Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19861106 f\ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING NOVEMBER 6. -1986 Meeting was called to order at 5:05 by chairman Welton Anderson. Roll call was taken. Welton Anderson, Roger Hunt, Mari Peyton, Ramona Markalunas and Al Blomquist were all present and Jim Colombo carne later. Jasmine Tygre and David white were excused. PREVIOUS MINUTES Mari Peyton made the motion that the minutes of October 21, 1986 be approved. Alan Blomquist seconded the motion and it was approved by all. DISCUSSION OF 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW After discussion including the hillside cut, the good job of re- vegetating the area which the applicant has done and studying photos of the house, Burstein recommended the applicant still do more work with regard to decreasing the physical bulk. The applicant said the problem is if he tries to decrease the size any further it will no longer be a two car garage. His concern is that if it gets too small, it would not provide a broad enough base and that the proportions are right as they are. Welton then pointed out that with the riff raf and added vegeta- tion that any mass that this presents is going to present itself for a period of seconds only. After some discussion about amount of parking spaces, Welton made a motion to approve 8040 Greenline Review for the Davis Addition conditioned on conditions 1, 2 and 3 of the Planning Office memo. Alan Blomquist seconded the motion with all in favor. VOLK PLAZA DISCUSSION Burstein then presented to the Commission a new landscape scheme for the Volk Plaza. At this time there was a private discussion going on between Georgeann and Alan Blomquist with much added loud noises and I could not hear any more of the discussion on this presentation on the tape. There was a motion with all in favor. HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGS. - CONTINUED DISCUSSION Burstein said that at the last meeting there was discussed six review approaches and five incentive programs which were to be in conjunction with one of the review approaches. "This memorandum 1 is an attempt to present what I think I heard and build some consensus for a specific approach to the Historic Preservation Code Amendments and to br ing forth some general language on an ordinance for the December 2nd meeting." Burstein said the Planning Office recommended the mandatory designation of the inventoried structures and the three small district approaches. Burstein said the HPC has favored the large district approach and were at the meeting to discuss the pros and cons of that approach. Burstein made the comment that the large district approach should be looked at as having a much broader mandate than the way in whic h we or ig inally conce i ved the hi stor ic preservation--getting to a broader aspect of architectural review. He then turned the discussion over to the HPC in order for them to present their point of view. Georgeann said they would like to throw their thoughts out to the Commission and have the Commission react back and make this more a conversation. She explained this is our rough draft-that they had had a meeting on Monday and found that the majority of the members of HPC are more in favor of an overall historic overlay of the whole city. The reasons being that: this was fairer to everyone in the community to all go under one mandate, and felt it is critical for the City of Aspen not only certain critical buildings and areas but a whole overlay of the town is important. ) An example of this is the Volk building, that as a vacant lot and a contemporary structure if it had not been in an historic district it would never have corne before HPC. We feel we have a better product because of that curfew which we had over it. She stated that HPC is concerned especially with the old buildings that buildings around them have an impact. If you have a classic small victorian and build a modern huge building next to it you are going to overshadow that victorian. Therefore if we had a whole overlay we would have control over the buildings within say 300 feet. This sort of thing is hard to control without a general overlay of the whole community. She stated that the major reason HPC wanted the overall overlay of the city is they simply did not want things to slip through everyone's fingers such as can happen on one of the outlying districts on one of these hidden streets and no one knows what is going on. She wanted to go on record as saying the vote was 5 to 2 on their committee and hers was one of the 2. But she felt there were a lot of valid points inasmuch as fairness and control. Georgeann stated there new buildings corning up which some day are going to histor ical and maybe those need to corne under HPC-any building-just so people will stop and think a little longer. 2 At this point Georgeann turned the meeting over to the other members of HPC in order to let them give some of their points. Mary said she had been fighting for this (overall overlay) for two and a half years. She said that when the 1980 inventory was taken their house was on it and her husband objected for the reason that the house next door was not on it. Also Torn Sardy had objected to it individually but when it was put down Main Street mandatorily everybody accepted it. It makes it easier to control what was the very essence of what people carne here for a long time ago as an old mining town. That isn't to say the mining shafts have to be kept. A house doesn I t have to look as it did in the l880s. And that even when you have national trust designation that doesn't keep a house from bring demolished. It is important to have a review of the structure as far as compat- ibility on what is going to go in next to a victorian or a contemporary. We definitely feel the Volk property carne back with a better looking building. They carne back twice. Also Bill Wesson who brought in a design for the dental office which could be a perfectly square building but this one went by twice and with suggestions from architects who helped he is much happier with what happened out of his design. Mary stated that with the erosion of what was the original Aspen and the fact that we are becoming so urbanized we must preserve, and its much simpler to have everybody have to go through a public hearing. Another point Mary made was that on June 19th Council and P&Z had discussion on this topic after which St i r- ling asked for informal opinions from the council and the consensus was that the historic district should be extended throughout the original townsite and include demolition review and that additional regulation be adopted to control the bulk of new houses and the residential