Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19981103ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 03, 1998 Sara Garton, Chairwoman, opened the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners Bob Blaich, Steve Buettow, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, Tim Semrau and Sara Garton were present. Jasmine Tygre and Ron Erickson were excused. City Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, Chris Bendon, Mitch Haas and Julie Ann Woods, Community Development, and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS Sara Garton reminded the commission about lunch with city council on Friday, 11/06/98 at noon. Garton also noted a managing growth presentation by Roger Millar on Thursday, 11/5/98. Steve Buettow said the project on Park appeared to be dug-out into the right-of- way; he questioned safety issues. Tim Mooney noted it was critical construction in the set back; they probably own to the center of the road. He said the traffic on Park Avenue was out of control. He mentioned that DRAC had a case this week regarding a window-well in that area. Garton stated there were 2 basement constructions going on and 1 appeared to be close to the river bank. Mooney replied there was a building permit for a 250 square foot addition below grade. He requested stop signs at that intersection. Mooney stated neighbors stacked boulders very uniquely along the roadway and took out the place where the bus or cars could pull off or to plow snow. He said it was a landscape feature (as a privacy statement) adding to the congestion in the area. David Hoefer stated Julie Ann Woods was appointed planning director. Woods handed out an information sheet as a follow up to commission concerns. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Tim Semrau stated that he had a conflict on Smuggler Hunter Trust because he had inquired into the purchase of the property. Steve Buettow stated his conflict stemmed from Hunter Creek Commons (a board member) negotiating with Smuggler Hunter Trust on a possible land purchase. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 03, 1998 PUBLIC HEARING (continued from October 6, 1998): CODE AMENDMENT, SECTION 26.36 - SECURITY SIGNS Sara Garton, chair, opened the public hearing introducing Marc Powell from Apex Security and placed his letter into the public record. Mitch Haas, staff, explained the background for the code amendments were from questions raised about the legality of signs and right-of-way placement. He said right-of-way placement was not allowed by the city. The code does not provide for off-site premises or these signs at all. Haas said staff was doing a balancing act with the polar ends of the positions of the sign issues. Haas stated the position of those who feel the security signs should be allowed say: they were a deterrent for criminal activity; a feeling of security with the signs; better ability for emergency response to locate a property. When police or fire were asked if the signs helped located a property, they said the response time was the same with or without security signs. Haas said the other side against the security signs say: they were a form of advertising that was not allowed by any other entity. Real estate and construction signs were removed when the property was sold or construction completed; the signs were allowed by code as temporary in nature. Haas stated the recommendation was for a 6"x6" area within the allowable signage to identify a security system on premises; the sign not be company specific, that way it would not advertise for a specific, security company. Haas noted that off-site signage was not allowed and the code amendment made that more clear. He had a slide presentation showing the security signs on Hwy 82 down to Galena at Aspen Drug. There was discussion of the 2 square foot sign limitation for residences. Bob Blaich asked the size of the current Apex signs. Powell replied 1 l"xl 1" and the signs were owned by the clients, not Apex. He said they have worked very hard with the city to come up with a solution to meet the clients needs and the concerns that were identified by Mitch. Powell did not feel the pictures were very fair because they were taken much closer than just driving past. He said that tertiary emergency response units would utilize the signs for identification purposes according to ambulance drivers he spoke with. Powell felt the signage being seen from the street was important. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 03, 1998 Powell said there was a level of corporate discrimination because a 6"x6" sign without a security company's name on the sign was the same when a realtor could have their name on a for sale sign and move it all around town without any problems advertising their business. He stated they have spent in excess of $30,000.00 to complying with city directives to move the signs. