HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890905
A {u
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 5. 1989
Roger Hunt called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were Richard Compton, Graeme Means, Bruce
Kerr, Michael Herron, Mari Peyton, Jasmine Tygre and Roger Hunt.
Welton arrived at this very moment.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Roger: My comment has nothing specifically to do with the
Bennett unit. I noticed what ended up is that the R-6 Zone got
modified to allow duplexes on 7,500sqft on subdivisions
subsequent to January 1, 1989. What this means is that every
annexation hereon after we are going to have to watch extremely
closely because what this means if someone annexes and has
15,000sqft lots and requests R-6 for it or a portion of it that
chances are what they are looking for is future lot splits of
those 15,000sqft lots and putting 2 duplexes on them. This was
my worry about this whole approach. I see this is the approach
the Planning Office ended up going with.
Welton: I would like to see if there is any interest in the
Commission towards modifying the code concerning fences. This
duplex out here on Cooper street apparently--one of the
conditions of its approval was the fence on the property line be
made more transparent.
Another thing, more and more people are putting up fences as high
and as solid as they possibly can between them, the street and
their adjoining neighbors. And I know in the calculation of open
space that open space only counts if it is visible from the
street. In all cases open space isn't really an applicable tool
to, particularly in R-6 Zones, to keep these walls from being
built on the property line that are 6 feet tall. I am wondering
if there is enough agreement that perhaps we can sometime in the
next 6 months when it fits in that maybe we take an approach like
the one on Cooper Street duplex which is that a fence can be 6ft
high but has to be 50% transparent. Or can be 3ft high and be
100% obscure. Or any combination in between. Just so we don't
end up with this walled fortresses kind of result in these high
end residential structures.
Graeme: I think there are some legitimate places in rear yards.
Roger: I don't have a problem with the rear yard bordering on an
alley. However, if we are gong to make the alleys more livable
with carriage units that does become a factor. I wholly agree
with you on the front yard and a portion of the side yard.
PZM9.5.89
Welton: I really hadn't thought about it to any great extent.
However there is a house--Herb Klein's house--and they put up a
6ft high board fence with posts every 6ft and it is sort of like
a fort. From a neighborhood point of view I don't think it needs
to be 6ft high and 100% wall-like.
Michael: Every time I walk by that alley I always think it I S
worse being inside than it is in the alley. I don't understand
why somebody would want a yard that would be blocked in like
that. The only thing you would see in your yard is a wall.
Welton: I think we need to look at it and make it consistent
with our view of open space.
Leslie: It was my understand that when Buzz built the first 2
Greystones and built the fence that there wasn't a provision in
the open space in the definition of open space that required to
be viewed from the street. There is a requirement of open space
that Buz does meet. He isn't complying with that because of that
"open to view" which was changed after he built the initial one.
Now that he came back through with this development on the other
parcel that is when it became an issue because he is not in
compliance with his open space because his fence was not
transparent.
Graeme: For the front yard for those parcels where they are
required open space it might already be in the code dealing with
what you are concerned with in that what is the definition of
viewable from the public way.
Welton: There is open space requirements for multi-family but
there isn't open space requirements for single family duplex. It
is ground coverage but not open space.
Roger: I want to make an announcement regarding our outside lock
boxes. I talked with Tom about it last week. He called Keren
and they are in! Now it is up to the Parks Department to install
them. She said that would be either this week or next week.
Welton: It is up to the Planning Office to approve them, the
City Council to OK them and the Parks Department to install them.
Jasmine: And it has to go to a vote of the pUblic.
Roger: As long as they are accessible, I don't care.
STAFF COMMENTS
Leslie: Introduced the new Planning Director, Amy Margerum and
introductions were made all around.
2
PZM9.5.89
ASPEN MEADOWS SPA
PUBLIC HEARING
Welton re-opened the public hearing and at the applicant's
request the application has been withdrawn.
BUZ DOPKIN
Leslie: When you did the GMQS scoring for the Buz Dopkin
Greystones on Cooper Street you gave Buz 3 alternatives. He and
I went to work on an alternative and I came back to you to
discuss an alternative that Buz has come up with. You were not
satisfied and Buz wanted to come to this meeting tonight and
speak to you about that and get clear direction from you on this.
