HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19900904
,^xeJ
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 4. 1990
vice Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Bruce
Kerr, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Mari Peyton
arrived shortly after roll call and Graeme Means was excused.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Jasmine: A little over a week ago I took a walk up Galena Street
which I have not been on since they had improved Galena Street.
And it was really pretty amazing what that street looks like now.
It looks like a real street and it has got nice plantings and
places like the Fasching Haus and Fifth Avenue have done a little
bit of re-furbishing so that somehow the improvement of the
street seems to have inspired some of the other properties up
there to improve their external appearances and I think it is
very nice.
That is a street that is very visible to a lot of tourists but
not a lot of locals and I think the improvement on that street is
pretty dramatic. I am really impressed.
Roger Hunt: I have been going by the Hotel Aspen on the Bleeker
Street side the past few days and they have put in a permanent
trash yard in the City ROW with a right angled fence around a
dumpster. I would like to know how they got approval to do that
and if they got approval. If they didn't get approval I would
like to see the dumpster out of the ROW.
Welton: They have some funny alley vacations in that block.
Roger: This isn't on the alley side at all. This is literally
right at the curb of Bleeker Street. That means, therefore, it
has to be within the ROW because everyone's fence is about 15 to
20ft in from the curb.
Sara: The day that the Commission approved the Whitcomb duplex,
it went up for sale. Does that change anything?
Kim: No. We knew it was for sale.
Roger: Regarding schools: At this point it looks like the red
school building is going to stay in tact one way or another. It
looks like it is going to stay under the auspices of the school
district. The question is what happens in the yellow brick site.
That is really up in the air. I have been expressing continually
the attitude that I would hate to lose the asset of what we have
there in the form of the building. Particularly the yellow brick
PZM9.4.90
si te. And I would hate to see that whole property leave the
public domain. Where else can the public re-create that type of
facili ty?
Is that what the sense of the P&Z is? Or is it some other
different sense. The proposals range from razing the building
and putting it to private development with the underlying R-6
zoning to modifications of that upwards--retaining as much as
possible of the old site and retaining some of the site as park
area--basketball courts and things like that which are heavily
utilized.
Welton: Which members are in favor of seeing it turned into
however many private free-market single family lots as the school
district can get out of it?
No hands.
Who would like to see it stay in some sort of public use for
public good?
The vote was unanimous.
STAFF COMMENTS
Kim: Hallam Lake is in the annexation pipelines and will be in
the city limits before too long. As a part of that annexation we
need to zone it something. So we have scheduled it to come back
to P&Z for discussion on zoning on October 2nd.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was none.
HALLAM LAKE BLUFF ESA CODE AMENDMENT
Welton opened the public hearing.
Kim made presentation as attached.
I brought up a worst case scenario of a new building being
proposed on a vacant lot that happened to be 30ft back from the
top of the slope but given the lot conditions or lack of
vegetation if 30ft were the adopted distance then maybe that
would allow something to fall through the cracks as far as its
impact on the--
Welton: Well, the only crack that it would fall through is that
if it is far enough back that it wouldn't have much of a presence
on Hallam Lake. And the only condition that it would find itself
exempt from is the provision of landscape screening. The point
2
PZM9.4.90
of this exercise is to encourage development to not happen on the
edge of the cliff but to happen a significant distance back and
30ft is 3 times what the rear yard setback is. I have been
involved with 2 houses on Lake Avenue both of which the property
lines were right at the edge of the slope. One of them was built
10 years ago and that was set back 15ft the other one is being
built now and that is set back about 30ft. And it doesn't really
have the--Tom, does that seem to have an overbearing presence on
the lake?
Cardamone: No. Because that hillside is covered with
Cottonwoods so it is quite screened. The spirit of this is to
get some co-ordination of what everybody is doing to the benefit
not only of ACES but of the neighbors themselves being able to
eliminate spotlights, domestic dogs, etc. It could also be a
great benefit to maintain dialogue with anybody who is doing
anything around the lake.
Welton: When somebody does want to build in the area between 15
and 30ft from the edge of the slope the review that they go
through is a SRA special review?
Kim: special review I don't think is a pUblic hearing.
Welton: That is a real important point to me. I think ESA falls
into SRA as far as review procedure and is a public hearing. Now
I think public hearing is--the requirements of public hearing are
real odious to begin with. And for something like this making a
property owner notify in writing every property owner within
300ft is overkill I believe. But I do think that it would be
appropriate that ACES had the first opportunity to review plans
bordering on their property. And maybe some kind of trigger
mechanism kicks in that if ACES identifies a problem then it puts
it into the forum of a P&Z review.
It certainly is cleaner to have it so that at 15ft you can't do
it. 15 to 30ft is review 30ft and beyond no problem you don't'
have to do anything. You have less problems.
