HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890207
~xtJ
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 7. 1989
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call
Herron, Jim Colombo,
Welton Anderson.
were Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr, Michael
Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
There were none.
STAFF COMMENTS
Torn Baker: The Youth Center has cancelled their 28th meeting.
They can't meet their submission deadline. But staff has
completed draft of the housing element. We would like to
distribute it to you and request next Tuesday to meet and discuss
it. Or we can go on the 28th. Whatever works.
MOTION
Jasmine: I move we do this on the 28th.
Roger seconded the motion with all in favor.
Torn Baker: Last night the Council discussed the Rio Grande and
essentially they have taken the P&Z I s work and made very few
changes. They agreed with the P&Z on the design of the Library.
They agreed with P&Z on the landscape plaza on top of the garage.
They made a minor change. They requested some further
information on snowrnel ting the access into the parking off of
Mill Street. And if the Library can--the boiler capacity can be
large enough for that to happen they are talking about a dollar
flat rate that is going to be a fee structure but they aren I t
sure how much.
The other issue that they are going to deal with is Cap's. The
conceptual plan identified taking more of Cap's land than we are
taking now with the final submission. So on the 27th Council is
going to discuss the issue of Cap's and how that land exchange
should work ultimately. It has been essentially accepted as P&Z
sent it to them.
Roger: One thing that did corne
change from what we saw of
necessitating up to an 8% grade.
up--apparently there is a grade
the Library service entrance
Torn:
and
That was debated after the meeting and carne down to about 4
1/2% as being the maximum. The 8% that was set at the
PZM2.7.89
meeting--that sort of scares me.
know if that is acceptable.
If that is for real I don I t
Roger: Well, it definitely needs snowmelt if it is 8%.
Torn: Yes. Well, even if it is 4 and 1/2. So we are checking
into that. The height of the truck dictates where that has to be
and where that road has to corne in at. So we are working on that
to see what that really is.
Cindy: I just want to ask the P&Z if you would allow Welton as
Chairman to sign the Conflict of Interest Resolution. I have it
ready. The problem is I just haven't been able to get it onto
the agenda.
MOTION
Roger: I move to allow Welton as Chairman to sign the Conflict
of Interest Resolution.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
Welton: Mary Martin called me last week and she wants to see if
we could add on the end of the agenda a brief discussion item
concerning trying to re-institute the move that we did a couple
of years ago to try to get at least the west or the original town
site as part of an historic district.
Mary Martin: I would like to propose to you that you go--my
photo didn't get back from the developer. I took a photograph of
a house that is being built on Aspen Preserve. It didn't bother
me as a homeowner across the street but it bothers me only
because this very, very tall building next to a very tiny nice
historic victorian.
Second I want you to take a look, if you haven't already, at the
modern building that is extremely tall and very contemporary
between 2nd and 3rd on Bleeker between 2 small--well fairly
small--one is fairly good size and the other one is not. They
are all contemporary. But it is a matter of massing and size of
homes together on very, very small lots.
But I would like to appeal to you one more time and tell you that
I would like to see you look at an historic overly over the old
townsite up to the Cooper Street Mall from bridge to bridge and
up to Gillespie and if you don't I would like to pursue it as a
private citizen again.
It did get as far as your Board and it passed 100% and was killed
in Council about 3 years ago. If you cannot do that in view of
2
PZM2.7.89
what is happening with the modern structures next to all types
and sizes of little building/big building I think it is time for
an architectural review board. And I really don't think that
would hurt this city one iota. It means a little more work for
another board but it certainly would take into consideration not
so much the style of the house as much as the massing and the
size and who, which, what kind of houses does it sit next to.
As you know Snowmass has had that and at least it is in
perspective in height and size and mass per lot. And the house
that is being built on Bleeker between 2nd and 3rd needs a total
of an acre at least to be a good looking building. I wish you
would go and look at it and let me corne back and work with you on
it if you have any thoughts.
Richman: For about the past 4 months the Staff has been working
on an issue paper on historic preservation. Roxanne is at the
point right now where she is about to put it on my desk for
review. It will then go to HPC and the to P&Z over the course of
the next 30 days. We have been given pretty specific direction
by the city council as to the projects in historic preservation
and we have been spending an enormous amount of time on that
special project. This is not part of that project. I would have
agreed to the difficulty initiating this kind of project in the
middle of another major historic preservation program
particularly since the Council is showing very, very little
interest in this in the past. The Council has given us specific
direction that the historic preservation incentives or priority
for them is what Roxanne is working on. But that increasing
regulations in the area of historic preservation are not. I
would really have a problem with this kind of discussion going on
because with a discussion like that you are asking the staff to
mumble.