Graeme stepped down from this because of a possible conflict of
interest.
Buz: The problem seems to have arisen when a permit was given to
me to build this fence. It dawned on me after we had our
previous meeting that it was a ploy on the part of the Building
Department to say "Hey, it might have slipped by us about this
fence that we are going to be changing how the fence can be put
up".
But it came to mind to me that at the time that I requested the
fence to be put up there the land has always been zoned one
thing--Residential/Multi-Family. Then at a later date they said
"Well, it was OK in the beginning because what you were doing in
the beginning was only a duplex. So then they came back and said
"Well, what can we do to correct our mistake?" And we will say
if you want to go put those other 2 units up there, you are going
to have to do one of these 3 alternatives that they gave me at
the last meeting that I came for.
The other point was that next door that no one knew at the time
there exists a 6ft fence there right next door that was
grand fathered to all of this. It is really my appeal to you that
all of this should be grandfathered to all of the
recommendations. If not it is still my prerogative to pursue
that as far as I can and I will.
The last point was that it was very clearly stated to me and is
on record and by the article that I have in the newspaper that I
was explicitly told "We are not going to leave this to the
discretion of you or the Planning Department. We are going to
give you 3 provisos and you will follow one of them".
3
PZM9.5.89
Again, I am not saying that I am agreeable to that but this is
the worst scenario that I promised my buyers who have bought
these 2 places. I wouldn't want to jeopardize sales of this size
because of some little misunderstanding. It was very clearly
stated to me "You will do one of the three". You will take the
whole wall down to 3 feet. You will take down the wall in front
of the new area that you wish to build which after the second
thought dawned on me what I just told you--that always was zoned
RMF. And the whole thing should absolutely be grandfathered to
all of this.
And the 3rd proviso was that "You will leave 40% of the wall
open". So I sat down as the designer that I am and tried to do
the best that I could with what I was trying to create. There
are several architects that complimented me on how well I handled
what was done there considering the street, the dirt, the noise
and that it was really a great idea and the place looked
beautiful.
So I came back, made a little sketch of the wall coming down and
then being built back up and leaving every other brick out which
more than covered the 40% that you requested. Then it comes back
to me that you don't like the idea. You like another idea after
it is on record. Where is your sense of fairness and decency and
of reliability when you tell somebody something and then somebody
abides by it and then you say "No".
We think that this whole thing should really not even be before
you because it is all totally grandfathered to the new open space
ruling.
Leslie: If Buz does nothing more to this property the Department
feels like "Yes the fence is grandfathered in." But because he
is doing major developmental re-development on this parcel that
then compliance with the open space becomes an issue. And
because the fence is not transparent he is not in compliance with
the open space and during the GMP scoring we discussed this and
there were 3 options that Buz was given.
Richard asked for explanation regarding "grandfathered" as
regards this case.
Buz: It is different for R-6 or Residential Multi-Family. But
they can say--just her inference right there is exactly what I am
talking about. They are saying "We agree that it is all
grandfathered, and you are given permission, pay for a permit and
you pay to put that wall up there. But now that we have you in a
spot that if you would like to build the others we are going to
4
PZM9.5.89
use that to make it come up to the new thing". That really isn't
cricket.
Roger: I disagree with what is cricket in this case. I happen
to agree with the Planning Office. If you wanted to leave the
duplex there, that wall is grandfathered. But now that you are
re-developing that property we have the right to look at the part
that is--you are developing that property and it needed to come
through approvals so that is a new development on that property
and I think we have the perfect right to look at something and
improve it and get it closer to conformity, etc.
Specifically about that approach with every other brick is--the
portion of every other brick is not 50% opening. It was 40% and
the reason for that is I wanted to allow you room for a solid
gate if that is what you wanted. So that 40%, to my mind, was
the entire front--fence and gate, etc. Additionally I look at it
as transparency. As soon as you get to a 45 degree angle to that
wall all of a sudden the transparency of that wall falls off
markedly because of the thickness of the bricks.
Transparency should include that 40% when you are off at a 45
degree angle. That, to my mind, is transparency. I feel like
staying with that position at this point. That has not gotten to
where I felt to where we had agreed to.
