Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Historic Landmark & Affordable Hosuing Amendments.A049-00MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Ir Joyce Ohlson, Deputy DirectoL6�lJ FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Long -Range Planner Nick Lelack, Planner VIV RE: Definitions, Special Review, Affordable Housing and Exemptions for Historic Landmarks provisions of the Growth Management Quota System, Development Orders, and Vested Rights Land Use Code Amendments — Second Reading/Public Hearing of Ordinance No. 5 Series of 2000 DATE: April 10, 2000 SUMMARY: The Community Development Department is proposing Land Use Code amendments to the Definitions, Vested Rights, and Special Review sections, and Affordable Housing and Exemptions for Historic Landmarks provisions of the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). Please see the attached Ordinance for the specific amendments. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Definitions, Vested Rights, Special Review, and Affordable Housing provisions of the GMQS code amendments on February 29, 2000, by a 4 -0 vote, and recommended denial of the Exemptions for Historic Landmarks provisions of the GMQS amendment on April 4, 2000, by a vote of 5 -0, with one abstention. The proposed amendment to the GMQS Section would allow City Council to waive, reduce, or defer the affordable housing mitigation as required when it finds that no employees will be generated by an increase in net leasable square footage and floor area for historic landmarks. As proposed, the Growth Management Commission would make a recommendation to City Council on these land use cases. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of this amendment for two reasons. First, Commissioners do not support reducing, waiving or deferring affordable housing mitigation requirements in perpetuity for a historic landmark expansion. Should the code change be approved, they believe reducing, waiving, or deferring the requirements should be tied to a site specific development plan that is re- evaluated if and when there is a change in use(s) or operation(s). Commissioners explained that monitoring the generation of employees by a business' operational changes would be extremely difficult. Second, Commissioners support reviewing this code amendment in the context of a whole- sale change of the Growth Management Quota System later this year rather than fixing one section for one property owner now. Commissioners strongly believe that this amendment needs to be considered as part of the "big picture" of growth management. Contrary to the Commission's recommendation, the ordinance has been drafted to approve this code change. This amendment could affect up to 69 buildings along Main Street and in the downtown core. Fifty -four (54) buildings are historic landmarks and 15 additional buildings have been inventoried and are likely to become historic landmarks. Code amendments to the Definitions section are intended to clarify terms used throughout the code that create confusion, are duplicative, or do not exist. Similarly, the Vested Rights code amendments are intended to clarify the difference between a "development order" and "vested rights." A development order describes a land owner's ability to pursue an approved site specific development plan. Issuance of a development order establishes a three -year period of vested rights in which the land owner is protected from changes in the Land Use Code. Once the three -year period is over, the development order is still valid but the owner is subject to any Land Use Code changes that have been adopted since the original approval. The current language confuses the two items. The affordable housing code amendments are designed to provide historic landmark owners more flexibility in how they provide affordable housing mitigation when they request an increase in Floor Area pursuant to Special Review. Currently, these owners must provide affordable housing mitigation on -site in the Office, Commercial, and Commercial Core Zone Districts. Consequently, providing mitigation on -site is often not compatible with the historic landmark in terms of design, scale, site plan, massing, or volume. This amendment would allow the P &Z, or the HPC if the application were consolidated, to consider off -site or cash -in -lieu affordable housing mitigation in conjunction with a Special Review request to increase Floor Area. This amendment would only affect historic landmarks in the zone districts mentioned above. REVIEW PROCEDURE Text Amendment: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council on a Land Use Code text amendment after recommendation by the Community Development Director and public comment. City Council shall by ordinance approve or deny a Land Use Code text amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council adopt Ordinance No. 57, Series of 2000, approving code amendments to the Definitions, Vested Rights, Special Review, and Growth Management Quota System Sections of the Land Use Code. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000, approving code amendments to the Definitions, Vested Rights, Special Review, and Growth Management Quota System Sections of the Land Use Code." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Review Criteria and Staff Findings C: \home \nickl\Active Cases\AH and Definitions code amendment \CC_Memol public hearing.doc EXHIBIT A AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.310.040, Text Amendment Standards of Review In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the proposed code amendments are in conflict with any applicable portions of this title or the Municipal Code. The purposes of the amendments are to clarify terms used throughout the code that create confusion, are duplicative, or do not exist; and to provide greater flexibility for historic landmark owners in providing affordable housing mitigation. Expansions to historic landmarks are already exempt from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) if they expand floor area or net leasable square footage. This amendment gives City Council the authority to waive, reduce or defer affordable housing mitigation requirements only if it is determined that no employees will be generated by the expansion of both floor area and net leasable square footage. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The amendments are designed to add clarity to the Land Use Code, as well as to strengthen the City's historic preservation and affordable housing programs, which are both top community goals. Specifically, the Plan calls for protecting historic resources, managing growth, and providing affordable housing. This amendment further protects historic resources by allowing owners of historic landmarks to expand their structures in terms of floor area ratio and net leasable square footage to sustain their commercial operations, and does not affect the affordable housing mitigation requirements for growth- generating projects. Staff believes the amendments are consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: These two criteria apply to rezoning applications and do not apply to this text amendment. 11 I E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: This text amendment will not, itself, introduce additional demands on public services. Amending the Definitions, Vested Rights, and Special Review sections will in no way impact the provision of public services. The GMQS amendment is intended to require affordable housing mitigation roughly proportional to the number of employees generated by floor area and net leasable square footage expansions for historic landmark properties. Standards are and will remain in place to evaluate each application on whether and how it will impose greater demands on public facilities and services. This criterion is addressed. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe these amendments represent the potential for significant adverse impacts upon the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City ofAspen. Staff Finding: Amending the Definitions, Vested Rights, and Special Reviews Sections will not impact the community character in the City of Aspen. The City's community character should not be impacted because only non - growth generating projects will be subject to the new regulation. Staff believes the amendments are consistent and compatible with the City's character. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: This criteria applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: The purposes of these amendments are to insert language to bolster land use policies and regulations that were specifically adopted to address the public interest. Staff believes these amendments promote the purpose and intent of this Title and is in harmony with the public interest. ORDINANCE N0. _ (SERIES OF 2000) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS, SPECIAL REVIEW, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND EXEMPTIONS FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS PROVISIONS OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM, DEVELOPMENT ORDERS, AND VESTED RIGHTS PROVISIONS OF THE LAND USE CODE, RESPECTIVELY SECTIONS 26.100.104, 26.470, 26.304, 26.308, AND 26.430 OF THE LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the Community Development Department proposed amendments to the Definitions, Special Review, Affordable Housing and Exemptions for Historic Landmarks provisions of the Growth Management Quota System, Development Orders, and Vested Rights provisions of the Land Use Code pursuant to sections 26.208 and 26.212; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Sections 26.104.100, 26.470, 26.304.070, 26.308, and 26.430 of the Land Use Code of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended approval of amendments to the Land Use Code, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the existing and proposed Land Use Code amendments, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a four to zero (4 -0) vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Sections 26.100.104, 26.470.070(J), and 26.430 of the Land Use Code as described in P &Z Resolution 00 -10 and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the existing and proposed Land Use Code amendments, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a five to zero (5 -0) vote, City Council not adopt the proposed amendment to Section 26.470.470(3)(B) of the Land Use Code as described in P &Z Resolution 00 -18; and, WHEREAS, City Council reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and members of the public during a duly noticed public hearing; and, Ordinance No., Series of 2000. Page 1 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the text amendments to Sections 26.104.100, 26.470, 26.304.070, 26.308, and 26.430 of the Land Use Code of the Aspen Municipal Code, as described herein, meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Section 26.100.104, Definitions, which section describes the meaning of terms used in the Land Use Code is hereby amended by inclusion of the following terms and definitions: Townsite or Original Aspen Townsite. Land depicted on the City of Aspen incorporation plat of record, dated 1880. Parcels of land lying partially within this area shall not be considered within the Original Townsite. Non - Profit Organization. An