Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19861202 f( RECORD- OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING DECEMBER 2. 1986 Meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Welton Anderson. Roll Call was taken with Roger Hunt, Al Blomquist and Jim Colombo present. Jasmine Tygre and David White came later. Roger Hunt made a motion to table the minutes of the meeting of November 18, 1986. This was seconded by Jim Colombo with all in favor. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Roger Hunt said he felt that our resolutions are not getting the information to the City Council that they really need. He suggested that perhaps an appendix which would define the resolu- tion because some of them don't read too extensively on these cases and consequently the information they get is what is presented at the meeting. He felt it would help if we were to give them the reason behind the resolutions. with this informat- ion they would be able to make a fairer and much quicker decision. Al Blomquist agreed that a support memo would be helpful but warned that too much information would harm the transfer of information. Alan said the Planning Office is making a much greater effort in this respect than in the past. Alan then passed out to the p&Z copies of the executive summary of the consultant's report on code simplification. Alan then told members that they had received 4 residential GMP applications on December 1, 1986 which would be coming to this board in January. He said it is physically impossible to fit on the schedules the scoring of the GMP applications as well as the review of the subdivision. He suggested scoring them all in one night and doing the subdivision reviews on the second night. Alan also suggested reversing this method since you learn a lot about the project by doing the subdivision reviews first. By doing it this way you have better information for scoring. After further discussion members decided to try the second method. 1 PUBLIC HEARING HISTORIC STRUCTURE DESIGNATION Alan explained that when we initially did the public hearing notice for this night's meeting we went on the presumption we would be able to do both the code amendments as well as the designation of structures and the designation of the overall historic overlay at one time. He was moving forward on the assumption that we were working on the section of the code called Rezoning of the Entire City which provides that notice need not be given to individual owners within the historic districts when we are doing this broad scale of rezoning. Upon consultation with the city attorney's office he discovered he was incorrect in that assumption. The historic preservation regulations in the code at the present time provides specifically that there must be notice given for designation for individual structures as well as for the creation of historic districts. There must be written notice given everybody within the district. He said notice had been given to 185 structures which are to be considered for designation. Such notices occurred, that on December 16th we can go forward with the individual historic designation process. He asked that the individual historic designation be tabled for this meeting to December 16, 1986 so that the notice given in the paper can catch up with the notice given to the individual owners. Roger Hunt made the motion to table the historic designation of structures to the meeting of December 16, 1986 in order to comply with the notice given to individual owners. This was seconded by Jim Colombo with all in favor. Alan said the district comprises several thousand people. It is not possible for the Planning Department to give notice to that number of people with accuracy. After consulting with the Attorney's Office and the City Manager's Office, the conclusion reached was that the only way to handle the process properly is to sequentially amend the code and then come back with the designation of the historic compatibility overlay. One of the proposals in this code amendment is to remove that requirement of individual notice for a district wide formation. If these code amendments are approved by the P&Z tonight and subsequently by Council those provisions will be changed and we will come back. Welton then stated that the Board would be working on the code amendments and after the Planning Office's presentation he would open up the meeting for public hearing. Steve Burstein then stated that we are considering three compon- ent s of t he hi stor ic pre se rvat ion code: The amendments of 2 Section 24.9, amendment to definition of duplexes to make two detached dwellings a conditional use for designated historic structures, and adding to the list of zoning districts the historic compatibility overlay district. A brief note on the incentive program: We are continuing to work out the concepts that both P&Z and HPC have initiated and we are reviewing one incentive program tonight which is the detached uni ts where duplexes are allowed. Section 24.9 establishes the HPC powers and duties, the procedures for designating districts and for reviewing exterior changes within that district. That section has been reorganized so that the regulations will be more clear and therefore expedite the process as well. He said there are two substantive changes. The demolition and removal review subsection and the creation of architectural compatibility overlay district. There is no Planning Director's sign off on demolition removal of historic structures. There is a required public hearing process. The requirements include review of the structure's stability and the feasibility of rehabilitating the house as well as the economics of this. The review standards include the evaluation of the building's historic significance, the structural soundness, the economic feasibility, the proposed redevelopment scheme and the feasibil- ity of moving the structure. Al Blomquist then asked if there would be any incentive if I move a historic structure that I might otherwise tear down. Steve said yes he would think so. Alan Richman reasoned that the fact that it is on a new lot doesn't remove the fact that it is a historically designated structure and still eligible for all the conditional uses, tax incentives and any other incentives which are in the code or will be added to the code. Roger