Bruce: The reason that you want to go with this kind of scheme
rather than dropping the whole fence down to 3 or 4 feet is
because you represented to your buyers that there will be a 6
foot fence of some kind without regard to whether it is open
bricks or closed in?
Buz: I took the Board at their good faith and I passed that on
to my buyers.
Bruce: That is the reason you have selected this option instead
of one of the others?
Buz: Yes.
Michael: Is the reason that the 6 foot wall is there is because
you are on Highway 82?
Buz: That was my primary basic reason for designing it that way-
the dirt, the dust, the noise and the environment. There still
has been no mention of a building permit being issued--me to pay
for it and somebody saying "We made a mistake and would like to
re-imburse you for this mistake".
5
PZM9.5.89
Mari: I, too, agree with the Planning Office and it just does
not meet the definition of "open to view". You can't really see
through this unless you go up and stick your head right between 2
bricks. I just don't see how this meets the definition. It is
not open to view.
Michael: If this was a court of law a judge would tell you it is
40% open. If you tell him to make it 40% and it is 40% then it
is 40%. I think what we are not doing is being fair. I wouldn't
like to see the west end of Aspen have 6ft fences on it. But I
can certainly understand somebody living along the highway
looking to have a wall. I just don't see what the benefit to the
citizens of Aspen are for the open space on this particular piece
of property insofar as it outweighing the benefit to these people
having a solid 6ft wall to protect themselves from the highway.
When you have open space in a commercial area that is one thing.
But this is an area where the open space is of little or no
benefit to anybody and the protection afforded by the wall, I
think, has a much greater protection to the people living there
because of where the property is located. I think that is the
consideration you have to look at.
Richard: I understand the desire to shut out the highway. I go
by that property a lot. In fact I lived on that property once
when the old miner's shack was there so that does make me
sensitive to it. I find that the presence of the wall there is a
major change in the character of the neighborhood, not just the
buildings, but the wall itself. So I agree with the staff
position on opening it up to keep the transparency. with the re-
development of the whole block a solid wall along there and if
this becomes the precedent then we are looking at a whole
different kind of neighborhood than we have now and I think that
we want.
Jasmine: I know we were all having trouble coming up with a
specific instruction to the applicant as to what would be
acceptable in terms of the design. But the intent of what we
said and what we wanted to accomplish was very clear in that we
wanted to have more of an open feel rather than a wall.
The 40% number we did not come up with as any indication that you
had to put into an exact formula but as a general indication of
how much more open we wanted it to be rather than a specific
measurement. I thought that that had been conveyed to the
applicant more clearly that we wanted a more open feel rather
than relying on the technicality of the 40%.
Apparently he misunderstood that and now he is accusing us of not
fulfilling our own technicalities. Yet thinking back on the
discussion I don't really believe that was the way the discussion
6
PZM9.5.89
went. And when you came back with this I think everybody said
"Well, that is not really what we had in mind when we were
talking about making it more open". And therefor I don't feel
that we are being unreasonable in saying "OK you took out 40% but
technically we don't like it". I don't think it was really that
technical a discussion to begin with. So I would go along with
the Planning Office on this one.
Mari: I just think that when we discussed what we meant in our
direction, we have to go back to the definition of what an open
space is and the definition of open space is defined as open to
view from the street. That is why this, to me, does not meet
that definition. I am afraid if we agree that this is open to
view from the street, how are we going to tell anybody in the
future that you can do it but they can't.
Buz: I think you have to take into consideration that a building
permit was issued that I paid for and I built the wall. Then
just to say "We are sorry, too bad, you can't get a building
permit there again". And no responsibility whatsoever on the
City's part. And not only once, but twice.
Roger: I don't think there is any responsibility on the City's
part for the undeveloped piece. You chose to put that wall up
there at that time. Then you chose to re-develop that piece
later. Well, you have to take the brunt of that.
Buz: It is that RMF Zone.
differently than what it was.
Roger: All right but by the time you decided to re-develop there
were some changes.
It was never zoned anything any
Buz: I didn't re-develop. The zoning did not change. No matter
what I put up there, the zoning did not change.
