Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20101019 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Corflicts of Interest 2 700 Ute Ave — PUD Amendment 2 Aspen Modern Ordinance — historic preservation code amendments 5 1 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting Tuesday, October 19, 2010 to order at 4:30pm in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners present were Cliff Weiss, Jim DeFrancia, Bert Myrin, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Mike Wampler and Jasmine Tygre were excused. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Amy Guthrie, Aspen Historic Preservationist; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Jennifer Phelan said the first meeting in December was the 7 and the long range planners need it for potentially AACP issues. Phelan said that 12/21 was typically your second regular meeting and she wanted to see if you were planning on having that or if you want it to be cancelled since it's so close to holidays. Phelan suggested having the meeting on the 14 rather than the 21 Phelan said there were some applications in so there were some things to go over. Minutes MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve the minutes from October 5 seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor. Conflicts of Interest None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 700 Ute Ave — PUD Amendment Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing. Jennifer Phelan stated this was a continued public hearing from the 5 of October; the request is for unit 701 and unit 711 to be combined at the Aspen Alps and they need a PUD Amendment to have the maximum unit size amended to allow this to happen; at the last meeting there were potential ways for that to happen. Staff still recommended denial of the request however if you do want to permit this unit to be able to combine with another and the increased unit size would be almost 2900 square feet. The current cap size with a TDR is 2000 square feet. You have a couple of options to amend the PUD and allow this one unit to go to about 2900 square feet or you could allow it to go to that with a Transferable Development Right. Phelan said that the TDR is codified in our code as a way to increase the size of a unit so it really is the most rational nexuses to acquire that if you do allow the applicant to increase the unit size. Staff doesn't recommend approval of it but the resolution is stated with approval with a TDR landed. 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010 LJ Erspamer said they were talking about community benefit and it was always troublesome. Erspamer asked Jennifer if she spoke to our counsel on community benefit. Phelan responded that she emailed it to John Worchester and basically he felt that we really should stick to the code or you are starting to do a bargaining approval. Jim True said from their standpoint as John said you are going into this bargaining routine and you have the nexuses problem; we do have justification over the code to require the TDR purchase. True said there was consistency with the code language and goal you are trying to get to allow that TDR. Erspamer asked Jennifer when you extinguish a TDR the code requires a TDR to extinguish 500 square feet up to 2500 square feet or was it 2000. Phelan replied the unit size is 1500 cap with the purchase of a TDR to go up to 2000. Alan Richman said that he has had a chance to speak with Mr. Seidman since your last meeting and he is please that we were working on our way towards a resolution and you seem to be prepared to support combining Space A with unit 701. Richman said we totally agree if you are going to condition this on anything from our perspective a TDR certainly makes the most sense. Richman said that Mr. Seidman would ask you to at least reconsider the condition that you are applying where you are requiring the purchase and retire a historic TDR. Richman saidbasically for him to combine Space A with unit 701 he first has to purchase the Borenfeld's interest in Space A and he also has to purchase the homeowners association's interest in Space A and then he is going to remodel the unit and he was walking Alan through some of that remodel. Richman said that none of the commissioners have been in the unit but apparently the floor is not even so there's work that needs to happen on the floor, there's work that needs to happen on the walls and the egress issue needs to be addressed so this is going to be more than a cosmetic remodel. Richman said that he was prepared to make those purchases but what you are looking at is a sub -grade space and those 3 things together, the purchasing the 2 interests and remodeling really amounts to a very expensive sub - grade space. Richman said when you add the cost of the TDR to the purchase price it really kind of takes it up and he made contact with at least one property owner who has multiple TDRs to sell and they are aware of recent sales. The TDR market prices have fallen along with the rest of the market but he thought it would be at least $150,000.00 to $200,000.00 to purchase a TDR. Richman said that the Borenfeld's and The Alps are going to have to change the price for this to work. Richman said that they would love to hear of other ideas other than the TDR. Richman said that Mr. Seidman would not only modernize Space A but make sure that it complies with all the building and safety codes that would be required in the application. 