Hunt then asked that if you have a residence and you are moving it into an office zone, clearly you get some conditional use benefits there. But if its a historic structure in the Main Street office zone and gets moved to a residential, it goes to the underlying zone that it gets placed on. Alan said yes this is correct. Steve then talked about the historic compatibility overlay district. The main components here are an exemption procedure and that is what defines this concept that we are only looking for architectural compatibility within 300' radius of the desig- nated historic structures. Demolition and removal of the struct- ures within this district are automatically exempt from HPC review. We have set this up with a minor application which is the Planning Director sign off when there is a minor change. Then a two-step process, the conceptual review and a final review and public hearing. This is parallel to the way in which we are trying to reorganize the basic review of historic structures. 3 HPC has the prerogative of making simply a one-step process if they think it is a minor enough change and redundant to undertake a public hearing. If it is a major change they can make it a two-step process. We have the same timing, modification and appeal procedure as have been set up for the other designation processes. The most important is that in our review standards we are specifying that the HPC will be reviewing only with regard to three elements of the architecture. The massing, siting and materials as to whether they are compatible with the designated historic struct- ure and the character of the neighborhood. In this way we are trying to limit the range of review that will be taking place. They felt that based on the HPC and P&Z meetings these were the elements which were considered most important. Al Blomquist asked if paint was considered material and could be reviewed but color could not. Alan Richman said whether or not you paint brick could be reviewed. But what color you paint it, could not. Al Blomquist asked if there are any properties within the district as proposed that are not within 300' of one of the designated historic structures. Steve said most structures are within that bound. Alan said that we are going from property line to property line and for the Planning Department to undertake that analysis would be a huge undertaking. Blomquist said that visually he could not find a single spot on the map that would not come within the 300' radius. Alan said they revised the boundaries based upon the work session held with the P&Z at the previous meeting. Blomquist said then that every property within the boundaries must now come to the Planning Department and have another review by that department on any building permit application whatsoever. Alan said yes. He wanted to state here that the Planing staff does not support the historical compatibility overlay district. They are bringing this forward based on the desires of the HPC and the Planning Commiss- ion. The Planning staff does not support this approach and will continue not to support this approach. Steve then went on to point out the anti-neglect and the renewal review of the HPC provision is an important part of the changes. The other code amendments are the duplex definition where the basic concept is to allow as a conditional use to detached single family dwell ings where the land area is enough to allow for a duplex subject to approval by this commission and the HPC as well. This is only for historic structures. They have also clarified the definition of common wall because of the confusion 4 on that. Alan Blomquist asked that if he had a barn on the back of his property which is clearly a historic structure and the neighbor complains that the barn has fallen into neglect and certifies to the enforcing officer that it is rotting away and is an eyesore-- at what point does the government officially start supporting anti-neglect against this historic barn? Steve said that the intent of this is not to bring it up to building code. It is simply to require that it not fall into that state of disrepair that would require it to be demolished. Erin stated that she thought what they were saying is that if the property owner wants to destroy an historic structure by neglect- ing it that that won't be sufficient reason. Jim Colombo said he felt the intent was not to allow out and out demolition. But when it involves a general deterioration of the property if someone does not come up for a permit for demolition, is there a possibility of someone being cited for neglect. Alan said they were asking very good questions for which Planning could not provide an answer and would have to look at it with the City Attorney's office. It is the converse side of this provis- ion which they had not anticipated. Roger Hunt asked what clause does the word "preclude" operate on. Does it include a detrimental effect upon the character of the historic district? He felt that the word should not even be in there. Steve said that what we were trying to accomplish was to have the P&Z commission to consider all of this presentation and to make any changes that they felt should be made and to direct the staff to prepare a resolution of adoption. At the December 16th meeting they would like to present a resolution for adoption of an ordinance. Welton then asked for other questions from the board. David White said that one of the biggest complaints about the system now is that there is one time of year to get into it. How often can you get into it with this. In other words if you want to do something to your house when can you do it. Alan told him any day of the week, that there is no deadline submission date in the historic preservation. Welton then opened the public hearing. Gideon Kaufman said his comments are not intended to attack the Planning Office, the HPC or the P&Z. But we have a lot of 5 problems with this particular draft. He said the group of people there were realtors, architects, attorneys and builders who had spent a lot of time reviewing it and had some comments and pictures to look at because they feel that there are some very important problems which they wanted to point out. He said as so often happens in Aspen, a commendable idea is taken to an extreme which creates a problem for the whole concept of what you are trying