Roger: The definition of open space maybe did. And that is the
crux of the problem. And the problem is you decided for whatever
reason not to develop that piece we are looking at now until now
and so it is a problem now so we are having to deal with it.
Leslie: My understanding is that when Buz built the fence he was
caught in between the changes and he was put on notice that the
fence would not comply with the open space when he came back to
develop the second parcel. And I also agreed and I still agree
that this is something that you guys directed us to work and
bring a solution to you and when Buz brought the solution to me
we talked about it because to do this he would have to take down
the whole fence.
7
PZM9.5.B9
The 2 of us talked about when he is taking down the fence maybe
to do it in stages so we would have a chance to actually look at
a 3ft high fence, a 4ft high fence and talk about alternatives as
he was taking down the fence. Before I brought this to you he
found a buyer for his property and then just wanted to go with
this proposal. So I feel that the 2 of us are at an impasse.
That is why I am bringing this to you.
Welton: I think you have got 4 fairly consistent voices on this
side that the discussion that took place in dealing with
transparency and openness and open to view that what was said at
that meeting doesn't seem to agree with the solution.
The consensus a few weeks ago when you were not able to be here
was pretty much the same. That is that the transparency doesn't
mean looking through a lace filigree of brick.
I think you could just verbally make a suggestion such as a wall
that is 60% of the height of the maximum allowable height of a
wall ie. a 3ft 8in high wall instead of a 6ft high wall--or
whatever works out to be 60% and ask the Commission if that is
more in tune with their thinking for transparency and view to the
public way. That is just a suggestion.
Roger: As an idea if wanting to retain the 6ft, what about the
idea of reducing the brick portion down to 3 or 3ft Bin and then
having an open iron fence on top of that? That is a very common
type of fence and it is a very transparent one. The iron fence
around the Sardy House for example, you hardly see the thing
because it is so open. Maybe some combination of iron fence on
top of a brick wall.
Welton: I think Roger made you a suggestion. I think it is real
obvious to me, not having been party to the first meeting, what
happened at that first meeting. That was that the goal is the
community's visual feeling of open space for this property not be
walled off behind a very impenetrable plain. You are going to
have to come up with a solution that can accomplish that.
Buz: The last thing I heard is that the solid wall can be up to
4ft. Am I to take that as if we can come up with something and
again I have my last plea to the Council on all of it is that if
we do have the wall up to 4ft that if there is some sort of
wrought iron thing up above it that is almost totally open, is
that acceptable?
Welton: Does anybody on Commission have a reaction that that
sort of thing is acceptable--not necessarily 4ft but say 60% of
what is--
8
--~....,~--_.._-,-~~-......
PZM9.5.89
Bruce: I am the one who made the statement regarding the 4ft.
solid wall. I said I would rather have 33.3% open and have a 4ft
solid fence because I thought it was more in compliance with what
our idea was of open space--being able to see over it and not be
totally walled off. I said "If it means 4ft instead of 3ft Bin
or whatever the exact percent figure is I could buy into the 4ft
fence. And I wouldn't care if you have an iron grate on top of
it or not.
Jasmine: I just don't want to get tied down to a specific
measurement like that. And I don't think that is fair because it
is going to be misinterpreted again. I think you understand what
we are trying to accomplish here. I really think it is up to you
to talk to your buyers, find out what is acceptable to them, and
then come back to us.
Welton: 60% would be 43.2 inches tall.
Mari: It seems to me like we are
what it is that is acceptable.
accomplish but it does look like
exactly what is acceptable.
Welton: Something in the neighborhood of a wall 60% of the
maximum allowed that has some sort of transparent features such
as wrought iron work on top of it as suggested by Roger and
Bruce. Does something like that strike you as being something
that can be responded to favorably?
going to have to define exactly
We have said what we want to
we are going to have to define
Mari: I would respond favorably as long as it is open to view.
As far as I am concerned if it is only 4ft high it is open to
view. And if it has an iron fence above the 4ft it still is open
to view.
Richard: We can argue about 44in or 4Bin but that is ball park.