Mary: Could I ask you a question that if you are addressing
historic overlay again--
Richman: I didn't say we are addressing historic overlay. The
Council has specifically directed us not to address the historic
overlay. There is not a majority of Council that supports that
concept.
Mary: Well then I will go to Council.
Richman: You have every right.
MINUTES
11/22/88. 1/10/89
Minutes of these meetings were approved.
3
PZM2.7.89
ADOPTION OF CODE CORRECTION RESOLUTION
Richman: I want to point out to you last minute items brought up
by a couple of members of the public. I am assuming that the
resolution form is acceptable. It is pretty straight forward and
simple.
Attachment #1 I have included 2 new items here. We are
recommending the deletion of the definition of area growths. It
was pointed out to me by Brooke Peterson, one of the local
attorneys that the FAR language in the code talks about lot area
and when you work through several definitions those being lot
area, area growth and floor area ratio you end up with a lot of
conflicts. We are suggesting dropping area growths.
Then on item #4 there is a change to floor area ratio. We will
eliminate growth lot area. Finally on #6--there is no changes
here in terms of substance. It is just a matter of bringing the
definitions together in a simple format. So really lot area
could have been lot area net.
Also on #1 the term architectural projection has been entered
into the code. The Architectural projection term that I know of
showing up in 2 other places. And that is a definition of height
and the definition of yard. Basically on height and this happens
to show up in #5 certain types of architectural projections are
allowed to extend above the height limits--church spires, bell
towers being architectural features they are called here.
Yard--you will find architectural projection is allowed to
project into the required yard 12 inches. And the term has never
been defined. Architectural projection is something else allowed
to project into a yard.
Means: Would a light fixture, for instance, be a projection?
Richman: I doubt it if it is functional.
Means: So that could not go into a setback?
Richman: It could not. It could not extend beyond the--it could
extend beyond the house but if the house right at the setback
then it could not extend into the setback. If it is not
functional it is allowed 12 inches into the setback.
Herron: Not to be nitpicking but it shouldn't be architectural
projection, it should be architectural feature.
Colombo:
If it didn't project, it wouldn't be a matter.
It
4
PZM2.7.89
would be of no cause.
addressing it.
The fact that it projects is why we are
Welton: How about an architectural projecting feature?
Richman: I would use the term architectural projection, aka
architectural feature.
Hunt: I view a projection as corning out of a vertical wall. And
a feature according to what you say is a vertical element.
Dunaway: Shouldn't there be a limit on spires and bell towers?
The way it is worded right now you can go up to the heavens.
Richman: I am more than happy to put a limit on that--if you
want to go 50% above the height limit that is fine.
Peyton: By review?
Colombo: I think there should be some maximized height by
review. That means anything over the normal amount would have to
corne before us or there is going to be an awful lot of wasted
amount of time.
Michael: I don't mind reviewing over a certain amount but if a
guy puts a 3ft flag pole on a 26ft house and has to come to
Planning Commission then I don't like that idea.
Welton: I don't see that it has ever been a problem in the past
and I don't care to put a numerical limitation on it nor to
review it.
Graeme: I think that if we do put in something like 10ft, people
are going to read it in there and they are going to start putting
things up 10ft. I think we might be promoting something like
that. Just let it lie I think is better.
MOTION
Welton: I would entertain a motion to leave it as it is.
Bruce: That is my motion.
Roger seconded the motion with all in favor except Jim Colombo.
Alan: OK. So height is unchanged. Is architectural projection--
do you want to say architectural projection also means
architectural feature or would you like to call it church spire,
bell tower and like architectural projections?
5
PZM2.7.89
Welton: I would be inclined to delete feature and stay with
projection. It can project either horizontally or vertically
above the plain of the height limit.
Alan: The whole next group I just wanted to point out to you the
changes that made duplex conditional use in all that C-l and
Office demolition of the existing unit--the CCl and Office also.
I use the word existing unit and I just wanted to make sure you
are comfortable with that. It didn't say demolition of a single
family or duplex because I know the Commissioners had a strong
attachment to the L-2 with units that are above commercial
buildings in the downtown area. And this is one way of
increasing their protection. It just gives commission review
before they are demolished.
Herron: If you took two of the apartments up above the Paragon--
you demolished the interior--would you have to corne by and get
review.
Alan: If you were renovating them? We are working with council
in the course of the Ord. 47 to finally define demolition. We
are recommending a new approach to that where a unit essentially
has to be razed or so close to being razed that the Building
official and the Planning Director would find that it is gone.