to accomplish. This whole ordinance has gotten out of control. The specific problems are: The economic burden. There is too much subjectivity without standards. What you are really saying to a few people who have older homes is we think it is a great idea to have older homes preserved and you are going to pay the economic burden of preserving it. You have to come up with some economic benefits for these people and you have to do it now. You can't adopt rules to regulation that burden people and then say some day down the line, we will come up with a way to help you. The way the anti-neglect situation is defined right now, there are no rules or regulations. You don't know what the burdens are going to be and you could literally come up to someone who has no money and make them have to fix their house up. We think you have to look at that very closely. Some of these concepts have gotten totally out of hand in terms of a district that covers the city, 300' district and even some of the buildings on this list of 180 which we have some pictures of, buildings that don't exist, that have aluminum siding and buildings which are five years old. There is a whole problem here that has to be addressed very carefully. In the "purpose section" nowhere in the first phase does this draft talk about whether or not these places have been moved. What about a building which has been moved. What about buildings that started off at 800 sq. ft. and are now 3,000 sq. ft. This needs to be addressed. We all have a problem in adopting rules and regulations when we don't know what these rules are going to apply to. Are they going to apply to the whole town, part of the town, certain buildings. That is the problem with the "purpose section". Under Section e) under "authority"--if you are going to adopt rules and regulations like this, the HPC is going to have to meet every week. And they are going to have to have quorums on a regular basis. This is a volunteer group and a lot of time they don't have a quorum. If you are going to put this kind of responsibility on them there are going to have to be meetings weekly, there is going to have to be staff available, there is going to have to be mandatory requirements for quorum on a regular basis. 6 Under Section 24-9.3. Standards for designation, the standards are much too vague. The whole burden here is wrong. What you are saying is "we are going to go out and we are going to designate al these houses and we are going to put all these rules and regulations on you and you are going to have the burden to convince us why these shouldn't apply to you." What should happen is that the city should have the burden of establishing why these structures should be designated, and once you have establ ished this, then the people should have the burden. But not helter skelter making everyone come under these rules and requiring people to spend the time and money to undo what is being done in a general kind of way. Under Section 24-9.3 b) Why should sites be designated if they don't have structures on them? We are not talking about historic par ks. A pr i vate pe r son's property should not be designated unless it has a historic structure on it. Section 24-9.3 b) page 4. Evaluation and public hearing by the P&Z. You have three criteria. Relationship to the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, effective designation upon the surrounding neighborhood and such other planning considerations as may be relevant to the proposed designation. Somewhere in there the economic impact of how the person who is being designated should be talked about. There are a lot of places out there for someone who has owned a house for 30 or 40 years and is run down and the only value they have left is the land. Somewhere on these designations the individual should be taken into account. Under 24-9.4 Procedures: should have to go through tions. We don't do that able to deal with this. which we don't have now. I don't understand at all why someone any kind of review for interior renova- now. The building inspector should be We are creating another whole layer Under 24-9.4 Minor Applications: There is nowhere in here where it tells you how long it is going to take or how much it is going to cost. That is a very important thing. Those things can get expensive. That is something that should be defined now. Another thing with minor applications, it can take 30 to 45 days from the time you get you application in before you get an action. A mechanism should be created that is very quick and timely so that it doesn't take a couple of months for a minor application. Under 24-9.4 For final review you must submit an application with exhibits. What you really need to do is spell out very clearly that if you submit the seven items in submission require- ments that that is adequate so that you don't get into these games that sometimes get played. If you look at the submission requirements specifically 4 and 6. 7 You are talking about as much as 1/3 of you total architectural fees which means you could be spending anywhere between $10,000 and $20,000 to satisfy this particular section before you even know whether you are going to get to remodel. That seems to be a very onerous requirement when you talk about scale drawings of structures and those kind of things. People should not be required to expend that kind of money that these things be required of them before they even know whether or not their renovation is going to approved. You need to look at these submission requirements in terms of cost to people. Alan then explained that there are no fees. This is defined by ordinance of the city council that there will be no fees for HPC review. Gideon went on to say that under review standards you have to make one change that is definite. You say the committee ~ promulgate guidelines. The committee IIlY2i promulgate guidelines and rules so that you don't get into a situation where you are dealing with different group of people with a different set of regulations every time you come before them. Al Blomquist agreed that the standards should be set in the ordinance by the council and that committee must propagate the guidelines and we ought to make a clear distinction between the what the law is. Standards should be set in the ordinance. Guidelines shall be provided by the committee. Alan explained that