 point in the river? Harvey asked about phase two? Hunt interpreted phase two as providing a protected wall , it is an erosion wall . will it be necessary to take the same precautionary measures at the curve near the Andrews-McFarland building as at the curve near the museum? There is a need for a maintenance program on those two turns; the inside of the turn will always be filling up and the outside of the turn will always be eroding. One reason why the Andrews-McFarland has not had problems is the restriction upstream. Roth noted that the new channel flows more northerly than the old channel. There is less of a bend at the Andrews- McFarland building area following the southerly route of the old channel . The discussion evolved around the route of the old channel. Hunt recommended conditioning the approval with the request for the effects downstream by widening the channel at the museum. Perhaps answers on the effects upon the next restriction should be provided during phase one. Pardee returned to his position on the Commission, the city' s actions do not affect his property. Pardee noted the Commission has a real responsibility to the next turn downstream. The present solution is opening up a bottleneck near the museum. The river will flow faster and greater at the next bottleneck downstream. The museum needs protection from the next flooding. But what are the consequences of this short term solution downstream? Roth explained phase one will protect the museum. Phase two will clean up what the city did there last year. Harvey asked if the work on the river could be done next April or May. Roth said yes. Harvey directed Roth to answer the questions about the impacts downstream. Those answers are critical before the Commission takes action. Roth said he would refer to the Army Corps. of Engineers or the U. S.G.S. or an hydrogeologist. Harvey recommended tabling this issue until Roth responds to the Commission ' s concern on the downstream effects at the next juncture. Penne said she would inform the county that the Commission has deferred to the county the resolution of the ownership issue. Motion: Pat Fallin moved to table stream margin review of the Aspen Art Museum until the engineering department has addressed the concerns; seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor; motion carried. RESOLUTION #84-12 ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE GNP ALLOCATION Notion: Pat Fallin moved to adopt resolution #84-12; seconded by Roger Hunt. 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning_Commission October 16, 1984 Discussion. Penne reported that Vann pointed out today that there is an expiration date, June 11 1985 , on the lodge quota allocation. If the designated lodge units were not to be built in that year then other competitors would be able to come in on October 1st with an application. Vann did request that in the first "now, therefore, be it resolved" that there be an addition after the first sentence : "the above allocation shall expire pursuant to Section 24-11 . 7 (a) of the Municipal Code, in the event plans, specifications, and fees sufficient for the issuance of a building permit for the one hundred and seventy-two (172) lodge units are not submitted on or before June 1 , 1985. " Vann did express to Penne that it was important not to have this allocation extend for a longer period of time than it should. Pat Fallin moved to amend her motion to include the following language to the first "now, therefore, be it resolved" after the first sentence: "the above allocation shall expire pursuant to Section 24- 11.7 (a) of the Municipal Code, in the event plans, specifi- cations, and fees sufficient for the issuance of a building permit for the one hundred and seventy-two (172) lodge units are not submitted on or before June 1, 1985 . " Seconded by Welton Anderson. All in favor ; motion carried. Hunt requested that the planning office inspect very closely the access to the service spaces in this project. The current design presents totally insufficient space to move a semi-trailer in the service area. Make sure engineering reviews very closely the circulation patterns for moving semi-trailers. The present design will not work. Harvey adjourned the meeting at 6: 20 p.m. AR✓dRrA /*r77 Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk 14