streets. Alan Richman then explained that the June consensus of the Council was later substantially eroded. At a meeting held in August the Council really considered what that district to district approach meant. Several members have indicated uncertainty as to whether they think that is the proper approach. Therefore they have asked us to study alternatives and they are not certain as to what the answer is which is why they are asking the Planning Commission and the HPC to look at all the alternatives and to make a recommendation as to what they think is best. He said it can no longer be assumed that Council wants to do the district overlay. Although there are still some people who have positive feelings about, they also know there are problems with it. The major problem with doing the district approach is that people are concerned with the amount of regulation, the time it costs to regulate, the time it costs people in the private sector to comply with regulations, and the money it costs to comply with 3 regulations. We have been directed to streamline the code, to take more and more activity away from the review sector. The approach of making a district and turning every building in the entire community into one that is reviewed by a public body flies in the face of that directive. And if we implement that there will be a backlash in this community over the next six months to a year the result of which is going to be "that we are going to throw out the baby with the bathwater." By not having a selective approach to regulation, people are going to say throw the thing out. Whether its a historic regulation or some other part of what this commission deals with his fear is that by putting on that intense of a regulation in a period in Aspen when people are already saying there is too much regulation, its going to backfire on all of us. There are things which this Commission regulates that are very important to this community. And to place a regulation simply from a standpoint of compatibility of neighboring structures is not getting at what is what we are really trying to do which is to preserve historic structures. Mary pointed out that regulations that are involved have not been placed there by citizens. They have been placed by the Planning Department. She agreed there are too many but that shows that the erosion has taken place and she feels very strongly that people if all asked within the historic area would take pride in a historic area and will not object. She said she thinks it fine to go through a public hearing and let the people tell us. Al Blomquist said he objects to HPC's proposal. He feels that if you have the review power then the only constitutional fair way to do it is for the committee to review the projects, you can't deligate it to the staff. You become discriminatory because its in the nature of the review process without standards to be discriminatory. The minute that happens its not just that the people will go to a vote its that the court will throw out a lot more than just the individual prejudicial discrimination but for some other totally wrong thing which in our experience will happen. The supreme test has to be if you do ten cases now which is a big workload, you are going to have perhaps 500. Burstein said based on how the regulations are written now HPC addresses all alterations, additions and new construction, demolitions, removals. So if that language were to apply to the entire townsite the caseload would be tenfold. Georgeann brought up two points: One was that it will look discriminatory because a contemporary building which is in keeping with the buildings around it would get checked off quickly. A historic building in a critical area would get a lot more study and review. Alan pointed out that the mere appearance of discrimination or prej udice or appearance of confl ict of interest is ruled pretty 4 bad. There is a potential unfairness built in because of the absence of standards. Georgeann said there are standards and the thing is that at a minimum even planning and zoning is recommending that HPC expand to small districts. Whether it is the whole town or the small districts we have the same problem. For instance, if a person bought a house on Bleeker, I'm in trouble whereas if I had bought a house on West Hopkins everybody would be leaving me alone. Jim Colombo said he was under the impression that what we are concerned with is preservation of those houses remaining now or should be on inventory. Our main point was historical preservation of the existing buildings whether they now are historically designated or whether they should be on the preser- vation list. There are several buildings in this community that are not historically designated and would not be for several years and they may be relatively new but they are just as important to this community as some that are on the national registry. Therefore an inventoried approach of what we want to project from a preservation point of view is what this is all about would be appropriate. Georgeann said that an overlay of the whole historic townsite is a better way of protecting the integrity of our historic buildings because if you look at the map, there are so many historic buildings throughout the whole town they are just far enough apart that the only way to get a handle on it is through an overlay of the whole historic district. Georgeann then asked for opinions from the members of board. Roger Hunt after being extremely patient said that he was in favor of the old original townsite in early editions. However he felt there were three distinct districts and he could support a district approach because you are attempting to exclude the blocks which don't have any historic structures but basically including the blocks which have structures of any significance. That is excluding the blocks which have nothing historic at all. Alan said that he felt that every person in this room feels that the 274 structures should be designated. The question is are we also going to control the context around those 274 structures through small districts or through a district around the entire concept. We all agree that those 274 structures should not have the right to demolition or alteration without review of HPC. Jim Colombo said what he is concerned about is the far reaching possibilities of what is going on. What this does is provide the vehicle by which we create guidelines to stagnation. 