there are guidelines for restoration, guide- lines for existing structures, compatible structures, adjacent structures, for commercial buildings vs. residential. The guidel ines are a lengthy document. We have never conceived of codifying the guidelines. This would be an unmanageable task. Blomquist said he had just gone through an experience where the rules being interpreted inconsistently with the standards in the law and that is a horrendously unfair, unjust imposition on the appl icant. There was further discussion regarding guidelines and standards. The standards in the ordinance should be clear and that they are not a whole bunch of guidelines. Gideon then sa id that there is a problem with the timing. He said that we are talking 30 days and then another 45 days which is 75 days. We are also talking about a building season around here that is very short which means everybody is going to be coming in at the same time. If you have all of these buildings needing this kind of review, you are going to have HPC meetings as often as 4 times a week. That is the problem you are going to have when you try to designate too much of the town. You are coming up with rules and regulations that aren't going to allow 8 people to get a hearing in time to be able to build. Under appeal procedures there is a glaring omission. That is that in terms of the reason you can appeal there has to be arbitrary capricious action on the part of the Board. That is a standard in any legal kind of thing. That is the basic way that you appeal and needs to be added to this. Gideon then said there is a problem with demolition review. The way this is drafted, any demolition is going to have to go through both stages. Even if you have a building that everyone agrees has no historic significance, the way this is drafted, it takes away the flexibility from you to be able to do it in a one- step exemption procedure. Then on submission requirements the same thing here. We are really getting into some very expensive requirements. And on the economic feasibility report, that also can be very expensive but it also bears out the whole concern as to what we are creating out of the HPC. We now must have people on the HPC who not only have historic understanding and design understanding but also have some kind of economic understanding. We are creating a board where you are never going to be able to find people who are going to adequately address all of these situations. Gideon urged the P&Z not to go to the overlay districts. You are adding another layer to all buildings that shouldn't be designated. Even if you go to the 300' overlay district, you are effectively getting every building in this town. It is an unwarranted, economic burden for people. You are going to create havoc in the system in terms of the overload, extra staff and the kind of time which will be required of applicants. On the Definition Section under improvements: Does this mean that if I want to hire an artist to do a fresco in my house, that I have to go through HPC review? Alan said the interior is not subject. The question was then asked "What about a piece of sculpture in your yard?" Alan was not sure. Gideon then said that the section on duplexes was very confusing. Some of the nicest duplexes have a garage in between. This gives you the ability to separate so that you don't have noise. It says breezeway. Is this a garage? It seems this is adding confusion which needs to be looked at. Another problem is the 30% total floor area. Why make someone build something much bigger than they want to. Why should two 9 , single-family residence on 12,000 sq.ft. in the R-6 zone be nonconforming to begin with. If you are going to take the step and fix things along the line of historic you should look at some of the things that are called non-conforming. If I had a 10,000 sq. ft. lot, years ago I would have been able to build two houses on it and those houses are only 30 years old, why continue to call those non-conforming. If you are going to do this, you should look into the whole process. Perry Harvey said he had spent 1 and 1/2 hours with the code simplification task force meeting with the hired consultants. The whole time he was there he reflected on the fact that it was so exactly opposite of simplification that he sat there and wondered why is the city spending this money when this is happen- ing. At the risk of incurring anger I would have to say "this is ridiculous". It is ill conceived, it is poorly written and it has no purpose except to confound and confuse and totally obliterate the feeling that anyone can do anything in this town. Any more from the date of submission to final approval, it is 45 days and that is only step #1. From the date of the purchase of a lot to the date of move in a man has a period of 18 months. I would like to ask this commission to essentially throw this away. You cannot make this work and if you keep going with it, you are going to end up with a compromise ordinance. You really need to go back and start over with basic concepts. There is a rough sawn sided 800 sq. ft. cabin in Oklahoma Flats. It is listed in the multiple listing book as built in the late 60's or early 70's. This is designated because it is little and its cute. Some of the victorians in this town are huge. Now does that mean that if I come in with a lot nearby that I can build a house that is 40 feet tall? My own house was a 700 sq. ft. built in 1893. In 1976 I added so that my house is 1,400 sq.ft. I put two condominium units behind it totalling 2,800 sq. ft. It is designated I because its a little cute house in front. And that's the only reason. What he would like to see done to maintain and preserve the historic structures is to sensitively go around and mandator ily designate those sites that are exceptional, that are extraord- inary, that have excellence and preserve those buildings. Take the buildings that are important to the community and preserve them. Have a review for them. For the rest of it, we have height limits. And if you want to give incentives to people, vary open space, vary setbacks. According to this thing I have to come in to Alan if I buy a vacant lot and prove to him that I am not within 300 feet of a designated structure. I have to prove to him that I should not be processed under this. It is totally wrong and I urge you to 10 throw this away and start over again because I don't think you can make this work. Alan responded to the designation question by asking if anybody finds the map showing their structure proposed for designation and thinks we are in error, please come into our off ice in the next week to ten days and we will take it off the list. If we are making a mistake, we would like to know that now. Ann Austin said that she had gone out and looked at 42 notable properties on the west side of the west end. Of these 11 had either been totally remodeled or partially remodeled, 15 seemed to have no historic value, just basic miner's buildings or houses with aluminum siding and no gingerbread. 