Then 17 is the 1.1 to 1 which you approved for the RMF Zone
District--the mUlti-family only. The if you read 33 which is the
companion to it and you limit that 1.1 to 1 for sites involved in
the replacement housing program. So it is not every structure in
the RMF Zone District that now has this 10% bonus. It is only as
an incentive for properties on which we have created this new
demolition replacement part of it and we put the language in some
2/3rd of that additional floor area has to be increased the size
of the affordable housing units beyond the minimum size
limitations. And then they have also got to meet the other
standards which are basically neighborhood compatibility and
availability to services. Those are the special review
standards.
40 is the m1n1mum requirements prOV1S10n. The direction at the
last meeting was to turn the program into a one time only loan
program. No interest. Not to exceed $10,000. Paid back at the
time of the sale of the property and other than that essentially
keeping the program as it was. I put some language in about the
minimum amount needed. This has a relationship between the
amount of money needed for the repair and the amount requested.
Roger: You want to limit the pay-back only to the sale of the
property? What I am thinking of is what about the case of it
going to an estate?
6
PZM2.7.89
Mari: Change of title?
Colombo:
property.
Re-financing--that is the City's money to improve
I think it should be paid off.
Welton:
thing.
got the
finance
college.
What if the re-financing is for some emergency kind of
Say I have go $10,000 and was making $15,000 a year and
$10,000 loan to fix up my house but I needed to re-
the house to get enough money to send my kinds to
Colombo: Sure, I think by review at that point.
city money for refurbishing existing residences--
Mari: The city would be financing the kid's college education in
that case.
When you have
Welton: I think at sale is a very distinct, easy identifiable
point and add anything like refinancing or giving it to your kid
or anything like that is going to just muddy--
Herron: We may have somebody who is going to refinance who needs
more than $10,000 to fix up the house. If you need $20,000 and
then go refinance for 10 and get 10 from the City, then you are
going to have to have refinancing in there if you are--I mean you
are going to make this real complicated if you do that.
Alan: What about sale or transfer of ownership?
Welton: That I have no problem with.
Bruce: It needs to include language to make it permissive to pay
it back sooner than a sale should someone want to.
Mari: No later than.
Jasmine: That was my concern also. The thing that also bothers
me is that there is no incentive--the way it is written now there
is certainly no incentive for anybody to pay the money back
sooner because it is interest free money. It would be certainly
nice if there was some impetus for the borrower to do so.
Alan: So no later than the time property is sold or a title is
transferred.
Herron: That still doesn't address Jasmine's concern. Why would
anybody pay it back?
Alan: There is no way to reduce the interest.
7
PZM2.7.89
Jasmine: That means that theoretically you could have somebody
who took out this loan and it could be 30 years before the City
gets their money. If there were a number of people who do that
each $10,000 doesn't mean much but it adds up to a lot of money
which is money that the city isn't using and which there is no
interest accumulating on. So I would like to see it as a matter
of prudence that there should be some kind of way to encourage
people to pay this money back or earlier if possible.
Bruce: I would encourage you to run this by Fred as to the
procedure. Is this actually going to be liened or be filed as a
deed of trust against the property? What is the procedure to see
that that $10,000 is recorded as a lien against that property so
that we be sure that we get our money back.
Alan: No I haven't done that.
track.
I think you are on the right
Bruce: That language needs to go in here.
that the City is protected.
We need to be sure
Alan: I will run it by Fred before Welton signs the resolution
that that kind of language needs to be in here.
"...,..~,/
Roger: What about a graduated schedule like first 5 years, no
interest--second 5 years at the prime rate and the 3rd 5 years
you go up to whatever the market will bear.
Herron: Maybe we should have a limit as to how long you can owe
the City the money. If somebody lives here for 5 years and fixes
it up, maybe they should have to sell it if they can't pay it
back at the end of 5 years.
My point last time was that we are subsidizing one group of
people--one group of poor people who are living in the City as
against poor people that don't live in historical units.
Roger: Except that I think that 10 years is probably a little
more reasonable than 5 years in that case.
Welton: But we have identified as a community concern--a
community is aware of the importance the preservation of
historical structures. And I don't want us to get into figuring
out fee schedules for interest when the intent of this is just to
provide something simple straight forward and inexpensive to help
out in a situation where something--someone wants to fix it up
and could just use a little extra help.
8
PZM2.7.89
Mari: I think you have to remember that it is benefiting the
community to have a historical structure.
Colombo: I think that if this is going to be misused, it is
going to be by someone who is going to use that $10,000 in
addition to their own investments to really restructure or add to
the structures for their own profits. I think that perhaps a
possible catch for these people is those who were to take the
$10,000 allotment from the city and then who chose to go further
into the historical review at the time they had to go through
historical review and they are putting up construction loans it
should be paid back at that time. A $10,000 construction loan
for additional work doesn't represent very much for them. In
which case we are separating those people who are using the
$10,000 which is their only finance to do their property and
those people who are using the $10,000 in addition to their own
financial plans of reconstructing the property for their own
benefit.