5 Nick said that he feels that the job of the HPC is to go forth and put to work what the P&Z, the city of Aspen and the people want HPC to do. We should also have the opportunity to express clearly how we feel we can best accomplish that. And the consensus opinion of all our members is give us this overlay which we have had for a long time, just extend it somewhat, and the responsibility of doing a good job. We are appealing to you who are going to write the ordinance to do it in a fashion that we would feel the most comfortable with. Georgeann said that the most valuable thing that the HPC does is make people stop and think about corning before them and therefore work on their design more. Mari said that in her opinion we do want to preserve the entire fabric of the town and that it does have to be done on an overlay. But if we do it we also have to corne up with a lot simpler set of standards and criteria. Georgeann said we are in the process of doing that now. / Alan stated that unless HPC comes up with a legitimate standard for exemptions they are going to be meeting every week and reviewing every building permit. If this happens he has informed Council there will have to be a full time HPC staff member added to the Planning Office. Jim Colombo said that what was going to happen is that with so many applications that regardless of what was done three weeks ago or two months ago people are not going to get on the agenda for HPC two to three months Bill made the point that sometimes people don't find out about the review process until after they have corne to the Building Department. And that is what ties them up. Colombo then pointed out it doesn't matter when they find out about the review process. There are still the same amount of people applying and the schedules are still just as busy. Alan said the problem he finds is people complaining when they are put to a review and there is really no rhyme or reason for it. If they are put to a review and there is something substant as having protected them from some hazard or the project was approved or a neighbor had a chance to comment when they were concerned, they then understand why they were there in the first place. You must separate the meaningless from the meaning- ful. This whole thing has to get integrated into the overall streamlining. HPC will be an integral part of the zoning code and their processes will be spelled out just as clearly as P&Z's processes. 6 Welton then said that there are things which corne to us which don't need to. That is why recommendation should be made to allow staff sign off HPC criteria and review procedure. Roger suggested one way to avoid a lot of problems is saying a structure which is not within 300 feet of a notable or not yet designated is exempt from the review process. Al Blomquist then suggested complete designation of the 280 acres and then review of development of any contiguous parcel. If there were a standard that said if you are adjacent, HPC will review the compatibility of all in relationship. That in effect does the whole thing. The reason is to preserve the history by reviewing only the bulk adjacent. Steve Burstein then recalled that at the last meeting we were trying to work out some kind of incentive system for those who are going to be subject to review. And that there was a strong feeling that some kind of incentive program is an essential component of what we are trying to do. He is afraid that if we expand the scope of this we diminish the ability to do an incentive program. Colombo then discussed demolition of buildings which may not be on the list now but soon may be or have some social value. That economic incentive be offered not to knock down a building. Welton then asked each member of the board to give their feeling is. Ramona said the almost river to almost stream approach is the best way to go. She said we went through ordinances from Newport, Rhode Island to Santa Fe and New Orleans trying to get through an HPC and there was a lot of opposition. When we did the downtown district there was a lot of opposition to that. Now she thinks people are more in line with what we have and what we should keep and try to be compatible with it. She would like to see an overlay of most of the townsite. But she still has a concern with the amount of time required not only by the Planning Office but also the members of the HPC. There is no way that the vol untee r s on the HPC can go through every building permit so there have to be some exceptions written in. Roger said his preference was still the original townsite in editions with a distance exemption for those outside certain historic notable or better structures whether designated or not. If that is not desirable then he would fall back on the almost to almost etc. again with the same exemption. The exact distance should be discussed but there should be an exemption for someone so far away from a historic structure that there is no signific- ance to their project. 7 Mari said she goes along with the almost to almost with exemptions. But she also thinks that it does have to go hand in hand with the streamlining. Jim Colombo said he could see doing an overall overlay with certain areas being eliminated. But it would be absolutely necessary to have the abil ity for the staff to sign off on meaningless review. They need to have specific guidelines and criteria by which to do that. Also he would like the idea of designating new structures or relatively new structures not on the list now as still having community value. There are buildin- gs which do not qualify historically and will not be historical for several years but do have some value to us as a community. There should be a list of those types of buildings. There is a need for some kind of incentive for keeping those buildings as they are. There has to be a balance of not infringing on develo- pment rights of neighbors. Alan Blomquist said that designation of the 280 is a big enough bite and the three historic districts should not be added. And a review authority only to contiguous parcels to such buildings and for bulk control only. That would represent one fourth of the workload of what is being considered. Welton Anderson said he is with the majority of the commission and would entertain a motion to have an open hearing at our regular meeting of December 2nd, 1986 to consider changes listed 1 through 6 with the creation of a district as outlined by Roger Hunt which includes the bulk of the original Aspen townsite but excludes areas that are devoid of any historic buildings plus the exemption relating to distance. Roger Hunt made this motion, seconded by Ramona Markalunas. There followed a discussion including the area of this district, what the exemption distance should be, and how it should be determined, and variances pertaining to this distance. Welton then called for call of the vote. All in attendance voted aye. Meeting was adjourned at 6: 4 OJ}; m. ... )}. {1, ;~~i~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~i~;-~;~;; -. 8