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010 Bert Myrin said that Alan and Jennifer spoke about a closer relationship to solving the problem. Phelan said that when you fall back on what does the code require; it doesn't leave those kind of options either. Phelan said that the Historic Transferable Development Right is a mechanism for units in this district to go to a larger size. Myrin asked Jennifer if she was comfortable with this being reasonable but not reasonable enough for a recommendation from staff. Phelan answered that it was a condition of the approval to have that condition. Phelan was still not recommending approval of the units being combined in going over the square foot cap in the underlying zoning. No public comments. Commissioner Comments: Jim DeFrancia said that staff's primary reason for recommending against it is because it would exceed the maximum unit size in the lodge district and I just think if we are going to do something that allows that as an exception to the code then there has to be a clear public benefit. DeFrancia said the costs issues weren't of concern to this commission and he thought landing a TDR was a public benefit so he would support the project. Erspamer said that he liked to be consistent in his decision making and he always looks at criteria and when staff recommends something I want to look at criteria to oppose them and that justifies it and something that he can disclose. Erspamer said he did not see that a TDR was transferrable. Erspamer said that he would like to see more concrete evidence in the code to see the applicant and he doesn't support it. Cliff Weiss said that he has been rustling with this since a couple of weeks ago and he agrees with Jim completely, there has to be something and the cost of this is not relevant. Weiss said they were already in excess of code, code was written well after all this was established. Weiss said 2 weeks ago he was okay with this and now I'm much Less okay with it now and the only way that he could make any sense was with a TDR and if that wasn't feasible to the Seidman's it was up to them to make it feasible with the homeowners association. Erspamer said the neighbor has one but that was a previous code, so that is troubling of what we go through all the time and to me if he could find some criteria to support this but he doesn't see it. Erspamer said they need to be consistent in enforcing this code. 4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010 Weiss asked Erspamer why a TDR was not code enough for him. Erspamer replied that it has gone over the limit. Weiss said it was already over the limit so now they want to go further over the limit and so far the only reasonable solution is TDR. Weiss said that a TDR was a public benefit. Erspamer said that their financial situation was not P &Z's concern. Myrin said that paragraph A at the bottom of the resolution this may be permitted by the purchase and extinguishment of one Historic Transferable Development Right Certificate. Myrin asked Jim True if he was okay with that. True replied that he was okay and it was justifiable. Weiss said this was just this unit. Gibbs stated that the commission came to that conclusion. Erspamer said it was written in the resolution that way. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve Resolution #018 -10 with section lA revised text. Jim DeFrancia seconded. Roll call: Erspamer, no; Myrin, no; DeFrancia, yes; Weiss, yes; Gibbs, no. DENIED 3 -2. Phelan asked if they needed another resolution. True said he didn't think that it was needed because there was a resolution and it was denied. Richman said this was fine. Discussion of the motion prior to the vote: Gibbs said that he didn't think that a TDR was appropriate here and in some ways the code makes provision for the use of TDRs however he still doesn't support the application because he didn't think that making a non - conformity bigger is a good policy in general. Gibbs said he didn't see the benefit to do that so he will not be able to support this particular resolution. Weiss said the intent of that code change with the base of Aspen Mountain was having large homes. Phelan said that the code has changed over time and single family homes are not a permitted use in that zone district with the intent of having lodges in the lodge zone district. PUBLIC HEARING: Aspen Modern Ordinance — historic preservation code amendments Stan Gibbs opened the Aspen Modern — historic preservation code amendments. Jim True had to excuse himself prior to 6 pm. LJ Erspamer asked if there were 2 hearings on this or was it just a recommendation. Jennifer Phelan replied that it was a recommendation. 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010 Amy Guthrie said that P &Z was not involved in the creation and adoption of Ordinance 48 and has not been involved in any reviews of properties to be designated; P &Z is not normally part of the process for designations. Aspen has had a preservation program since the early 70s so the program itself is almost 40 years old and one of the first properties designed in 1974 was Lift One. Guthrie said there were approximately 280 designated properties and about 260 of those are Victorians. Guthrie said that in 2000 community development identified a much larger group than had ever been discussed before; there has never been a minimum age requirement in the preservation ordinance but since 2000 there has been a lot of struggling on how to handle this group of properties. Property values have risen and there were so many more review processes and there was a lot more anxiety about the additional kinds of protections and laws in place. In 2007 Council adopted Ordinance 48 and that created a list of 52 specific properties in the core of town that were post war era and would be subject to some sort of protection, basically a demolition system. Anyone who has a property on that list is able to go forward with whatever plans they have for that site but they have to be delayed for approximately 90 days to discuss preservation options, negotiate for incentives that might be appropriate to their property. That's what they have been working with for 3 years. There has been a task force in place for some time that attempted