What I am saying is that should they go through review after
taking the finances from the city then is a good place to catch
them.
Mari: We don't want to discourage people from using their own
money.
Colombo:
$100,000
that the
Not at all but if they are going to be pulling out
of reconstruction money on a construction loan I think
$10,000 from the City should be paid back.
Graeme: Could they pay it back at 10% per year and be done with
it in 10 years rather than create the $10,000 down the road.
They ought to be able to swing that $1,000 a year.
Bruce: You might want to set it up like you do a special
assessment the kind of situation where it is repaid over a period
of time. I would rather see that than just let somebody hang out
there indefinitely.
Alan: It gets like a property tax that gets assessed each year.
That is interesting. That makes a lot of sense.
Re: SPA.
floor area
benefits.
There are 2 major changes in here. We added internal
and we added language about _mUmble_community
Mari: What is the purpose for allowing increases in density?
Can you imagine any situation where it is to the benefit of the
design or the community to allow an increase in density in an
SPA. Why do we have that in there?
9
PZM2.7.89
Alan: The reason that you would allow it is that in some case--
we have never granted a density increase that I could think of
through the SPA process. But you might find that allowing more
units on the property in exchange for some community benefit is
worthwhile.
Roger: What the SPA does allow is a way of transferring
development rights. If you have a large piece of property and
another little piece of property that are not adjoined somewhere
and a developer wants to give that other piece of property to the
City then why shouldn't he be able to transfer some rights from
that property to his larger piece of property.
Herron: Another example is if we were to rezone the Koch Lumber
on SPA for employee housing and want to increase the density on a
site like that.
Mari: But that is what rezoning is for. I don't understand why
we need to put that in--
Wel ton: Perhaps we don't have a zoning designation that would
allow the density we would want for an employee housing site.
"."",,'
Alan: What we have is a mechanism that allows you and the
Council to get a plan and determine if the benefits of the plan
outweigh the negative consequences. It is what is called a
floating zone. It is a very open technique.
It was determined there was not enough interest in combining SPA
and PUD.
The last item is the additional language in the consolidation of
conceptual PUD. We talked about allowing consolidation when the
project was a community benefit and it also gives the Commission
and the Council the ability to reverse the Planning Office's
consolidation decision.
sunny Vann:
dedicated ROW
definition--
I understand the change in the lot area to include
or surface easement. Basically that parallels PUD
Alan: It is the language from area gross.
Vann: That parallels the same language you use for density on
#45 with one exception. You eliminated easements for trails in
the PUD provision. Is that solely for PUDs or does not the same
logic apply over here in the definition of lot area as well.
10
PZM2.7.89
Alan: No. It wouldn't because in the case of PUD' s we are
trying to encourage people to grant an easement and this is the
mechanism to do that. The language in the definition says if it
is an existing surface easement, it is excluded.
Gideon: What about above ground electrical wires? Now that we
have annexed all of those areas like a lot of neighborhoods don't
have undergrounding. I don't think it is fair to exclude that.
You could interpret that to say that if you are in a neighborhood
that doesn't have the undergrounding you could deduct it from
your lot size.
Alan: That is true. That is what it is right now.
There was further discussion on surface, above ground, subsurface
easements.
Gideon: It just seems that that shouldn't affect your FAR if it
is above ground and it's wires that go across your property.
Vann: To get back to the PUD. It is the exact same definition
that says "Existing rights of the surface easement shall be
excluded from density calculations." And over here you are
saying "Existing area within a dedicated ROW or surface easements
are excluded from FAR except the PUD has the proviso that says
"Excepting ROW or easements dedicated to the City for public
trail systems which shall be included.
Alan: I guess the question for the Commission is do you want to
carry the inclusion across all lots to encourage people to
provide trail easements where we may need them but you don't lose
FAR or density.
Everyone agreed to this.
MOTION
Roger: I move to adopt Resolution #89-3 as amended this evening
to be signed by the Chairman.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor except Mari and
Graeme.
Mari: I have a minority statement to include with the
Resolution. The only reason I am voting against is basically the
FAR question for PUDs and SPAs. I have also attached a story
where this was found to be unlawful in the Courts of New York
doing the same thing that we are talking about doing.
Welton closed the public hearing.
11
PZM2.7.89
HISTORIC LANDMARKS
BERKO GMOS EXEMPTION CODE AMENDMENT
There was discussion as to whether Welton
because of possible conflict of interest.
should stay on for this. .
should sit on this case
It was decided Welton
Alan: Made presentation as attached in record.
The changes made that are the most significant which affect this
structure are 2. #1 change that we made to the housing
requirements in the growth management system where in the process
of amending the overall code last year the Council decided to go
from 35 to 60% of employee generated as the commercial threshold
which we all knew made sense at the time but which none of us
really thought about having an effect on historic structures.