6 of these are cute and could be fixed up but does that warrant historic designation. 2 parcels were vacant land, 2 houses have been torn down and are being rebuil t at this time and 5 of the 42 seemed noteworthy enough to preserve. I don't think the burden should be on all of those people to come in and prove to you that their house is not historic. I feel that the homework has been very poorly done. Robin Molny said he has been here since 1958. Your purpose in this is very noble. The preservation of these buildings is a valid effort. It cannot be achieved through this document. It is going to be an administrative nightmare. It is a bureaucratic overlay which is going to be almost impossible to penetrate. It will be an enormous workload for everybody concerned and expensi- ve to the city and requiring the taking on of more personnel in the Planning Department. One of the things that really bothers me about it is that it smacks as design control. You have one group of people telling another group of people what they can or cannot do. As soon as you get into that realm, you get into big trouble. That has been proven time and time again. The HPC has guidelines which they have had for a long time. One of the members was quoted recently as saying "I don't care what the guidelines say, I want this town to be victorian". That sort of thing whether it is an accurate quote or not is dangerous. A thing which goes hand in hand with that is that we are dealing with subjectivity. The history of this whole ordinance is that people got terrified because certain buildings were being torn down. There was a move to prevent that happening and as so many things around here, it led to this. That tail wags this dog. I don't see this document as being a workable instrument to achieve your goals. I see it as being co unterproduct i ve and de t r imental to servin g yo u r purposes. Larry Yaw said he thinks the document, while it tries to create public benefit, falls on its face because it creates enormous private deficit in individual burden. If we are going to deem public benefit from what could almost become bureaucratic 11 fascism, I think that the public should be paying a big hunk of that burden. And not in little ways such as you can move it to a different site. Specific counterparts to the burdens that many individuals are going to have--the little guys. The big guys are already designated. Now we are getting into the little guys, the old families who have been here a long time or maybe the new families who can only afford this little thing. All of a sudden they have got a big yolk on them. Guys like Robin and I have to help these people go through the strangulation process of documentation that can't end up to be overpowering and counterproductive. Wel ton asked if There were none. continued. there were any more comments from the audience. It was agreed that the public hearing should be Alan asked the board to give them direction as to--besides the specifics which we know we need to work on--do you agree with the opinion that we should trash it or would you like us to continue. We have had historic preservation now for 14 years. 95% of what is before you is what is in the code now. Steve tried to focus everone's attention on the areas where we have proposed changes. A lot of the comments we heard tonight are about things which have been regulated for the last 14 years. To go backwards is not the direction the historic preservation element suggested and not the direction either the Councilor the P&Z has provided to us. I have to question whether we are going to move forward and try and amend the historic preservation regulations to make them more workable or not. Bill Dunaway said maybe it would help that when you are prepar- ing a thing like this you could read and know what is in the code and what wasn't. Alan said we thought about doing this. The problem is we didn't want to make this seem that the only things we were changing were the areas where there is new language. There is a substantial amount of reorganization here. But the essential regulatory provisions in large part are the same. For the next meeting we could underline what is substantial and new. Jim Martin said if it is true that 95% of this is in the code the other 5% is heady business. One of things in here and not in the code is mandatory designation of historical structures. That is where part of the problem comes. We don't seem to have clear goals in this. What we need to do is fall back and identify the properties that we do care about. None of us wants chrome and glass in this town. What we do want is a certain amount of maintenance of property rights. If we could figure out which properties we want to have designate, not 250 because they are old but maybe 20 because they are significant. Figure what the 12 incentives are then go after those folks and make it worth their while to get on the designation bandwagon. Dale Potvin said he supports the voluntary designation of struct- ures which have historic significance in the town. It is very unfair to consider a broad overlay and place so much burden on so many people. He is impressed with the quality and the number of houses that have been renovated and were preserved. with proper incentives many owners would continue in that path rather than to have created any large bureaucratic system which would burden many, many people. Welton responded that all of the circles, triangles and squares that are in blue on the map were designated 5 years ago. A portion of those were designated with cooperation of the property owners. A portion with the owner's instigation because they are alloted FAR variances if