to come up with alternatives and some solutions in maybe a different decision. Guthrie said that LJ sat on that for 19 months; there were 21 people in that group and they concluded about a year ago. Since their conclusion they have been meeting regularly with City Council and will move forward with some of their specific recommendations and one of the things that they did was commissioned some of the new research papers and these are available on line. The 4 research papers document pan abodes, chalets, rustic style and modernism; this was a pretty significant amount of research. Most communities discussing this kind of issue didn't have this level of documentation in place. Guthrie said the proposal before P &Z was for some amendments to the preservation ordinance, a good deal of it has been left untouched but the designation process is being rewritten. Guthrie said that the most important discussion with Council in the last year was what the task force struggled with the most was the question if designation should be voluntary or involuntary. And for the 260 or so Victorians designated; they have never required owner's consent; there were some controversy about a specific designation and Council did not require their consent. The task force was split right down the middle on which way to move forward and Council had even given some direction where they wanted to land on that. Council came down clearly to 6 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010 staff that this is to be a voluntary program and we were to bring forward an ordinance by the end of the year. Guthrie said staff's vision of how this process will work is not totally different than Ordinance 48; there will be a delay and negotiation period. In the voluntary system we could say that anyone who has a building that is the kind of building discussed in these history papers come on in and talk to us. They are proposing having a map that identifies properties that are subject to this program but they are suggesting that there is this identified group that is still part of the program; there is a process for people to appeal to be removed from the map but it is a voluntary program but there will be some properties that will be brought in and identified right away. Cliff Weiss said that the original list had 52; he asked how many are going to be on the map. Guthrie replied that is the question for Council; one of the books was before Ordinance 48 was adopted. Guthrie said that staff was asked to provide information about the post war era properties in town that might have some significance so at the point they provided Council with a list of 87 properties. Guthrie said when Ordinance 48 adopted there was a discussion that Council decided to remove all multi - family properties and all properties beyond the river to mountain boundaries so that struck 30 some properties off the initial research to create Ordinance 48. The idea of the map is to identify properties that are worth discussion. Guthrie said they wanted P &Z input of what should be put on the map or if the map should even exist; if there is no map then there is no ongoing monitoring and some of the ideas are in here to try have a conversation and achieve some protection for properties over time. Guthrie said starting on page 6 the title of the Historic Preservation is rather lengthy and they are changing it to Historic Preservation; page 7 doesn't mean everything is to be preserved. Erspamer asked Amy to explain what was meant "by alterations to such buildings "; how do you designate something historic without the alterations that dismisses that building. Guthrie replied this paragraph came out of the task force and there are some improvements to the writing in general that can be less confusing for the code. Guthrie said page 8 added a definition to the historic content page; these were things to add to the understanding of historic significance. Guthrie said the next definition was mapped properties. Guthrie said on page 9 the task force recommended that nothing be changed to the way we treat the Victorian era, the 19 Century properties. Erspamer asked who is going to create the surveys and ask the questions. Guthrie replied the community development department; there was a section in the code where every 5 years we surveyed all of town and there was not a specific time right now but it's important from time to time to re- examine the 7 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010 community and identify which buildings have been demolished or what areas have been annexed; there isn't a specific time frame for when these maps would be created but further on in the document you will see that nothing about the regulations is intended to change for 10 years. Jennifer Phelan said that a lot of communities will hire an outside expert to do those surveys. Weiss said what survey defined what properties specifically and build that list again. Guthrie reiterated that the City has been surveying every 5 years or so since 1980 to just continually understand the community and the condition of buildings in town. Weiss said he thought there was something that fit not only here but with the national standard. Guthrie said she thought there were standardized definitions for architectural styles; the Colorado Historical Society has different descriptions of styles that are common throughout Colorado. Weiss voiced concern for what he thinks is historic and what someone else thinks is historic; there may be two very different things. Guthrie said that was the criteria that she was just about to talk about. Guthrie said they have developed a concept of separating into the 20` Century properties into what we are calling Aspen Modern and separating them for the purpose of distinguishing how they are identified and protected. This is where we start to talk about the concept