Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19951017 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Present were: Sara Garton, Jasmine Tygre, Tim Mooney, Robert Blaich, Marta Chaikovska, and Steve Buettow. Excused was Roger Hunt. MINUTES Buettow amended the minutes of October 3, 1995, page 9, to include the word "indirectly" regarding his statement on subdivisions. MOTION Hooney moved to approve the minutes as amended, Chaikovska seconded. Vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. CO~ISSIONERS COMMENTS Garton stated concern regarding the widening of the road on East Hopkins. Garton said she did not recall that widening as part of an approval. Lamont replied it was not part of the approval and Bill Drueding, Stan Clauson and Jack Reid of the City staff have had conversations regarding the road widening. Buettow stated he had conversations about the widening and when there was such a significant situation, the sidewalk could be placed out against the curb for less impact against the hill. Buettow said he was told Jack Reid of the Streets Department would not approve the sidewalk being placed against the curb, and that it had been discussed at length. Buettow said he felt, functionally, all that was needed was a sidewalk by the curb. Garton asked if the widening could be done without going through P&Z. Lamont stated it was authorized because it was part of the Streets Program. Garton stated she understood regarding the house, there was to be a buffer to the street with scrubery and it was objectionable to her as there was no buffer. Lamont said the house on the corner never went through P&Z review, but the second inside house did go through P&Z review. Garton stated P&Z reviewed both houses. Lamont replied the building permit on the corner house was pulled before Ordinance 30, and was originally a lot split. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 Buettow asked if there was a way to request a four foot sidewalk be placed further up by the curb to match the other side and put in a bank, instead of having a space between the curb and the sidewalk. Garton said she was sure the scrubery of the middle house was to stay. Lamont stated the middle house went through the Interim Overlay Review in February and it has come back again for review by the Design Review Appeal Committee. Lamont stated she had not been a part of the conversations regarding the widening project and perhaps the sidewalk could be bowed. Buettow asked if it would help if the Commission made a resolution or request regarding the sidewalk. Lamont said she would ask Stan Clauson regarding the requests of the Commission. Garton stated she felt the Streets Department needs to be part of discussions regarding subdivisions. Garton said the lighting in the east end was wrong and the streets did not have to be so wide. Garton stated perhaps the P&Z should talk with the Engineering and Streets Departments or City Council regarding street widths and curbs and sidewalks, particularly, Cleveland and Hopkins Streets. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS Lamont stated there was a public worksession at noon on October 18, 1995 at the Red Brick west meeting room regarding superblock with City Council. Lamont said staff asked Council to refocus on Independence Place and inform Councilman Max Marolt, as he was not involved in any of the previous discussions. Council is being asked whether work should be continued or not on Independence Place, and private entitites are pushing Council to consider public/private partnership. Garton asked if the worksession was noticed in the newspapers. Lamont responded the worksession was noticed in the newspapers several times. Blaich commented he had gone to a meeting the night before at the Red Brick sponsored by the City, and there were more employees from the City in attendance than from the community. Blaich said it was a good meeting and people expressed their feelings regarding the community; one issue brought up at the meeting was the leash law. Blaich said he hoped the meetings would continue. Lamont said other meetings were planned to focus on even bigger issues. 2 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 GIS TEXT AMENDMENTS Mary Lackner represented stating staff from the Assessor's Office, Community Development, Data Processing, and Engineering have gotten together and talked about what needs to be done through the land use process to continue to update the GIS system. Lackner said the GIS system was originally started in 1991 as an aerial fly-over and all that information of structures was digitized and what was currently in the system. The Assessor's Office has a full-time person getting the information current in the GIS system and the City has one full-time person in the Data Processing Department who does mainly GIS output. Lackner says the issue has become as subdivisions come in, people are demolishing and building new buildings, adding driveways, yards, and utility connections and these things are not getting updated onto GIS and there is no format for tracking presently. Lackner said this draft code amendment was proposed which will also be proposed in the County next month. This proposal will keep an ongoing, current update of the system so it is not outdated, and if initiated in the next several months, staff will be able to backtrack to obtain information between Hay of 1991 and the present, and keep the system updated. Lackner said if the code amendment