CURB & GUTTER/SIDEWALK
(NOT ON AGENDA)
Chuck Roth, Engineering Dept.:
curb and gutter and sidewalk?
this on Monday night.
Does somebody want to talk about
I am going back to Council with
Graeme: I don't know what you are referring to and I didn't have
any input in having you come here but I was one of the ones who
was pretty much against putting sidewalks in the west end.
Something might be acceptable to me if it came out of the street
so the street became narrower. The curb might stay where it is
and I think on certain streets that would, in my opinion, maybe
be a good approach. Then you might take 4ft of the street and
9
PZM9.5.89
2ft of the curb. But I do have an objection to paving over grass
and trees.
Roger: We don't need sidewalks in the west end in the Winter
time. And so how do we make it work? Is it an 18 to 24 inch no
man's land between the curb and the sidewalk? And the sidewalk
is how many inches wide? Do you have a standard thing in mine?
And you overlay that on the lots in the west end and you have all
sorts of problems because you have trees in the middle of those
sidewalks and irrigation ditches and the litany goes on. I in
favor of more designated pedestrian oriented corridors. And that
is what I thought we had gone to in the transportation element.
I have a problem with the urban curbs that we always get when
something new goes in. That rolled curb keeps it more rural in
character than the urban 90 degree curb.
Richard:
and those
as far as
Regarding putting sidewalks along Main street and 82
heavy traffic areas and that sounds favorable to me but
the residential streets I am generally opposed to it.
Welton: We have all agreed years ago that Main street needs to
have the last few blocks of sidewalks put in and that nobody
likes sidewalks in the west end residential area.
BENNETT CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
PUBLIC HEARING
Leslie: Made presentation as attached in record.
Welton asked the applicant if they had any problem with any of
the conditions.
Bennett: No. It is fine.
Michael: What is a 4X4 pedestal easement?
Leslie: That is something that the Engineer--for a transformer.
Bennett:
that just
be put on
I guess I didn't understand what that
means that a transformer for underground
my property?
was then. So
utilities will
Leslie: For your property.
Roger: It is for the adjoining properties as well.
little transformer box. They are actually 3ft by 3ft.
pedestal ends up with about 6 inches around them.
It is a
And the
Bruce: What they are asking for is the easement.
10
PZM9.5.89
Roger: What this is for is in the future we underground in that
area that they have a place to stick a transformer. That is
about all it is. And is that 4X4ft area a problem on your
property?
Bennett: If this
willing to do it.
10ft setback makes
is a necessary condition then I am certainly
The setbacks are 10ft so a 4ft easement in the
access around that rather difficult.
Welton asked if there was any comment from the public. There was
none and he closed the public hearing.
MOTION
Bruce: I move to approve conditional use of the accessory
dwelling unit at 534 Spruce Street subject to the conditions
listed in the Planning Office memo dated September 9, 1989.
Michael seconded the motion with all in favor.
100 E. BLEEKER STREET
(101 E. BLEEKER)
PUBLIC HEARING
Welton opened the pUblic hearing.
Roxanne: The applicant is out of town. I have received
notification that the public noticing has taken place.
Welton: The recommendation has no conditions for approval.
Welton then asked for pUblic comment on this application. There
was no comment and he closed the pUblic hearing.
MOTION
Roger: I move to recommend approval of landmark designation of
100 East Bleeker Street.
Mari seconded the motion with all in favor.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
BY LAWS CODE AMENDMENT
PUBLIC HEARING
Welton opened the public hearing.
Michael: How do we review the by laws of the HPC?
11
PZM9.5.89
Roxanne: It is a code amendment which requires your
recommendation.
Welton asked for public comment. There was none and he closed
the public portion of the hearing.
MOTION
Roger: I move to recommend forwarding of the
to the city Council without further comment.
to Division IV of the Land Use Code.
HPC revised by laws
That is amendment
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
HPC INVENTORY RE-EVALUATION CODE AMENDMENT
PUBLIC HEARING
Welton opened the public hearing.
Roxanne made presentation as attached in record.
Welton asked for public comment. There was none and he closed
the public portion of the hearing.
MOTION
Michael: I move that we recommend approval of HPC inventory re-
evaluation code amendment.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 5:30pm.
Clerk
12