of a map; the idea that designations will be voluntary, the idea that it's expected that the map and these regulations will be in place for 10 years just to give the community some sense that we are not going to announce that Quonset Huts are being added to the map. Guthrie said there has been a lot of discussion around this certainty issue and there are some members of the public that would like some other form of promise that these regulation will be in place for 10 years; that isn't easy to provide because no council can bind the decision of future councils. Guthrie said they were going to try to put as much language as possible for council and for future councils to respect this for the community. Guthrie said they would like to have a relationship with these property owners; if they plan certain kinds of changes they would like to have this possible negotiation period to talk about other ideas; they would also like to offer some benefits and this is a new concept. Right now you don't get any benefits unless you are actually a landmark. With properties that are on the Aspen Modern map and are willing to designate they could sell TDRs and they could be eligible for expedited permit review. Weiss said that Phoenix has monetary incentives to preserve and renovate; they not only give tax benefits but they give you funds for redevelopment for the 8 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010 renovation. Erspamer asked how that was financed. Weiss replied with taxes on the citizens of Phoenix. Guthrie said that Aspen's program has more benefits than most; the Phoenix program is a great comparison because they were a post war era town and it was a thriving program. Guthrie said that Aspen's incentives have always been development orientated and that was a criticism in the task force by giving incentives that we are trying to achieve. Guthrie said that they need to make preservation possible for people; that it is something people are willing to get involved in by providing benefits. Guthrie said there was not a funding source for actual cash benefits; the things that they give are an FAR bonus which certainly has value but not money out of the city pocket or the community's pocket. Weiss asked about the FAR incentives. Weiss said that things that create density may have more negative impact on the community and certainly on neighborhoods; in the mid 80s he said he was unhappy with what happened to many of the best Victorians in Aspen, with a monster attached to them. Guthrie replied that there were better policies for that now than in the 80s, not to say that there are some additions that raise an eyebrow. Guthrie said the TDR is an interesting benefit because it allows the property owner to capture some cash to fund the restoration or whatever it is and at least relocates the development pressure off the property that is the most sensitive. Weiss asked about how many square feet, you talked about an FAR addition, granting extra FAR and to what end does that have a cap. Guthrie replied that they can only give up to 500 square feet and there are criteria for granting it, it is not a given and it's really helpful. Gibbs asked what benefits, the language section part of C that says "mapped property shall be subject to" and the last part says "mapped properties may be awarded preservation incentives above and beyond those identified in ". Guthrie replied yes. Gibbs said that he wanted to be clear that the mapped properties have even more options in terms of benefits and asked what was meant by properties that voluntary comply. Gibbs asked if they comply or get listed do their options go up or down or any change or does a property that's an Aspen Modern Property always have more than a Victorian. Guthrie responded there's this Aspen Modern map and someone's property is on the map and they don't want to designate but they are willing to work together and they have some interest in preserving it but they don't want to go all the way; what's trying to be conveyed here is that they are eligible for 2 kinds of benefits they can sell TDRs, which means it will be gone forever and recorded and they are eligible for quicker and perhaps cheaper permits if they are willing to go to HPC Review for their proposed work. Guthrie said properties on the Aspen Modern map that are actually willing to designate will be eligible for the incentives that we already have for Victorians and 9 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010 case by case negotiation. Myrin asked if someone was building something from scratch and wanted to be on this list today. Guthrie asked if they wanted to be on the Aspen Modern map. Myrin replied yes. Guthrie said that they won't meet the criteria; they are trying to limit the population that can be in the program for everyone's sake so that someone who has a house built in 1984 knows that they are really not on the table for discussion and also to have some reasonableness to the program. Guthrie said they are defining this group of what is historically significant from the mid 40s to the mid 70s and have provided research papers and discussed specific styles and events in town and if a property is not discussed in there we don't have anything to talk about right now; even if they want to volunteer. Guthrie said that if someone has a 1972 Quonset Hut they are not going to be eligible for designation because we have simply not included them and are not willing to talk about extending additional negotiations for these properties. Myrin asked if this has been discussed. Guthrie replied that was one of the things that is up for discussion right now; that was the proposal for the group that's involved. Myrin said if someone is building something today why are we always addressing the problem after it becomes historic as opposed to someone who is willing to do this today. Guthrie