I know that in that neighborhood there are a number of
individuals who are very frustrated by the amount of development
that has happened allover the west end. Tear down, rebuild-
stuff basically that doesn't require any review by anybody. And
when they are notified of a public hearing here is an opportunity
to put their emotions and feelings and frustrations and their
lack of a voice in everything else that is happening and to zero
in on something that might be a real minor kind of thing that
gives them an opportunity to jump allover somebody who has had a
higher profile simply because of the circumstance they are put in
with a public hearing.
3
PZM9.4.90
We used to have adjacent property owners notified for some
reviews and all property owners within 300ft for other reviews.
The adjacent property owners unfortunately got swept away so that
most of these reviews require public notice to anywhere from 50
to 250 or not at all.
Richard: It would seem to me that anybody building within 15 and
30ft lines ought to have the notice of a public hearing. And
that maybe anybody within a sensitive area there should be a
special review for things like vegetation and lighting. Anybody
encroaching on the edge of the bluff should have a real good
reason for doing it. It should be a real necessity and not just
to make a few more bucks.
Welton: I was mistaken--less than 15ft is prohibited. 15 to
30ft was by review and 30ft was exempted. You just have to play
by the rules between 15 and 30ft. And the rules stop after 30ft.
Welton asked for public comment.
Tom Todd: I represent Mrs. Farish who is sitting at my left.
Mrs. Farish is one of the property owners up here. And there are
a couple of factual things we want to bring up for consideration.
It is our understanding that there is no special review or public
hearings for any type of development proposal as the code
presently exists.
Kim: There might be historical preservation considerations for
historic parcel. As far as development of a single family
residence on a platted parcel, no.
Todd: And we also understand that there is some varying boundary
lines. Some folks on the top of the slope and some all the way
to the bottom or the surface level of Hallam Lake. And I guess
from that approach we think that some people are naturally
restricted from development if their boundary line is at the top
of the slope then they have an automatic setback do they not?
To say we are going to draw the red line at the top of the slope
and everyone else all future development has to be X number of
feet back from that, we think is not really giving an equitable
application to all of this. Where someone buys with the reliance
that their boundary lines go all the way to the lake and they can
build 10ft setback from the lake. So some people are going to be
hurt or more affected more than others.
A good number of these building sites are already built to their
maximum potential and there are just a few left. And Mrs. Farish
is one of them to have a smaller older home that are probably
4
PZM9.4.90
going to have to be redeveloped to realize their full potential
in the future. So we see an inequity there.
Sara brought up a good point--if this whole neighborhood burned
down and we all had to start over this would be a fair ordinance
with uniform application. But as it is presently proposed it
seems like the long-standing citizens who want to do something
with their property but haven't quite done it yet it is for the
benefit of the occasional tourist. And so it is a question of
what does the P&Z--what is your charge here in terms of the
rights of the individual citizen vs. the occasional visitors.
Welton: Would adoption of this, Mr. Todd, specifically affect
Mrs. Farish's property in an adverse way? Does it leave an area
up above the edge of the cliff that is so small as to be unusable
for any future development?
Todd: Yes. Mrs. Farish's residence is right at the top of the
slope. It is about 2,200sqft. It was built in the early 50s.
The vegetation surrounding the house is grown and mature and has
60 to 80 Spruces circling the house and this is really quite a
logical place for a building site to be right where the house
presently is. I think ultimately Mrs. Farish would like to,
rather than add onto the top, add on below and do perhaps a walk
out basement. The architects recommended that type of
redevelopment idea using the same footprint and not going up but
keeping low. Along with any other development consideration she
would be directly affected by the ESA in that respect as well as
any other modification.
Cardamone: In previous discussions about this the thing I don't
want to lose track of is that we worked with architects Hagman
and Yaw with the notion that between the top of the bluff and the
15ft line that the development within that zone would be possible
if it were a small portion of the building and the screening and
other factors mitigating any negative impacts that that might
have. I would just like to keep that notion in the discussion.
If that notion survives the discussion then building up to the
extra bank remains a possibility. But the notion of creating a
building down over the bank is the one that we are trying to
essentially promote as not only a negative impact on Hallam Lake
but the neighbors of Hallam Lake and everybody agree to various
processes including this to hold back a bit because it is to
everybody's benefit.
From my point of view that is the spirit of this is to try to
work out a formula that benefits the neighbors as well. I use
the analogy of the parade where some people start stepping out
from the curb to get a better view and everybody else has to get
out from the curb to get a view.
5
PZM9.4.90
Todd: I would suggest that if this ordinance was adopted that
you include language that would allow for, rather than a
mandatory setback, something more user-friendly such as the
ability to convey conservation similar to what the Miriam lot
split included. In that way people can voluntarily set back
their properties while at the same time realizing the significant
tax benefit associated with something like that.