The reason it has an effect on historic structures is that as a
result of the Elli's decision last year we made historic
structures subject to the same threshold requirements as
structures which need to go through the GMP. They just don't
have to compete for allocation. They have to meet the same 60%
threshold. So suddenly historic structures went from 0% employee
housing requirements to 35% and then instantaneously up to 60% of
employees generated which was really an enormous cost that none
of us really thought about.
We also imposed a parking requirement in the CC zone where many
of our commercial historic structures are. We imposed a 2 space
per thousand requirement there. And that of course has
significant impact when you are trying to preserve a building on
site. Many of these buildings, there just isn't anywhere on the
si te to put this parking. We have talked about digging out
underneath which isn't going to work or cash in lieu which of
course is a major cost.
Joe and Gideon have provided you in their letter an analysis of
the cost. I think they are saying it is somewhere between 42%
and 74% of the construction cost added on.
What the applicant is seeking is some way to reduce or waive
those 2 requirements. And for us to essentially recognize that
what we have here are 2 very strong goals of the community.
Management of the community's growth impacts and preservation of
the community's historic resources.
We talked with HPC to go over some of the ideas the applicant
suggested in terms of reduction of the housing requirement,
reduction of the parking requirement and linking those reductions
12
PZM2.7.89
with FAR reduction. That is if you don't maximize the
development on the siteyes you achieve a waiver or reduction of
your parking or housing requirement.
Both staff and HPC thought that
certainly agreed that the exactions
we really never considered what
landmarks.
made a lot
for parking
they would
of
and
do
sense. We
for housing,
to historic
We would like to work with the applicant on this proposal. We
would like to find a way to lesson those exactions and we
particularly would like to find a way to make this idea of FAR
reduction and exaction waiver move on a parallel track.
staff did feel, though, that the applicant maybe has gone a
little far in terms of where the waiver kicked in. According to
the applicant's scale when you have got 50% of the allowable FAR
and no more, there is a 0 exaction in terms of parking and
housing. And then as you increase from 50% to 100% FAR the
exaction goes up 1%. So it goes up from 0 to 50 so at 100% on
the site you would be required to do 50% of what another
commercial building would be required to do for employee housing
and parking.
The HPC felt and I agree that when you have got a property that
is 100% built out the waiver of the exactions is really not
called for. We would like to start the scale down lower than the
50% rate that they see as the maximum.
Regarding parking: I think we ought to be trying since we are
going to be looking at these things on a case by case basis, the
waivers, that we ought to be trying as much as possible to
achieve the parking that is possible on the site. Where I think
parking starts to cost people money is when you are talking about
cash in lieu. So I suggest that when you can't provide on site,
yes, you ought to be waiving the parking requirement.
But in a case-Elisha is an example-they were able to provide 5
spaces. Where we waived was everything that couldn't be provided
on site. That was a real good model of how it could work. In
the case of the Berko you might not be able to provide anything
on site. I think what you might be waiving there is the cash
requirement.
The applicant has tied this FAR reduction and exaction waiver to
some design guidelines. In the applicant's attachment to their
letter it talks about any expansion needs to be attached to the
existing historic structure or at the rear or things of that
nature. And HPC and staff felt strongly that those kind of
design guidelines just don't belong in the GMQS exemption. Those
13
PZM2.7.89
are really design considerations that are best left with HPC.
They were addressed in HPC's guidelines already. They don't need
to be re-addressed or re-directed in terms of a GMQS exemption.
We also feel that if we are going to be giving any kind of a
waiver or reduction from housing or parking requirements that we
get something back for it. If not they simply will corne in and
say "I am going to develop this time 50% below FAR". We say
"Great, no exaction". And then the next year they corne back in
and it goes up to 60%, 70% and 80%. They ought to be putting
some kind of a conservation easement on the property. And
agreeing that if there is to be further development on the
property in the future they are subject to the then current cash
in lieu requirements or housing requirements.
In other words they only get this exaction waiver if they stop
and we have the right to revoke that.
You can give us direction that rather than waiving the exaction
we look at partial waiver reduction in conjunction with going to
the middle income guideline.
Gideon: I think that both HPC and the owner were very frustrated
in the hearing because we all felt that our hands were tied. And
the regulations made it difficult if not impossible to
economically deal with the building to fix it up to a standard
given the magnitude of the exactions that we have to deal with.
There is a small difference between what the staff is talking
about and what we are talking about when it really comes down to
the FAR issues. But on most of the areas I think we are in
agreement that there is a problem that needs to be resolved.
The Berko Building is a prime example of a small building on a
small lot that really gets hurt because the building is small.