asked Bert how would you decide what being built right now is historic or not, we need some perspective. Myrin responded that the perspective is time, anything that is a Victorian is protected so at 100% of something over a period of time is protected but if it's brand new it will at some point be historic by definition. Guthrie it will but there is a national standard that if you want to list a property on the national register it should be 50 years old and it hasn't been included in the ordinance but the reason it was created was having a generation or 2 pass so that you have some ability to assess whether the building had meaning for the future. Guthrie said that they couldn't involve properties that are under construction today even if we recognize them as something as a great architectural achievement. Myrin said something built today in 2010 or 2011 could be dealt with today, upfront, and it just seems like another opportunity to include without resistance. Guthrie said for the integrity of the program they want to limit this population and we don't need to make it any more complicated or controversial than it needs to be; she believed that they have research to show why these properties have historic significance and not prepared to address a more recent period. Gibbs asked if Amy was comfortable with becoming an ordinance with those properties that become historic 60 years from now and you are comfortable with that process that going forward in some point that somebody will recognize that a property is historic and presumably a context paper and that conclusion therefore it would be included and move forward as a designated. Guthrie said that this is going to continue to evolve every 10 years, the context papers will be revisited in 2020. 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010 LJ Erspamer asked who coined the phrase Aspen Modern. Guthrie replied it came out of the national trust visit with us in July; the national trust for historical preservation which is a national advocacy group has a department that is dedicated to modernism in the recent past as it a national issue and they have been working around the country visiting different cities having forums and discussions about each community's specific collection of buildings. Guthrie said that they picked Aspen as one of only 4 cities that they have worked with directly and presented the program with a certain kind of graphics and color schemes are really reflective of the 50s and 60s. Guthrie said that Aspen Modern was featured in Aspen Magazine for the fall. Erspamer asked if Amy found it confusing with the new architecture modern and contemporary. Guthrie responded that it maybe was confusing because it makes it sound like you are talking about high style architecture, she thought Aspen Modern was the period, the late 20 century. Erspamer said that Aspen Modern was designated to include several types of architectural styles advised by the City Council to separate out pan abodes, I didn't know the whole conversation; did they want to separate them out of Aspen Modern. Guthrie replied no, Council asked for an updated context paper to be written, the modern period of Aspen's history from 1945 to 1975; not referring to Aspen Modern as only high style architect designed buildings. Guthrie said the category includes chalet, rustic modern, and so on. Gibbs said section c page 9 defines it right there "properties associated with Aspen's 20` century history shall be called Aspen Modern ". Erspamer asked if Amy had considered the matrix the task force put together as criteria for judgment of historic properties. Guthrie replied yes. Gibbs asked to clarify the language on who is on the map and who is voluntary; it will make it clear to what you get. Guthrie said on page 10 when ordinance 48 was adopted we invented this negotiation process that has not existed before and isproposed to remain. Ordinance 48 designations are voluntary and future designations are voluntary and in order to incentivize those designations the premise being we have great incentives but they may not be enough. Some people have pointed out that some post war properties have unique situations that the Victorians may not and so we might need more creative ways to secure designations where they are appropriate. Guthrie explained that property on the Aspen Modern map and if the owners are willing to discuss land marking they will come to HPC then Council and have to meet the criteria for designation and identify any special benefits that they are looking for as part of the process. This will be a onetime thing, once the property is designated they can't keep coming back and asking for some other kind of unique benefit; they will be only allowed to have the ones that are listed in the 11 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010 incentive section. Guthrie said right now property owners who come forward in the negotiation really could ask for anything; there weren't any particular criteria to figure out if those benefits should be awarded. Guthrie said on page 10 criteria b; we have tried to add language so that determination of these extra case by case benefits will be based on how well the designation and any proposed work at that time complies with the purpose and intent of this section. Guthrie said that they want the incentives to work for preservation not undermine preservation. Weiss said that was pretty wide open. Guthrie agreed and it is by design and staff has had some discussions. Guthrie said the review process remains the same. Gibbs said that if they become designated whether it be through voluntary or the map and negations can they ever be removed from the map. Guthrie replied yes even a Victorian has a resending process they can come in and say they don't meet the criteria anymore because maybe the city changed the criteria or something