Kim: In my memo I mentioned a consideration for the review would
be visibility from below. There might be instances where there
would be little visible impacts level of activity resulting from
the development and visibility from adjacent properties. That is
one of the goals here is to protect everybody else's goals also.
Bruce: Kim, has the legal staff looked at this ordinance from
the consideration of possibly taking the position ?
Kim: No.
Bruce said more here but the fan drowned him out.
Cardamone: If a gift is required it is not tax deductible.
Mari: It would be in the special review criteria though,
wouldn't it?
Kim: I think it shouldn't be mentioned. It should be offered.
Jed will probably have a legal opinion on that one. But it is
more favorable on the part of the Commission if a 40ft
conservation easement is dedicated and there is a lot of large
trees and is to remain in its natural state that that might make
up for additional footage taken off towards the slope.
Welton: In the case of Mrs. Farish this ordinance would not
necessarily preclude what was described for her property. It
would just mean that it will be very difficult to do it and that
it would--the trade-off would be look at very carefully of
building below as opposed to building up above. That trade-off
would be evaluated by P&Z as a benefit vs. whatever.
Sara: She would come through the special review process then,
right?
Kim: Well, from what I am hearing is that if she were to go with
a walk-out basement it sounds as though she would be actually
below the top of the slope. This code as it is drafted now would
not allow that. We would be talking about special review from
the top of the slope.
6
PZM9.4.90
Wel ton: However the mitigating circumstances such as existing
vegetation--I am talking the trees below.
I would suggest that the planning Office study, with the help of
Tom Cardamone, looking at real world scenario cases such as Mrs.
Farish's of if there is a circumstance where heading into the
side of a hill for a walk-out basement is justified because of
existing vegetation, because of existing contours, is this
something that we really do want to forever preclude given a
trade-off of a 2-story house on top of the bluff vs. a one-story
house on top of the bluff with maybe not a walk-out basement but
maybe cut out window wells or whatever. I don't feel comfortable
out-of-hand given the tremendous amount of property below the top
of the slope, of necessarily treating everybody equal. The
people that have all property on the top it is very easy to
comply. Maybe in Mrs. Farish's case it is something that should
be looked at.
Kim: In thinking about this in it's early stages I tried to
determine if we established a particular setback, are we creating
undevelopable lots and I felt confident that we weren't--that we
were not impinging on development rights, single family residents
on these lots given front setbacks and side setbacks. Most of
the lots have at least 110 or 120ft deep and part of that is on
the slope that leaves at least 100 down to maybe 80ft of
developable flat land on top.
Welton: Another item to throw into your stewpot of items to
consider is the possibility--we talked about exterior lighting,
spot lighting, lighting that provides glare down onto the lake.
Another item to consider since interior lighting is so hard to
address is perhaps the amount of glass area on the elevations
that are immediately adjacent to the edge of the cliff.
Welton asked for further public comment.
Cardamone: I would just like to encourage everybody to keep
things simple. And keep the hill to the very top inviolate is
very strongly felt by the ACES Board. I think it makes a lot of
sense. To keep the hillside undeveloped is important. I think
handling other things with vegetation, windows and colors is an
easier way to do it rather than trying to get them to deal with
it in a separate kind of way. That complicates things.
Welton: The public hearing is continued to date certain of
October 2, 1990.
MOTION
7
PZM9.4.90
Welton: I would entertain a motion for Kim to review her draft
legislation in regards to the comments that have been made
tonight and see if everything is consistent and also to initiate,
as much as is practical, analysis of the lots such as Mrs.
Farish's lot which extend down beyond the top of the hill a
significant difference to find out in a real world situation how
this SEA would affect them if it would involve in a substantial
or significant reduction in their property rights and if there is
any circumstance possible where building below the edge of the
cliff would be acceptable.
Mari: I so move.
Richard seconded the motion.
Jasmine: I would agree with everything in the motion except that
I really would not like to see too much attention being given to
ways in which development below the top of the hillside is
encouraged in any way. I would like to see perhaps an approach
more like slope reduction approach taken rather than a way of
trying to figure out a way in which everyone can say "0h well,
but it would be much better for me to build below the hillside
because---"
I really think that you are weakening what you started to do in
the first place which is to try to encourage people to build
above the hillside and not to encourage them to try and find out
ways to build into the hillside. And I just think that we can
provide sufficient incentives and not deprive people of their
property rights. As Tom pointed out once you start dribbling
down the hillside then you are going to get another 1010 ute
Avenue and I think it is really important the way this ordinance
is phrased that you not try to encourage that.