they are historically designated. Every time a little house is touched in the West end where we are involved in trying to get something done about this, a number of people go screaming off like a bottle rocket because something is being changed. This is not jumping into this headlong after very little study. We have been talking about this for at least a year. The moratorium the Council put on is the catalyst that is bringing some action about. It concerns a whole lot of other people who are really worried about structures irreparably being trashed by out-of-place, out-of-scale, insensitive structures which are really inconsistent with the neighborhood. Granted we are in a position where Council and P&Z are saying we need something to be done. We are streamlining the existing procedure with the sign off of something insignificant by the Planning Director. Welton said he remodeled the front side of Uncle Willys from the way it looked in the 1880' s. It took three hours to draw it and 2 months to take it through HPC. Hopefully with the sign off with more instruction being given and finer guidelines, that wont be necessary. Alan said we support everything in here except the overlay district. We think this is a more streamlined process. We support the idea of designating not only the excellent but also the notables. This is a good and sensible effort. We support everything except the overlay district which we have concerns about. The administrative concerns which are mentioned by many members of the publ ic we share. That is the district, the dark line scurrying the townsi te. The concept is that everything within that dark line that is outside the main street district and the CC district and is not an individually designated structure is subject to review on the massing compatibility and materials. It's not the same level of review as an individually delegated historical structure. It is significantly less but is 13 a new rev iew process for all those areas of town. that district has our staff support. Gideon said if you buy a property which is historically designat- ed and you go into that property understanding its historic significance, that is one thing. There is an understanding on your particular part and you are willing to work within the process. When you designate a lot of buildings of questionable historic significance, it is not fair to make those people pay the price to preserve that structure for the community benefit. This is creating a real economic hardship and burden for them. If we have a commendable goal then we ought to be willing, as a community, to pay the price to preserve its heritage. And we are not going to just impose that obligation on a few property owners. No part of Welton then asked the consensus of the Commission. Jasmine said there are a lot of points that were made that are very valid. She is opposed to the designating of anything but the most critical buildings. I am very much opposed to pseudo victorian and the idea that you have to preserve Aspen in this kind of static community where only gingerbread is appropriate. The only thing she is concerned about with the overall plan is scale. And one of the problems we have had on the P&Z for a long time is the fact that FAR does not address the problems of oversized buildings. We have never been able to find a way of addressing that problem. When people own land they should pretty much be able to have their own house the way they want it as long it doesn't block everybody else's view and become too major an eyesore. I say trash it. David White said he would have to vote trash. When he read it he was so confused it really bothered me. We originally wanted scale and what we got is a big document now and code simplificat- ion said streamline and clarify and we are not doing any of those. The economic burden is tremendous. Alan asked what direction are you giving us. Do you not want to designate the historic structures. David said he does want to designate historic structures without creating such an unbelievable bureaucracy that the little person has to pay a million dollars to put in a new toilet in the back of the house. Welton said the system already exists. Its been in use for 12 years. The procedure has got some bad snags in it that I think are being smoothed out by this document. The process that people on Main Street and in the CC have gone through is being expanded and at the same time is being made more responsive by the signing off by the Planning Office. 14 .<' David agreed that the signing off by the Planning Office is great. But it is not clear. It does not satisfy a lot of people in this room. It does not accomplish what we want it to accom- plish. Roger Hunt said considering the basic issue, the problem is bulk. I think the document should not fly as it is, but certainly be tuned. For example I don't know if 300' is the proper distance. Perhaps some fine tuning like that could make this workable. I have to go back to my argument from before going with this approach. Our basic problem is bulk. We are trying to address through architectural control and I feel that if we lower the ceiling on bulk and allow variances where appropriate and by special review, that this is a better way of addressing the problem and getting out of the area of architect ural control. There is a lot of fine tuning necessary to make it fly. I don't like it the way it is. James Colombo said that he thought that when the people appeared from HPC their object was preservation of historic structures. I don't know how we got into bulk discussions of non-related structures. I see the problem as being this seems to impose a philosophic influence upon the entire community whether they are designated historical or are in the proximity or not. That is the unde rly ing bad feel ings about the document. Its too far reaching in its application. The document itself has some real value with the correct application. Right now we are applying such broad spectrums on property which are so unrealistically related to the issue. That is why it is offending so many people. If we get it fine tuned to specific- ally a group of historic structures, that is both definable and realistic and we have a firm grip on that inventory, then I think this is a workable document. Alan Blomquist said he does not like the mandatory designation and that