bad happened to the building. Gibbs said what he was worried about was that it gets crafted carefully if someone is given a significant benefit like selling a TDR and then somehow they do a terrible job on their renovation and the building is clearly not resembling anything historical so now they say it's not on the map anymore and they get to tear it down and completely build something new and meanwhile they have taken those benefits; he was concerned in how that would work. Guthrie said at the bottom of page 11 there is a process that property owners who have been included on the Aspen Modern map and have asked to be removed from it there is a process generated by staff research and there may be properties that we propose for the map that is they were presented to us at commission to meet the criteria. Right now with Ordinance 48 there was no way to get off of this list and now we are proposing the Aspen Modern map and there was a way to appeal. Weiss asked what staff. Guthrie replied the Historic Preservation staff; they are the ones who worked with consultants over time and do the research to identify these potential historic resources. Erspamer asked about e the last sentence "City Council, at its sole discretion, may choose to terminate negotiations at any time" and asked for explanation on that. Guthrie said if you have a property on the Aspen Modern map and you want to do an addition or demolish, you are subject to this 90 day period, you come before HPC and City Council and at certain point say at day 60 everyone recognizes that there is no incentive in the world that you are willing to take for designation and we are just going to call it quits. Erspamer asked if at any time the applicant could withdraw. Guthrie replied that you could withdraw your permit and you won't 12 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010 receive it but assuming you still want that project you are going to have to wait the 90 days; this says Council can say forget it. Guthrie said on page 12 said the penalties exist now in Ordinance 48. Myrin said the "alter" word was something to think about. Guthrie said that on page 17 nothing was changing for the Victorian designation at 100 years old. Page 18 the criteria for Aspen Modern; the task force broke into several sub - committees and there was one committee called criteria and the proposal is essentially what they had written. The important things to look at are for an Aspen Modern property must be addressed in a context paper that's been approved by Council. It has to meet 2 of the criteria a through e and currently the designated property was only required to meet one. Guthrie said the matrix doesn't exist anymore in this proposal. Erspamer asked about the public score sheets and asked if they were creating an Ordinance without a definition of those score sheets later and who is going to approve that. Guthrie responded the score sheets that they have been using since 2002 are very punishing to a property that's had some maintenance and repairs made that could make something ineligible. Guthrie said the scoring sheets would not be adopted into the code, they are referenced in the code and adopted by Council; it's a free standing document that is used for reference when the boards make findings about these criteria. Erspamer asked if a property was designated are they required to up keep that property. Erspamer asked if there was ongoing dialogue with the task force member. Guthrie replied that plenty of emails have been distributed to the task force. Weiss said that he was hung up on the process and on page 10; there was a negotiation with the community development director and historic preservation commission then city council. Weiss said going to page 18 we get this criteria from which Id with a lot of different boards and commissions all contributing to something that he thinks should be one board and you negotiate with that board and determine whether or not your property belongs on the map that they generate. Weiss said that P &Z and Council have plenty to do and who is really an expert on Council to determine the nature of something being historic. Weiss said he was worried about the subjective nature; to him what you want is a panel or commission that separately adjudicates case by case; if he were a homeowner that had to deal with all these different players especially with politics. Erspamer noted that was discussed at length on the task force. Weiss said HPC as a commission of people appointed for expertise in various fields and that board might do this and he didn't like every little thing going back to Council. Weiss said that they were way over involved in way too much micro managing. 13 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010 Myrin said the criteria section was all voluntary with the 90 day or 120 day max period it does end. Weiss said he was concerned with a subjective decision and a lot of things were left up in the air that you are negotiating. Gibbs said there were two processes here: the 90 day process where someone is on the map and wants to make a change to their property and go for a permit seems to him has to happen at Council. Gibbs said Council has to deny or grant a permit based on the fact that they haven't been able to reach some kind of negotiated settlement with these people and in 120 days they will be able to level the property. Gibbs said that if I were trying to judge criteria I would probably be going to HPC; so it would be HPC that would say yes you can be designated. So then HPC signs the forms and designate the property; at that point they don't really have to get benefits until they want to make a change, do they. Guthrie replied the reason to go to HPC and Council was that the boards have different expertise's; HPC needs to weigh in on how important is the property, does it met these designation