is not pursued, staff feels the City and County will have to invest in a new fly-over at a very substantial cost to the GIS program. The proposal requests to change the submission requirements for subdivision building permits and work within the public right-of-way. Presently, staff requires the same information required by the code amendment and is asking for an additional digital form in addition to the paper form that staff receives now. Lackner added with the Community Development computer system that is going in for permit tracking, all planners will have access to GIS on their terminals and will be better able to get that information into meeting packets in the form of prints. Lackner stated what this means to the builders financially is less than $100 per submitted application; substantial developments, such as the Williams Ranch Project, will be close to $1,000. Lackner said staff recommends approval of the proposed GIS code amendment. Garton opened the public hearing and asked if the public had been notified. Lackner replied staff sent out public notice. There was no public attendance. 3 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 Garton asked why the proposal was only for subdivision and why not PUD. Lackner responded PUD would also entail subdivision; they are combined together. PUDs are a type of subdivision. MOTION Tygre moved that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval of proposed code amendment to City Council, Blaich seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM - DISCUSSION PARKS DEPARTMENT George Robinson, representing the Parks Department, came before the Commission to answer questions regarding trees, specifically on O- Block. Buettow informed Robinson of the Commission's concern for the three or four healthy pine trees on the southeast corner which had the bottom, 10 feet of branches chopped off. Buettow asked why that was allowed to happen. Robinson responded in 1989 it was proposed to put a sidewalk through the area of the trees. The only reason the trees were cut, up to about 7 to 8 feet, is because that is where a pedestrian sidewalk is going to go and there has to be a certain amount of clearance for the sidewalk. It is unfortunate, Robinson said he does not like to cut the trees, but it was necessary. Robinson said on the south side of the street, years ago, there used to be a whole block of cottonwood trees and it was one of the few times the Parks Department had found pine beetles in Aspen. Those trees were removed by the City of Aspen, taken out, and burned 3-4 years ago. Through construction and exchanged owners of property many times, trees in Aspen are under great stress. Robinson stated what happens to a tree once excavation starts is detachment, loss of water or whatever might impact that tree and the tree sends out signals of distress. Once that happens the tree can get insects or disease. Robinson cited previous tree losses removed at City expense and said it was difficult sometimes during tree removal processes to 4 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 determine who is responsible for the cost of the trees due to the change of property ownership so many times. Garton stated according to ordinance, one can remove any unhealthy or dead trees without doing a replacement. Robinson responded saying in the new code one is advised to notify Parks prior to relocating a tree or removing a diseased tree. If Parks does not know about it, neighbors will call and the Parks Department will come out and it must be proven the tree was diseased or dead at that time; sometimes this is easy, sometimes it is not. Robinson said if one has a diseased or dead tree, call and notify Parks, come get a permit as it is free, and the Parks Department will come look at the tree. Blaich asked how the Parks Department classifies a serious disease; Black Spot, for example, is not a serious disease. Robinson responded, depending upon aspen trees, there are very few in Aspen that are not diseased. The Parks Department will come out and advise people what can be done, give an opinion, and offer a second opinion if there is a question about a tree. If a tree shows signs of structural damage Robinson said one should let the Parks Department know and if the tree needs to come down, one must put it down on the permit and show a mitigation plan. If there is too much vegetation on a site there is a formula that can be worked out in which trees are donated to the City of Aspen, a street tree program, a park, or the golf course at the Parks Departments' discretion. Robinson commented people call and donate trees to the City of Aspen and the Parks Department must unfortunately inform owners the donation would be at the owners' expense because there is not money or equipment enough to do it at City expense. Robinson said the Parks Department plants between 50 to 150 trees a year. Chaikovska asked if there was a tree removal program going on in the west end; she noticed a lot of trees disappearing. Robinson replied he was trimming up as many of the old cottonwoods as possible, but was having to remove a lot of them because they come down with the winds. Unfortunately, there is no type of sophisicated equipment to test if a tree is declining inside the cane and the root system. Robinson said the Parks Department looks at the crown, the new growth of the leaves, and actually thumps the tree with a wooden mallet. Chaikovska asked if there was a certain life expectancy for the