Welton: I think the motion acknowledges that the purpose of this
exercise in the ESA is to not let another horse out of the barn
and to make any additional development other than this one that
sort of prompted all of this to not make that happen. All I am
suggesting is that the Planning Office provide us with compelling
reasons--evidence based on the real-world facts that we are not
creating a whole lot of hardship and an impossible situation for
some of the property owners along the top of that hill.
Roger: I would also like to see further closure on the
definition of the top of the slope. I do have some problems with
this definition. Because what happens with multiple level the
flat top grade that happens with multiple level flat top grades
and how do you determine in effect the angle of the slope.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion.
8
PZM9.4.90
MILLER 1041 HAZARD REVIEW
(County Referral)
Mary Lackner made presentation as attached in record.
Herb Klein, attorney for the applicant: It is our feeling that
this Board had some passive acknowledgement of the potential on
the site. The constraints that were spoken of, and there are
several of them, but they are all relatively miner. There are a
bunch of them so it kind of sounds like we are trying to build up
on an inappropriate site but when it comes down to it the site is
suitable.
We think that the site will have less impact visually by having
the building envelope at the lowest possible portion of the site.
That is why we asked for setback variances. The slope of the
site is fairly steep. But we didn't need a setback variance to
go, for example, in that area that had less slope than somewhere
else.
We asked for that variance because the lower the building the
less visual impacted the site would be. (Showed photos) What is
apparent in the photographs is the switchback where the house on
Hoag 3 is going to be. That house is going to be more visible
than this house. There is more vegetation on either side of our
building envelope. The road is in so we are not going to be
creating any new road cuts. And at this point we are not
applying for any additional----mumble------
Roger: I think it would be appropriate to indicate to the County
an appreciation for limiting the FAR on this site to--not to
overpower the sites surrounding it.
Welton: A floor area that is consistent with the houses in the
Hoag subdivision.
Jasmine: I think that it would be appropriate to ask the County
to look at some of the discussions and problems that we had with
Hoag Lot #3. We spent months and months--years on that. It has
been a problem site we never were really all that happy with any
development on that site. Eventually after the tenth year they
came back we finally gave them approval with a lot of conditions
after a lot of discussion and a reduction in FAR and with a lot
of discussion about the appropriateness of certain 8040 criteria
specifically having to with a building being more vertically than
horizontally oriented so that it was considered inappropriate for
a large expanse--a large facade across the hill. Looking at the
minutes of our meetings and the conditions of approval I think
would be helpful to the County.
9
PZM9.4.90
After having spent all that time working on Lot #3 to make sure
we didn't have this big monster sticking out with all the trees
cut out around it, the last thing that we would want to see would
be a building of that sort right nearby.
Welton: I think the best thing we can do is to give you our best
knowledge of the area and you can construct it as an overall
comment from P&Z.
Richard: Most of our concerns in the area are embodied in the
discussions of the Hoag Lot #3 and particularly the facade and
concerns about visibility of the road cut and retaining walls
which I am sure this building would require quite a bit of. I
would like to commend the applicant for attempting to bring it as
low on the hillside as possible.
Welton: I agree with what Jasmine said. I think a distillation
of Hoag Lot #3 however you can best do that is going to be a
benefit to them for some of the concerns. I am not familiar with
wild fire or the necessity of doing tree cutting to cut down wild
fire. I would rather have wild fire take the house out with it
than leave a house sitting there and a denuded patch on the side
of the mountain or not have the house there to begin with and
look at the trees instead.
Everyone agreed with this statement.
Welton: So tree cutting for a wild fire prevention or control is
nailing the concept and as such doesn't strike me favorably. I
think more than that is that from what I read in the Planning
Office's memo and what I know of the discussions of avalanches
and landslides for Lot #3, that a 52% slope which is more than 45
degrees is damned steep. It is a black diamond. It gives me
real cause for concern that personally without a whole lot of
background and experience with north facing slopes of that
magnitude I don't think that a slope of that magnitude is really
buildable. I am sure there are enough geological, geoscientists,
surveyors, and scientific engineers out there all with reports
that that will say lilt is absolutely as practical as it can be".
My gut feeling is that it is not. My feeling that a north facing
slope on east Aspen Mountain that gets no sun with 52% slope--
well, maybe 2 birds with one stone--the green house on ute Avenue
might have an annex if this decides to slide.
Jasmine: I agree. In talking about the ability to mitigate the
affects of this slope and the location of this north facing lot,
technology has improved to the point where we can do a lot of
10
PZM9.4.90
things that we couldn't have done before and make them perfectly
safe. Whether they are desirable is another question. And I
think that that is one of the things--the kind of hustling you
get into when you think of all the things you can do to make this
a perfectly safe house. Or the fire hazards--what would you
rather have? Would you rather have the latest technology on that
hillside or would you rather have the trees?
Welton asked for further comments.
There were none.
Meeting was adjourned.
11