entity which has received a favorable determination letter from the United States Internal Revenue Service regarding their tax exempt status, and is incorporated, subject to or in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) Corporations and Associations articles 121 to 137. Carport. A roofed structure providing space for the parking of automobiles and enclosed on not more than three sides. Garage. A roofed structure providing space for the parking of automobiles and enclosed on all sides. Commercial Use. Land or a structure intended to support offices, retail, warehousing, manufacturing, commercial recreation, restaurant/bar, or service oriented businesses, not including lodges or hotels. Retail Use. Commercial land use intended for sale or distribution of products or services to the general public for profit. Storage Area. A detached accessory structure, or a separately accessible portion of structure, intended to house items normally associated with the principal use of the property but not independently capable of residential, commercial, or lodging use. Ordinance No._, Series of 2000. Page 2 Wildlife Resistant Dumpster or Trash Enclosure. A device or structure intended to store domestic refuse and limit access by non - domestic mammals meeting the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 12.08 — Wildlife Protection. Trash Compactor. A mechanical device intended to minimize volume and store domestic refuse meeting the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 12.04 — Solid Waste. PUD Development Plan. A recorded document describing the land uses, densities, configuration, improvements, and character of an approved Planned Unit Development referencing associated regulatory approvals and agreements. PUD Development Agreement. A recorded document between the City of Aspen and a project owner /developer describing an approved Planned Unit Development and describing or referencing regulatory approvals, policies related to land uses, financial assurances for physical improvements, deed restrictions, timing of improvements, acceptance procedures for improvements, non - compliance provisions, and any other requirements of the land use approval. Subdivision Agreement. A recorded document between the City of Aspen and a project owner /developer describing an approved Subdivision, the associated regulatory approvals, financial assurances for physical improvements, timing of improvements, acceptance procedures for improvements, and non - compliance provisions, and any other requirements of the land use approval. Pre Application Conference. A meeting between a potential land use applicant, and /or their representative, and member(s) of the Community Development Department held prior to submission of a land use application where aspects of development regulations, review criteria, review processes, application contents, and application fees are discussed. (See, Common Development Review Procedures — Section 26.304.020 Pre - Application Conference.) Footprint. The horizontal extent to which a structure covers the ground plane as represented in plan view including cantilevered building elements but excluding eaves and similar architectural projections of the roof plane. Deck. An outdoor, unheated area appended to a living space but not intended for living. Balcony. Same as a deck. Loggia. A deck, or porch attached to a living space and open on at least one side developed under a roof as an integral part of the building's mass rather than as an appended element. Ordinance No._, Series of 2000. Page 3 Aspen Community Growth Boundary. Same as Aspen Metropolitan (Metro) Boundary. Section 2: Section 26.100.104, Definitions, which section describes the meaning of terms used in the Land Use Code is hereby amended by revising the following terms and their definitions, where the new definitions will read as follows: Aspen Metropolitan (Metro) Boundary. That geographic area described and illustrated in the Aspen Area Community Plan, as amended from time to time, encompassing both the City of Aspen and its environs. (Also known as the Aspen Community Growth Boundary.) Lodge. Same as hotel, except that lodges, and all lodge units within a lodge, in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District must be available for overnight lodging by the general public on a short-term basis for at least six month of each calendar year, and may have kitchens within individual lodge rooms. Essential Public Facility. A facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by, or benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community. Development Order. A written authorization issued pursuant to the terms of this Title to undertake development according to an approved site specific development plan. (See, Common Development Review Procedures — Section 26.304.070 Development Orders.) Section 3: Section 26.430.030, Applicability of Special Review, which section describes the types of development subject to the provisions of Special Review, is hereby amended to read as follows: Special review shall apply to all development in the City of Aspen designated for special review by the following Chapters or Sections of this Title: • Dimensional requirements (Chapter 26.710 - Zone Districts), • Replacement of non - conforming structures ( Chapter 26.312) • Reduction of open space requirements in CC zone district (Section 575.030(B)), • Increase of floor area. • Off - street parking requirements (Section 26.515.040), • Reductions in the dimensions of utility /trash service areas (Section 26.575.060), • Subdivision standards (Section 26.480.050). • Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards (Section 26.520) Ordinance