It takes up a large part of the lot and any kind of expansion or
addition is going to be a large addition in comparison. The lot
is only 3,000sqft which takes away a lot of your flexibility when
you deal with building code regulations, parking, open space,
employee housing.
The thing we have to keep in mind most and foremost is that we
have various assets in this community. And each of those
contributes to a different element of community needs and what
makes this community special. And I think that we do have a need
for employee housing, open space and there is an appropriate
place for those. But I think the historic structures have to be
looked at as providing different assets and we can't look for all
things to satisfy all the needs.
14
PZM2.7.89
What we have tried to do is corne up with a way to make it viable
for some of these buildings to be preserved on site to keep some
of the historic scale and at the same time to provide some relief
from some of the things that were added on.
I think what probably happened was that there was an overreaction
to what happened at Elli's. Then there were changes to the code
and all of a sudden we found ourselves in a situation where the
rules as they were adopted then didn't work for anybody and made
it impossible to preserve these buildings. I think that the HPC
went through this with the applicant and we all carne to the
conclusion that there were some changes that needed to be made
and I think that what we have corne up with is a mechanism to
encourage preservation and at the same time allow it to be
accomplished through economic viability and not put a burden on
someone that they can't meet.
....+",.....'
Joe Wells: The Berko Building is a very small residential
building of 900sqft on a 3,000sqft lot zoned CC. So it is zoned
for much more intensive commercial use under special review. So
there is a real conflict there between the desire to preserve a
small historic structure and the underlying zoning that has been
applied to the property creating problems to the purchaser of the
property in this case.
One of our more difficult things :to deal with is to design
something that works for Mr. King the buyer of the property that
is generic enough to apply in all cases. Alan has expressed
concern that there is a built in bias in this proposal to a
situation like Mr. Berko's in which the site is not built out.
It has a limited amount of development compared to some of the
historic structures.
Our feeling about that is the owners of those properties are
already getting the benefit of the additional square footage so
in at least one sense of the owner of a smaller property is at a
disadvantage in that situation.
Gideon has already touched on the alley situation which was
certainly the example that took us from a situation of absolutely
no exactions for historic renovation projects to one in which we
suddenly applied generally all the exactions of the code which is
why we included the design guidelines in the proposal. We felt
that when we looked at that situation it was unacceptable to have
another situation like that in which a couple of facades are
saved and the applicant gets the relief of all the exactions and
still gets to do a full blown expansion. So the only purpose of
the design guidelines was to try to offer some protection against
having an occurrence happening again. We don't have any
particular desire to leave them in there but we felt that it
15
PZM2.7.89
might offer some encouragement to grant some relief to these
applicants.
This is a residential building. It is sitting back away from the
property line. It is not the most viable commercial project
available and certainly would not generate the rents that a new
commercial building would. But that is one of the consequences
that we are working with.
The big items obviously are the parking requirement, the employee
housing requirement and the open space payment-in-lieu
requirement which Alan has clarified for us. The building
actually makes the project non-conforming as to open space.
There is not 25% open space on the site. We assumed at one point
in time that an expansion project would have to pay payment in
lieu for the open space.
Alan has clarified that we wouldn't have to pay for the non-
conforming but nonetheless it is still a major exaction if it is
triggered.
Alan: The only time I can see it being triggered would be if the
expansion went into open space and reduced the percentage or if
you had a total rebuild.
Joe: One of the things we would still like to consider because
of the small size of the site, we would like to consider moving
the building forward on the site so that more space is available
at the rear of the building to do an expansion so that the
expansion can have a larger footprint on the site.
That is not really inconsistent with historic guidelines because
the historic guidelines do encourage building to the property
line in the commercial core.
Herron: One variance between what you have proposed and what
Alan and Planning and HPC has corne up with is the fact that if
you build out to 100% according to your proposal, you are only
required to pay 50% of the exactions. And they are saying if you
build out to 100%, you should pay 100%. Logically that seems to
make more sense. I would like to hear your reasoning for the
50%.
Alan: By the way I didn't get into the detail but we were
thinking of something not necessarily a regular scale. In other
words as you approach 100% you really start to lose the benefit.
But it is not necessarily 1% at a time. I don't know if it is
designable. People who are down in the 50% range of FAR really
get the big benefit. I agree with the concept that if people
don't have major additions or are staying at small scale, they
16
PZM2.7.89
should get a major benefit from the exaction deduction but those
who have built out shouldn't get much of anything at all.
Gideon: One of the reasons for our concern--when you have a
building that is 1,000sqft and your goal is to preserve as much
of it as you possibly can, you lose a lot of that usable space
and so you are forced with a situation where the viable space is
going to be the new space that you built. And so if you are
limited too much in the new space that you build, you really
can't make up for keeping or preserving the other space that is
not really usable space. It isn't going to work real well. You
may have 1,000 feet that you really don't rent. It isn't usable
to incorporate it into the other building.