cottonwood. Chaikovska stated the beauty of the west end was the lining of the streets with tall trees and the trees were disappearing without any replacement of similar 5 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 trees. Robinson said there were some replacements in some areas, but a lot of times it is difficult to convince the homeowner to do so. Life expectancy of a cottonwood, once planted, is somewhere between 60 and 105 years; some cottonwood trees go down quicker and the oldest cottonwood Robinson has seen was 105 years old. Robinson stated the Parks Department has been working with trees on Main, Bleeker and Smuggler Streets. Garton asked where the money comes from for replacement trees. Robinson responded in the core area, CCLC has a budget of $5,500 for street tree replacement and spraying the trees; the Parks Department has a budget of $15,000 for replacement, spraying and removal of trees. Robinson said it is very expensive for removal of trees, sometimes the cost is $1,000 apiece. There is also a lot of pruning that needs to be done. Robinson stated there was a survey done with the Forest Service two years ago of all the trees in the Aspen core area as to what kind of condition they are in. The survey indicated classifications as to whether a tree needed pruning, if it was diseased, or whether it was hazardous. Robinson said the Parks Department works on hazardous trees first and tries to do as much pruning as possible, street by street. Aspen has qualified for Tree City USA which means such municipalities spend at least $10,000 in trees, hold a couple of special events with council people in attendance, and take school children out and educate them about trees and how to plant them. Garton referred again to the trees of specific concern on O-Block. Garton said the trees were under distress because of lack of water and construction and under the new ordinance did they not have to be replaced? Robinson responded stating the problem was if there was just one owner since 1989, it would be easier to have the trees replaced. There have been about four different owners and it is difficult to put the responsibility on one person. The Parks Department is now trying to keep more present information on who is responsible for declining trees and when siting affecting construction they now have dates and polaroid pictures. Garton stated the tree situation diminishes the community and it is a community loss. Garton said Super Fund goes after every owner of a parcel and designates responsibility. She felt all four owners should divide the cost and replace the trees destroyed by the pine beetles. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 Tygre commented one of the reasons she was so distressed about the cutting of the pine trees was because she has walked by O-Block everyday for the last 22 years. Those trees, with the exception of the cottonwoods, were blue spruce and other pines, and were gorgeous and full, but blocked the view. The old, O-Block house was a tiny brick house in the middle of a gigantic lot and the owner, a little, old man, liked the shade. Tygre said everyone used to joke, as soon as the property is bought and developed, those trees are all going to come down. Tygre stated it was said, no, those trees can't come down. Tygre stated she thinks the trees were murdered in order to be able to remove them without having to pay for them. Tygre said a lot of people on her block annoy her as she is on P&Z and ask her how she could allow the trees to be taken down. Tygre stated she answered them by telling them the trees were diseased, and the people responded the trees were not diseased before they were chopped into with hoes. Buettow stated the four trees on the southeast corner were not distressed; the bottom eight feet cutting was because of the sidewalk. Buettow said the trees were very healthy and there was nothing wrong with them. Robinson stated those trees are still very healthy now and probably more healthy after the limbs were cut. Robinson stated a spruce tree is not a good street tree; spruce trees block traffic views and site lines, but that is no reason to cut them down. Those trees were damaged from 6 feet and below from people parking there, and snow plows for snow removal and it was healthier for the trees to be cut. When one splits a branch, if it is not cut out clean, water starts going back in and starts decaying into the tree, bugs start going in and the stress problem begins. Robinson said he liked to see a natural spruce the way it is and spruces are made to grow all the way down for a number of reasons. One reason is to hold all the weight of the tree, but unfortunately spruce trees need to be trimmed up. Robinson said he tells people not to trim the trees above 8 feet because 8 feet is a good range if there is equipment going down the sidewalk, the measurement clears most snow removal equipment, and pedestrians carrying skis. Garton stated the bottom line which the new ordinance addresses is trees are a very important part of the community character and personal and pedestrian experience. Garton said she did not feel Aspen had to have straight streets and sidewalks everywhere; walks ought to be able to curve and if a tree is in the way the walks should meander around it. Robinson stated he agreed with Garton PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 and said Chuck Roth of the Engineering Department has been good at working with the trees and is doing a fine