the district is wrong entirely. It should not even be considered. That the radius for consideration of scale and bulk should be just the adjacent abutting property. Not across the alley or across the street. The document needs to be redrafted somewhat. Welton said he was amazed that what seemed to have been a consensus for over a year's time has tonight been changed 180 degrees. Georgeann Waggaman asked if the people wanted the rules changed which have been in effect for the past 12 years and seemed to be working. Do they want it changed to that degree. Gideon said no, you are missing the whole point. It is one thing 15 when you take a group of structures that have been designated and require people to go through rules and regulations. It is another thing when you start to designate all sorts of buildings which are either not supposed to be designated or have no historic significance whatsoever and you begin to put rules and regulations on them. It is a major difference. If you really care for these historic buildings you ought to come up with some sort of economic benefit for these people to encourage them to be designated. You are taking rules and regulations which have been in effect for 12 years applied to very limited buildings and now putting them allover everything it does not work. Welton then stated it works in Georgetown and in a number of historic cities that have broad historic guidelines for historic neighborhoods. Alan then said that we don't have the ability to put everything into effect all at once. He is willing to meet with everybody and anybody that has an idea as to incentive programs. We are having a very hard time coming up with incentive programs that we think will work. I couldn't agree with you more. You can't impose these kind of regulations without positive incentives. Larry Yaw said there is a very fine concept at work here. My comment was intended for trashing the mechanics that this began to set in motion. Make no mistake about it that as a commission or planning professional that we are not against the basic concept. This is a very special place and we all want it to continue to be such. Alan in trying to get some direction said he thought what he heard is that it is pretty clear that the commission is not anxious to recommend the historic compatibility overlay. We have already told you that our own notice process would not put that into effect at this point in time. I think you ought to remove the historic compatibility overlay district in the regulation. He said that Al had suggested an alternative to the historic compatibility overlay district which could be discussed at a subsequent meeting and decide if you want abutting properties. That is an alternative which you may decide you want to choose. Other than that the regulation which is proposed to you tonight is simply streamlining whether you want to believe it or not. It is a streamlining and a clarification of the existing regulation with some new provisions about demolition and removal. We can clean up those provisions. There are a lot of areas which need a lot of work. We can come back with those kind of clarifications. We can also come back to you in two weeks when we have approp- riate notice with 185 structures which people have concerns as to whether these are the right resource to protect. We can come back with pictures of everyone of these 185 structures. We can evaluate at that time whether we think those should or should not 16 ---- be designated. We agree with you about the historical compatibility district. But let's not abandon the effort of historic regulation in this community which is such a basic and fundamental part of what we do around here. Al Blomquist made a motion to table. motion with all in favor. Roger Hunt seconded the BARKER-HOAG GREENLINE REVIEW Steve Burstein recommended tabling this item in order to look at the avalanche danger. The applicant is requesting permission to construct a driveway access to the lot's building site following the old railroad right of way and a portion of the city trail. Brooke Peterson explained that they had been in a year ago. Then the proposal was for a separate access road through the Forest Service property so as to allow the Nordic Council exclusive use of the existing access trail and utility easement. The Forest Service after spending 8 months doing an environmental impact statement basically said there is an existing road, we will not let you build another road. We have an existing special use permit that runs across the Forest Service property and hooks into the existing old railroad right of way. He agreed with Steve's recommendation to table in order to look at the avalanche concern. But he at least wanted to get P&Z's feeling as to the issue as to whether or not the existing public trail easement, which is the old railroad right of way, may be utilized for driveway access purposes. After researching old records, speaking to people who were on P&Z at the time and to the developer at the time, Jim Blanding, all of whom confirmed that there was no question that what they wanted to do was to make sure that the use for public trails was designated and not to restrict it for no access. If, in fact, this could not be used for access what happened was the city approved a subdivision where there is no designated access to the property. Notes from the P&Z and city council at the time reflect that they were very much concerned about access but they were al so concerned that the publ ic' s right in and out of here not be done away with. Blanding who did the development said that there was no question in his mind at the time that it could be used for access but that it should also be designated for use as a trail easement. 