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, addressed the legal issues in the letter from Marc Powell. He said there were no first amendment issues; no grandfathering issues; no good faith reliance issues. Hoefer said the focus should be on the two arguments for the advertising and the deterrent affect. No public comment. Tim Sermrau asked if the 6"x6" sign was okay with the applicant. Powell responded that it was their idea. The discussion included the security company name placement and phone number, stickers on windows separate from the signs. Roger Hunt stated that he was probably responsible for the review of security signs. He said the signs were for the convenience of the burglar to find the homes without security signs. He did not want the signs on the mailbox posts but rather on the wall within 10' of the front door. Hunt said the sign could contain the security company name and phone number. He found the sign at Aspen Drug objectionable. Garton noted this was for permanent signs. Tim Mooney asked what level of service does this sign afford. Powell replied that it was an electronically monitored system. Bob Blaich said that people have a right to have some kind of indication that there was security but not for a cleaning service. He stated the sign should have the word security as the focal point and then the company name and telephone number. The signs should be back on the property and not in the yards or mailboxes but on the house. The size and color have been agreed upon. Blaich noted the commercial properties have signage and should comply to the sign rules. He said a quieter more subtle solution would work better. He noted that many of the signs were still in the right-of-way and a problem. Powell responded the city suspended the action until after this hearing. Blaich asked if the no parking signs purchased privately were legal. Staff the answered no. Blaich stated that he could not vote in favor of the code amendment as it stood; more details needed to be worked out. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 03, 1998 Steve Buettow agreed with what had been said. He said the small 6"x6" signs on or near the front doors that were informative with the name and phone number. He did not feel the signs should be seen by everyone that drives by. Sara Garton supported the amendment and agreed with staff on the commercial advertisement. She felt strongly objectionable to Westec and other companies not knowing their signs were not legal; they have not been blind sided by the fact the signs were not allowed by code and right-of-way placement was not allowed. Garton did not feel the company, logo or phone number needed to be identified on the 6"x6" sign. Hunt asked if Garton thought the signs on mailboxes were a good idea. Garton answered that did not offend her. Tim Mooney understood this code amendment was a compromise; these signs would not be allowed at all right now. He felt it was fairly balanced except for the mailbox placement. He said the mailbox would say it had an armed alarm system in the instance of a row of mailboxes with signs because the house wouldn't be visible or known which house had the security system. Mooney also objected to having the signs on commercial buildings; a burglar would go in the back door so the signs should be on the back door. He felt that in the right-of-way, on mailboxes, in front yards and up and down the highway was totally out of hand. Haas noted the intent of amendment was not to restrict name and address signage any more than it was and was now allowed as wall signs or free-standing. He said that free-standing was to be changed to mailbox. He stated the fire code applied to all residences in the city and the street number be placed on the residence. There was discussion of security sign placement possibilities and size. Language needed to be drafted for the appropriate location for the community, not the security company. Decals could be placed on windows in addition to 6"x6" security signs. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to recommend to city council to adopt the code amendments related to security signs as proposed in the community development staff memorandum dated 11/03/98 in P&Z resolution/498-29 with the word mailbox stricken. Steve Buettow second. Roll call vote: Semrau, no; Blaich, no; Hunt, no; Mooney, yes; Buettow, yes; Garton, yes. FAILED 3-3. The commissioners continued discussions of name and address of security companies on the 6"x6" security signs and proximity to the entrance of the residence. Blaich suggested a mock-up of the sign be brought to city council; the message was of security and safety not the company name first. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 03, 1998 MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to recommend city council adopt the code amendments related to security signs as proposed in the community development staff memorandum dated 11/03/98 in P&Z resolution #98- 29 provided that Section 26.36.030(B)(17) be changed to read Residential name and address signs. One (1) mailbox or wall sign per detached residential dwelling unit or duplex unit, with an area not to exceed two (2) square feet which identifies the street address of the dwelling unit. In addition to this square foot limitation, it is also acceptable to include a sign of security nature of an area of up to six inches by six inches (6" x 6") neutral in color to be placed upon the wall of the residence, a message alerting the general public of the presence of a security system which includes the name and phone number of that security provider and not primarily an advertising device. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings or mailboxes, whichever is more visible, in such a position as to be plainly visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. Steve Buettow second. Roll call vote: Mooney, yes; Semrau, yes; Blaich, yes; Buettow, yes; Hunt, yes; Garton, no. APPROVED 5-1. PUBLIC HEARING (continued from 10/20/98): SMUGGLER HUNTER TRUST (Aley property) SUBDIVISION & REZONING Steve Buettow and Tim Semrau were recused. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated the property was noticed, but has been sold. Maxwell Aley stated the new owner was not present but Scott Hicks, representative for the new owner with an interest in the property, was present. Aley noted that Smuggler Hunter Trust executed an assigmnent for their interest in the city contract to Maureen Kinney, the new owner. John Worcester and David Hoefer met regarding the noticing and deemed the original notice sufficient to proceed with the public hearing process. Sara Garton, Chairwoman, opened the continued public hearing on 2 Williams Way for subdivision, rezoning and special review. Chris Bendon, staff, explained utilizing bluelines the property was a one acre piece (bisected by Williams Way, not a divided parcel) zoned RMF-A with the need for rezoning. He said the process from P&Z was to recommend to city council the rezoning and subdivision. Bendon ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 03, 1998 said the parking requirement was for four spaces, not long term, along Spruce Street. Hoefer noted one of those spaces would be for handicap parking. Staff recommended approval with the conditions listed that were associated with normal subdivision plat requirements. Garton inquired what the plans were for the existing house. Bendon and Hoefer both concurred there no plans since there were new owners, who would have to make application. Aley commented that Jim Markalunas said his aunt lived in the west unit that was built in 1895 or 1896. He said the other was built in 1885 moved from the site of the old public library on main street in the 1960' s. Aley said his wife lived there in the 1950's. He noted the 2 units were joined together to what was now there. No public comments. Aley expressed concern for condition #3; this was not an immediate requirement whenever deemed necessary by the city engineer. He noted there were no sidewalks on either side of the street all the way to Williams Woods; it would be difficult under the topography of the streets to construct sidewalks. Julie Ann Woods stated that the city engineer wanted the condition. The commission discussed this condition, and it was stricken from the P&Z motion. Aley requested rewording of condition #6; when the city does the park a plan could be submitted but not required on lot #1 unless there was redevelopment. The following was added to the first sentence in condition #6...the owner of that lot shall MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the Special Review for Parking and recommend City Council approve the Smuggler Hunter Trust Subdivision, 2 Williams Way, and Rezoning of proposed Lot/42 of the Subdivision, with the following conditions as contained in P&Z Resolution/498-34: 1. Prior to final approval by City Council, a park easement shall be recorded for the portion of Lot/ti south of Williams Way and noted on the plat. The easement shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. 2. Prior to final approval by City Council, the final plat shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. An easement shall be provided on Lot/ti for electric equipment which is currently in the Spruce Street R.O.W. Existing parking spaces for Lot/ti shall be depicted on the final plat. 3. deleted. 4. Prior to final approval by City Council, the applicant shall complete and record an agreement to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of constructing improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula. 5. The applicant shall coordinate the placement of street trees with the City Forester to meet the street tree requirement of Subdivision. 6. Prior to redevelopment of either Lot, the owner of that Lot 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 03, 1998 shall submit a drainage report and a drainage plan, including a erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A two year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. 7. No more than four (4) parking spaces may be provided along Spruce Street for Lot #2. The spaces shall be signed for two hour maximum parking. 8. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Roll call vote: Mooney, yes; Blaich, yes; Hunt, yes; Garton, yes. APPROVED 4- 0. Garton asked if the house was a historic landmark. Aley stated that it was not and not even in the HP district. Woods replied that it would be inventoried. Meeting adjourned 6:45 p.m. into work sessions on Truscott Place Affordable Housing and Long Range Planning Survey, 7th & Main. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 03, 1998 COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ................................................................................ 1 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 1 CODE AMENDMENT, SECTION 26.36 - SECURITY SIGNS ........................................................................ 2 SMUGGLER HUNTER TRUST (ALEY PROPERTY) SUBDIVISION & REZONING ................................. 5