job. Blaich asked if Robinson had full authority to take out diseased trees in the City right-of-way, and if the homeowners were responsible for removal and replacement of dying trees on private properties. Robinson answered when diseased trees are in the City right-of-way, the Parks Department takes the trees out and tries to implement new trees. If a tree is on private property and is diseased and it is determined by the Parks Department that it must come down, the private property owner is responsible, but not necessarily responsible for replacing the tree. Blaich stated he had lived in Hichigan and there was an epidemic of Dutch Elm disease which destroyed all the elm trees and the city in Hichigan had no choice but to take all the diseased elms out. In the community where Blaich lived, the community got together and replaced all the elms with maple trees; the city put the maples trees in and then assessed the property owners for the beautification. Blaich commented perhaps something like this might be a long-range plan for Aspen. Robinson stated he still puts back the cottonwood tree because it is a native tree and maintains the character of Aspen and he has discussed it with Council, commissioners and different groups. Buettow asked since Ordinances 30 and 35 have come into affect, has the funding for the tree replacement program increased. Buettow said at the Design Symposium it was discussed at length to put together a program and funding to replace particularly the older trees in the public right-of-way. Robinson answered the program has increased during the last six years quite a bit. Buettow asked if Robinson felt the program was adequate now. Robinson said he felt the program could always improve and the Parks Department could always use more money for trees. Robinson stated he is trying to educate landscapers on trees by looking at site plans and advising. Tygre stated the discussion made her realize that the Commission needed to have a better idea of much room is available in setbacks for trees and their root systems when reviewing landscape plans. Robinson said it is believed by some that tree roots grow straight down and that is not true. Robinson stated most of the mass of the trees around Aspen, 18 inches is the deepest in most masses. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 Blaich recommended that there be a condition set during a site visit that a member of the Parks Department be present to advise if a plan needs a bigger setback to protect trees, as the commissioners do not always get all information on the plans. Lamont stated there are two things the Community Development Department is doing now that were not done with the O-Block. When someone comes in and does a planned unit development the department can require varied side yard setbacks or someone can request one of the criteria in the PUD review be to determine how the development affects the natural terrain and existing vegetation. Secondly, the department has taken language out of the PUD and put into the subdivision review to define building envelopes to preserve significant amounts of trees. Lamont stated the department has also added a stronger definition of building envelope into the code. Garton stated for Robinson to let the Commission know if the Parks Department needed more money for the tree replacement program; perhaps the Commission could be more creative in coming up with more money. Robinson reiterated the Parks Department does not always agree with everyone on how to trim the trees and he felt trimming trees is an art. He educates trimmers within the department on trimming procedures. Garton stated perhaps part of the application an applicant gets on the character guidelines could be information from the Parks Department on the kinds of trees and how fast they grow in Aspen. Blaich stated as applicants come to the Commission with their plans, the Commission is asking to see landscaping plans as part of the decision-making process. Sometimes the Commission is told the landscape plan will be presented at a later time, a house is built, and inappropriate trees are planted. Robinson said he thought it was a great idea to have a landscape plan, even if it was a conceptual plan. If it needs to be changed, the applicant can come back for approval. Garton stated she felt landscape plans should be added to the packet. Robinson concluded that if there were concerns, problems or different ideas to let the Parks Department know and the department would respond as quickly as possible. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1995 DISCUSSION Lamont presented the Commission members with copies of literature regarding How to Run a Meeting from the Harvard Business Review. Points to consider, exercises, improving commission meetings, rules procedures, time management, determining the relative proportions of pre-meeting time, and surveys were included in the literature. Garton requested to have meeting packets by Friday morning prior to each meeting. Tygre referred to Ordinance 34 as written "any person convicted of violation Article V of Chapter 11 shall be subject to punishment as set forth in Section 1-8 of this code". Tygre said she could not find Section 1-8 of the code and asked what the penalty was. Lamont stated the answer was in a section of the Charter and said she would get the information for the Commission and present it at the next meeting, November 7, 1995. Meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 10