17 Barker then explained that the language is utility and public trail easement and Chuck was trying to interpret whether that meant that it is exclusively for that use or a dual use and that the access is implied and is not stated on the plat. The city attorney has also recommended that the P&Z look at this and try to interpret if that had been the intent of the original subdiv- ision. Chuck Roth said that his interpretation is that the access was not intended to happen on the trail easement but was intended through this parcel which says BLM to city of Aspen for access to culdesac. And that Lot 3 was squeezed around so that it touched onto this BLM to City of Aspen for access. At the same time we would like to work with the applicant and get him going on his project. It is unclear in the records as to whether this was the intended driveway to Lot 3 without getting onto this trail easement. The P&Z minutes talk about a 60' wide right of way. Brooke explained that the 60' right of way is for a proposal for 7 garages on this lot. The P&Z' s concern at that time was that it needed to be a lot larger. From a legal standpoint simply because it is designated as an easement does not restrict the use of it to only these items as long the access or whatever else it is used for does not interfere with it use as utilities and a public trail. Jim Colombo asked that given its designated size easement now can it be given the authority to function both as a driveway, a trail and public pedestrian easement. Brooke told him yes. Chuck explained here that the Nordic Council is currently working on a trail system that permits them to take their pisten bully out and set tracks on the trails. You could not do that here. There was then more discussion. Brooke Peterson (referring to map) brought out the fact that the BLM never deeded this property to the city. The BLM never owned the property. The Forest Service takes the position that the only thing that goes through there that they have anything to do with is the existing road which hooks into the existing right of way. This map was done in 1972 and the BLM does not own the property anymore. Brooke also pointed out that this is at least the 4th time P&Z Commission has dealt with the issue of the use of this right of way. This was the first time that there has been any discussion that this was not available for use for access as long as the public trail use and utility use was not restricted. The applicant said there was one prior approval which was for the 18 Virden review. That was for utilizing the trail. Brooke said that part of their original approval a year ago was that they obtain a Forest Service approval and that they agree to grant the Nordic Council its separate trail and easement to the property. We have in good faith and without any signed document- ation allowed the Nordic Council to construct its trail. This is the 3 rd proposal for a driveway access that has been presented formally to the P&Z or informally presented to the Planning staff. If it had worked with the Forest Service it would have been fine but the Forest Service has thrown the roadblock in. Chuck Roth then pointed out that the Nordic Council has requested that the city purchase this piece of property. He suggested that we could work with Mr. Barker and give him approvals to use the access on this easement if we can get a trail easement through. And if we buy the property then we could provide the Nordic Council with their separate facility. Steve pointed out that there are 3 avalanche tracks on this property and it would be traversing 2 of them to get to the area that is fairly safe for the construction of the house. The Colorado Geological Survey is the most appropriate authority to review what plans they have. There is also a concern that the City Engineer had raised about the possibility that there be less disturbance if the applicant use retaining walls and our recommendation at least where it goes across the avalanche trail. Brooke then stated that what they are here for is to avoid going through the expense of all that until the question of access and easement is settled. After further discussion Jim Colombo made a motion to approve the use of the easement with conditions that the applicant submit (1) a geologic report of the avalanche hazards and hazard mitigation associated with the proposed driveway access for review by the Colorado Geological Survey and (2) more detailed information on the possibility of a retaining wall and revegetation plan. Jasmine Tygre seconded the motion. Burstein reiterated that the reason we are suggesting tabling this issue is that this is a big if with regard to traversing that avalanche. Furthermore there were a lot of conditions that still need to be discussed with regard to revegetation, what kind of retaining walls. He said it was not appropriate to make an approval motion at this time. There are a lot more conditions that would still need to be considered. 19 " #I'J>-' Brooke said this is an amendment to the existing approval. So those conditions don't go away. Welton asked that the motion be amended to include conditions. Al Blomquist asked about the possibility of acquiring that BLM land. He said they have about 150 slivers all around the city outside the Forest Service boundary trying to sell it. The county has something like 1000 acres of mining claims in varying degrees of title which they want to give to the Forest Service. He suggested to trade those for several of these slivers. There are some on Shadow Mountain, on Smuggler which the city should own. The Forest Service doesn't want them. The county gave the Forest SErvice 2000 acres about 20 years ago. The Forest Service owes us this kind of land free. Bills have been introduced many times for this kind of exchange. If we could expedite this purchase would that allow the old solution? The applicant said if this could be done by early 1987, he would certainly be amenable to "going back to the original plan. But this two year review process is a real burden as far as the money and carrying the property all this time without being able to get to the building site to even take a soil sample so that we can start a design. Jim now added the 3rd condition for co-existence of the trail and prior conditions of the approval. Al Blomquist asked if this is an approval motion. Welton said the motion on the floor is a motion to approve. Brooke said the existing approval states that a registered engineer shall address the landslide and snow removal issues involved in the building and maintenance of the entire length of the driveway. A report shall be submitted to the city Engineer's Office prior to construction. Welton stated the motion already had a second and asked if there was further discussion. Al Blomquist asked if this includes being compatible with" the Nordic Council. The answer was yes. All were in favor except Al Blomquist who opposed. Welton then adjourned the meeting. y Clerk 20