I think there is some flexibility there. And maybe you don't go
to the maximum 2 to 1 because at 2 to 1 that includes 60%
employee housing. But maybe you go start at 1.75 to 1, the
actual commercial aspect. I think that is something that may
make some sense.
There has got to be a give because what we are doing is we are
preserving and in preserving, we are penalized in terms of usable
space.
Roger: I assume in the redevelopment you are going to pick this
up, replace the foundation, put in a basement, move it forward
and plunk it back down. And then your plan is a building behind
that building?
Gideon: Yes.
Alan: Do we all agree that these exactions are excessive right
now and reduction is appropriate? Should the focus be housing
and parking or housing, parking and open space?
You have already recommended park development impact fees be
waived by City Council. So we have taken care of that cost which
was one of the ones that the applicant was concerned with. The
on site open space requirement which the applicant says 2 to 3%
requirement, and the Council felt pretty strongly that those
kinds of requirements should remain in the code.
Mari: I agree with just those 2 items.
Herron: I don't feel real strongly about the open space but I
would certainly like to see some more flexibility. I don't think
every proj ect is the same. There may be a proj ect where open
space becomes more important than some other considerations. I
would like to see the decision maker have that opportunity for
more flexibility.
17
PZM2.7.89
Alan: You would have that review capability and flexibility
right now. I think you have what you are looking for.
Joe: Really what is going on right now with the Berko Building
because of its setback there is about aI, 500sqft footprint to
work with. If the building can be pulled forward then we might
have as much as a 2,000sqft footprint to work with. That might
lead to a more sympathetic addition because Mr. King might be
able to get a viable project working within 2,000sqft footprint
that he might not get with a 1,500sqft footprint.
Roger: Certainly in the case of the Berko Building which right
now is hidden back in a hole between 2 overpowering buildings I
really support the moving of that building forward. And I have
problems penalizing them open space wise for trying to accomplish
that.
However I don't know if I would support the new construction in
the open space. But obviously there is going to be new
construction in the open space that has been transferred by
moving it forward.
Alan: Once the building is moved forward the space behind it is
not open space because it is hidden. Open space must be open to
view from the street. I want to be receptive to not penalizing
them.
Harley Baldwin: It seems to me that if you walk around town the
old victorian buildings that are built from lot line to lot line
they are much more interesting. But when you walk by the
buildings to a great degree where there is 25% open space it
doesn't look right. It doesn't work for the shop keeper. It
doesn't work for the person walking around town. I think the
whole issue of having open space really ought to be looked at.
?: The open space cash in lieu fee would be at $500,000--25% of
the value of the real estate. That absolutely precludes this
from being a possibility. This is a much more complicated issue
but I really think it is an onerous fee that ought to be looked
at.
Bruce: I preface by saying that conceptually I like the idea of
g1v1ng some relief. But at the same time I am curious as to what
benefits the community achieves by granting relief to a developer
to build out some square footage behind an historic structure.
How does the community benefit from that. Is that within the
purpose of the historic preservation guidelines which is to
preserve--the way I understand it--what is there. That is what
we are wanting to do. We want to preserve what is there. If
18
PZM2.7.89
that is our purpose I am not too concerned about whether a
project is re-developable or not and whether it makes economic
sense to the developer. That is one of the things they ought to
know when they buy a piece of property that--there are certain
exactions that are required.
That is just some thinking of mine about what the purpose of
preserving any structures is and why should we grant relief to
have something built onto the back of a historic structure.
Alan: I think your point is very valid and well taken. It
mirrors exactly what HPC was discussing. There is not, in their
opinion, a lot of reason to provide relief for a building like
the Aspen? Building which has been brought up which has
substantial~uild out already. They contrast that with the Berko
Building so significantly underbuil t that if you don't provide
something back to the owner, we are not just going to be into the
$10,000 loan program for minimum maintenance requirements, the
building is going to disappear. It would be Poor Paul's across
the street. It is not going to be saved as part of the downtown.
Roxanne, City Historian: We have developed some very significant
demolition review standards. We have still seen demolition
because they have still got those standards. We are trying to
retain those little buildings on site. If we don't corne up with
some way and look at the reality of the development of those, we
are going to lose them. It might not be this year but it will be
in the next 5 to 10 years.
?: If you look at the national standards for historic renovation
one of the main guidelines is economic viability of projects.
And I am not advocating 100% belted at all. I am just here as an
interested citizen. But having done renovations across the
country the standard applied both on the state and federal level
are typically looking toward preserving the existing structure.