criteria and how well. Guthrie said that Council relies on HPC's recommendation; Council has the authority to address some of these unique negotiated benefits. Gibbs asked if Council had to weigh in on a designation. Guthrie answered that Council needs to because designation burdens property and it's passed by an ordinance that only Council can do. Guthrie said that special benefits, negotiated benefits have to be part of the designated conversation and once they are dedicated they are only eligible for what every other landmark has. Gibbs said it still has to go to Council. Weiss asked how many review processes do we have that don't go to Council; we get them all the time. Weiss said it was clear to him now from page 10; some unknown group has decided my property is historic and I don't like that; who do I negotiate with. Weiss said it starts with a, the community development director, b is community development HPC, c is the community development director again, d is Council. Weiss thought that if there was just one board with representatives of the different players and they generate the map, they negotiate the deal. Gibbs said that you need Council for certain things so then it all has to be at Council. Weiss said that Council might just bless it at the end but the board or this commission might do all the leg work. Weiss said the criteria itself was subjective and because it was subjective, he wanted the politics out of it and he wants it as clean a negotiation and discussion; both how he gets on the map and the benefits. Weiss said HPC makes perfect sense to him with their backgrounds; they are adjudicating weighing against the criteria, very subjective; so how do you do that and bring it to staff, 3 different commissions and then a governmental body. Phelan said just to put staff in perspective that we talked about the process and she saw staff just a liaison with the applicant to field or shepherd them through this process; the permit triggers this 90 day process whether we have a voluntary person looking at designation; they have met with staff to do site visits, talk about their options, 14 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010 schedule them with HPC and HPC made a recommendation to Council. Guthrie said that Cliff's idea was interesting and will look at some way to make it work. Guthrie said that page 38 and 19 cleaned up the historic preservation chapter. Public Comments: 1. Jim Curtis stated that he was at P &Z on behalf of the Aspen Institute; the Institute has always had communications with the Music Associates and the Aspen Center for Physics. Curtis said when this proposal goes before City Council the Institute, MAA and Aspen Center for Physics will continue to make the argument in writing that they see Ordinance 48 as simply an additional layer of governmental rules and regs on top of the 1992 SPA plan. It basically achieves some of the same things that Ordinance 48 does. The 3 non - profits would be requesting exemption from Ordinance 48. Curtis said the 1992 SPA plan says in order to change it you have to go through an amendment process and that amendment process has to come through a city review procedure. Curtis said his own home was designed historical. Curtis said he personally understands what this document says and he has had to deal with it from his personal situation and from the Institute's; the concern he hears if there is a change over in City Council that would change many property owners to tear their homes down. 2. Jack Wilke said the reason he was here was like Jim who owned a designated historical property and he didn't know what this revision does yet. Stan Gibbs closed the public comment section of the hearing. Weiss said that is he went through historic designation a future Council could not rescind that designation. Guthrie said what people are worried about was what was presented was a purely voluntary program and could it become involuntary. Guthrie said after working with numerous Councils over the last 10 years none of them have been willing to go that far. Erspamer said that he was on the task force a long time and there were some angry people there and the problem was if it wasn't chaired right it evolved into personal attacks. Erspamer said people have no trust in our government. Erspamer said there was mention of a conservation easement and asked if the IRS fought those. Guthrie responded this was in the Ordinance for 10 years and no one has ever offered one. Erspamer asked if it was the International Building Code or was it residential now. Phelan responded that there was IRC and IBC; there were two 15 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 19, 2010 categories depending upon what category the development was. Erspamer asked about historic markers for the property; does it apply to the sign code. Guthrie replied no, there is a limit to the size. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution #19, series of 2010 after reviewing the content of Section 2, seconded by Jim DeFrancia. We recommend the following 1. Clarification of the difference between a mapped and a designated property and which benefits exactly go with; 2. Explore SPA be considered in exception to this with some clarity; 3. Consistency with negotiations with one property to another; 4. Limiting the amount of boards because of complexity and to simplify that; 5. Care with the language in the penalty section especially referring to the work alter; 6. Explore the complete voluntary designation and consider immediate designation. Roll call: Erspamer, no; Weiss, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Myrin, yes; Gibbs, yes; APPROVED 4 -1. Bert Myrin asked members of the commission to ask people to attend the AACP Meetings and remind them of due process. Adjourned at 7:05 pm. ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 16