|
|
|
|
After 19 months, town council accepts North Old Mammoth Road District Special Study |
|
|
Friday, 14 November 2008 |
Discretionary height limit knocked down to 50 feet
By Catherine Billey
Mammoth Times Staff Writer
“Please close the book on it tonight. It’s been costly,” pleaded attorney Mark Carney at the outset of the fourth town council workshop on the North Old Mammoth Road District Special Study on Nov. 5.
“The net result of the district planning process is that it has lasted far longer than anyone could have reasonably anticipated,” he added, citing 13 total meetings on the matter in 19 months.
Carney, counsel for James Demetriades, developer of the Clearwater project which falls within the district’s building envelope, has funded the districting studies to the tune of more than a quarter of a million dollars. The total cost of carrying the property for the past 19 months has been more than $2.5 million, which could have been devoted to the project, Carney noted.
Turns out 13 was the lucky number – in terms of a council decision on height limits and density calculations in the North Old Mammoth Road District, at least. It was not so lucky for those who hoped council would affirm the study’s recommended 65 foot height limit for the district.
By the end of the evening, consensus was reached on a 50 foot discretionary height limit. The issue was debated at resounding length both among council and the public before consensus was reached.
“This is an envelope only. It’s not an approval of any project coming forward,” noted Mayor Wendy Sugimura. “It ensures that we get the best product we can.”
“The thing that’s missing completely in this study is a reason for exceeding current codes,” said John Walter of the Advocates. One reason to exceed it, he said, is that it’s the part of town where density should go.
It’s not, said Marshall Minobe, who sits on the Mobility Commission. Ask the community if this is what they want it to be, he said. “Try to foster a discussion about whether their idea for this district is reaffirmed or is there is sentiment that it should be revised.”
Councilmembers Neil McCarroll and John Eastman favored the building height of 65 feet described in the district study. “I am not hung up on 35 feet, 45 feet and 65 feet,” Eastman clarified. “What I am hung up on is the flexibility to use varied heights to get us good architecture.”
Steve Miller, a local real estate agent who grew up in Mammoth, agreed that heights should be generous. “Tightening the envelope on the developer can actually create a project that won’t be beautiful,” he said. “I think we’re going to be better off if we allow that envelope to be higher and look at it more with an architectural step later. Let’s not constrict ourselves by creating a tighter envelope now.”
But Minobe weighed in again with comment that 65 feet is appropriate in, for example, the resort corridor but not on Old Mammoth Road. “And I know that’s just my opinion, but I don’t see any statement from the community that says that either.”
McCarroll referred everyone to the example of the Sierra Center Mall, built over two decades ago, as an example of what a uniform 45 foot structure looks like. “I really need to see something physical in front of me,” he noted. Successful buildings have varied heights and articulation along the view line. He apologized for picking on the Sierra Center Mall, but it’s a good exaample of what the town doesn’t want to recreate.
But the starting point for the district is 35 feet, Councilmember Skip Harvey said. “Mammoth has to cater to the group of visitors who want the type of environment that feels small town and charming. The Whistler seekers can go to the Village.” He recommended the lower ceiling of 45 feet as a height limit.
Councilmember Jo Bacon agreed. “I’m uncomfortable with any 65 feet,” she said. “And we still have not defined what this district is going to be. We have not defined the character of the district.” Bacon submitted 45 feet as the final height limit.
Ultimately, with Sugimura’s input, council reached consensus on 50 feet as the height limit. A primary concern for Sugimura was to keep the height limit below the tree canopy, which is roughly 65 feet in that area.
Council also agreed that height above 35 feet is discretionary and subject to review regarding PAOT and incentive zoning.
For calculating density, the consensus was to rely on building envelope (setbacks, height, lot coverage, and unit count) to control density massing. Development of incentive zoning and community benefit policy is ongoing.
Council comments will be attached to the district study and will eventually be brought back to the council for approval after an outline is provided of which sections of the NOMRDSS will be codified.
Meanwhile, the hearing on the Clearwater Specific Plan is scheduled for Nov. 19. It could still be approved because the district plan is not yet codified. |
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 24 November 2008 )
|
|
|
|