And there is a reality that if something economically doesn't
work it will fail in some form. And when you are dealing with
all of the structures that we are in Aspen, you always run the
risk of loosing those structures.
I think that the sliding scale that Alan is talking about and in
the discussion that is going on you need to recognize that there
is a certain point where to viably renovate a structure and
typically in most cases it is clearly gutting it to bring it up
to code and standard that you have to recognize there is an
economic viability involved with that. And one of the things I
hear happening is a small site you are dealing with a different
set of prerequisites than you in say a 9,000sqft site because a
little building like the Berko Building is taking up
proportionately a small part of the site but it is a small site.
19
PZM2.7.89
So for someone to go in and have 900sqft to work with we all know
that economically that ultimately you are going to deal with a
problem. The size of the site is an issue and the economic
viability of projects are clearly an issue when you look at the
long term and what we are going to save and what we are going to
lose.
Welton: I was really very much in favor of Joe and Gideon's 50%
maximum because I really seriously believe that even if it is at
100% and some of them start out at close to 100%, an historically
designated landmark is a sacred cow to me. And as such even if
it was born at 100% of FAR it should never have to meet all of
the requirements of a new development because--face it--a 100
year old building can't be as efficiently designed and laid out
as something new.
So I had in my notes "no" to sliding scale and "yes" to 50% max.
I don't think I have a problem with sliding scale as long as you
do one thing and that is provide a calculator with every copy of
the code you sell.
Alan: A suggestion here is the change in use would be exempt
which is the incentive for the historic building.
Welton: I would like to see the final point not be 100%. Maybe
somewhere between 50 and 75% of the exactions.
Gideon: One point I want to make is that it is not going to be
up to the developer alone to decide that his building ~s go~ng to
2 to 1 or 1.7 to 1 or 1.5 to 1. It is the HPC that 1S g01ng to
have to approve the building. You only get the FAR if the HPC
approves the structure.
Jasmine: One of the things that is a concern to me is that
obviously there are design constraints and financial constraints
for applicants. And it is at HPC's interest and most of us in
the community who feel that historic preservation is important.
But this is corning up under growth management quota. And growth
management addresses other things that are equally important to
the community which are impact of development.
And the impact of the development of historic structures don't
recognize the fact that if so many employees are generated by
construction, I don't think it really makes any difference
whether it is a historic structure or not. You are adding so
many employees to the community. You are adding so many trips to
that particular building. You are adding traffic impact and
housing impacts. And I really think that that is where growth
management has to corne into play.
20
PZM2.7.89
I think to a great extent a lot of the problems that have corne
about are because of exemptions to growth management that have
been made for projects whether historical or otherwise. The net
results are things that do affect the community and growth
management is supposedly one of the ways to address this.
I am not really concerned about the size of the building so much
as how many people are going to be going in and out of the
building and what kind of other impacts it is going to have on
the community. And I think the sliding scale is appropriate
because the more built out you have of building the more uses and
people and parking and impacts and traffic impacts you are going
to have. I think that is very important when you are evaluating
a building.
'"~,
Alan: The reason we are trying to corne somewhere in the middle
here is recognizing that the 2 goals do have to trade off.
Joe: Jasmine, that was really our original approach. We found
what we thought was a nice setting to relocate this residential
building into a residential setting to be deed restricted as
affordable housing and then we filed a commercial GMP application
addressing all those concerns that are in the code for this site
once the building was relocated. But there was much hue and cry
about that approach and that is why we are trying this approach
to see if this is a happier compromise for the community.
CRESTAHAUS LODGE GMP AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL REVIEW
PUBLIC HEARING
Both Welton and Michael stepped down from this case because of
possible conflict of interest.
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
Andy Hecht proposed that this hearing be tabled. The reason
being that Harley Baldwin has contracted to purchase a piece of
land adjacent to the Crestahaus that is owned by Guido Meyer.
And it may warrant a re-design of the plan that we are proposing.
And we would like some time to consider that.
Cindy Houben, Planner: This is a controversial site and since we
have everybody in the room and some interested members of the
public in the room we might want to discuss the site and some of
the concerns.
Jasmine: It just seems to me that if in fact this amendment is
going to be re-amended that it would be an exercise in futility
21
PZM2.7.89
for us to sit here and go through all of this stuff and then have
to go through it again.
Larry Frederick: There is no reason for me to make comment if
they are going to change it.
Jasmine: Is there anybody here from the public or from the
general neighborhood--is there anything they would like to say in
general before we table or close this?
There was no comment from the public.
MOTION
Roger: I move to table action and continue the public hearing on
the Crestahaus GMP amendment and special review at the
applicant's request to date certain of February 21, 1989.
Mari seconded the motion with all in favor.
Jasmine then adjourned the meeting. Time was
22