No., Series of 2000. Page 4 Section 4: Section 26.430.040 (D), Review Standards for Special Review, which section describes the criteria in which development subject to Special Review is evaluated, is hereby amended to read as follows: 26.430.040(D) Increase of Floor Area. Whenever a special review is conducted to determine an increase in the external Floor Area Ratio, as provided in specified zone districts, the development application is subject to the following criteria: A minimum of sixty (60) percent of the additional floor area shall be affordable housing, with no more than forty (40) percent of the additional floor area intended for other uses. 2. The development complies with the dimensional requirements criteria of Section 26.430.040(A) above. For Historic Landmark Structures the affordable housing portion of the additional floor area may be provided either off -site or via a cash -in -lieu payment, if the following criteria are met: a) In order to ensure the addition is compatible with the Historic Landmark in terms of design, scale, site plan, massing, or volume, on -site affordable housing mitigation is undesirable. b) Any off -site affordable housing mitigation is provided at a level meeting or exceeding the provisions of Section 26.470.070(D)(5). c) The amount of non - affordable housing floor area does not exceed forty (40) percent of the additional Floor Area Ratio allowed by Special Review. Section 5: Section 26.470.070(J), Affordable Housing, which section describes the types of development which may receive an exemption from the scoring and competition procedures of the Growth Management Quota System, is hereby amended to read as follows: Affordable housing. All affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee shall be exempt from the competition and scoring procedures. The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this Section shall include: 1. A determination of the City's need for affordable housing. 2. The proposed development's compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, housing sections, and addendum of said plan. Ordinance No._, Series of 2000. Page 5 3. The proposed location, number, type, size, rental /sale mix, and price /income restrictions of the affordable housing units. 4. The phasing of affordable housing unit production in relation to impacts being mitigated through such provision. This exemption is deducted from the respective annual development allotment established pursuant to Section 26.470.040 and from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Review is by City Council. Section 6: Section 26.304.070(D) and (E), Expiration of Development Orders and Revocation of Development Orders, which sections describe the effect of a development order in relation to vested property rights, and the manner in which a development order may be revoked, is hereby amended to read as follows: D. Expiration of development order. The development order shall not expire but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code, that have been adopted since the development was approved, after the period of vested rights has expired. Vested property rights, including allotments received pursuant to Chapter 26.470, shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of the development order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption or extension of the approval is granted by the City Council pursuant to Section 26.308. E. Revocation of development order. The approval of a site specific development plan and subsequent issuance of a development order may be made with or without conditions. Failure to fully abide by the terms of any of the conditions of approval may result in the revocation of the development order and all associated vested property rights in accordance with Section 26.308.010(E). Section 7: Section 26.470.470(3)(b) Exemptions — Historic Landmarks which describes Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) exemptions for enlargements of historic landmarks for use as a commercial or office development, is hereby amended to read as follows: Increase in FAR and net leasable square footage. The increase in FAR and net leasable square footage for a historic landmark to be used as a commercial, office, or mixed use development including a residential component shall be reviewed by the Growth Management Commission for an exemption. The applicant shall demonstrate that as a result of the development, mitigation of the project's community impacts will be addressed by the standards set forth at sub - Section 5, below. Upon a recommendation from the Growth Management Commission, City Ordinance No._, Series of 2000. Page 6 Council may waive, reduce, or defer the affordable housing mitigation as required, pursuant to subsection 5(a) below, when it finds that no employees will be generated. Section 8: Chapter 308, Vested Property Rights, which section describes the rights conferred, effect or expiration, process for exemption or extension of expiration, and process for revocation of vested property rights is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 26.308 VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS 26.308.010 Vested property rights. A. Rights conferred. A development order constitutes a site specific development plan and subject to a vested property right. A vested property right is subject to expiration (See Section 26.304.070(D)), revocation (See Section 26.304.070(E)), and all rights of referendum and judicial review. A vested property right shall preclude any zoning or land use action by the City of Aspen or by an initiated measure which would alter, impair, prevent, diminish, or otherwise delay the development or use of the property as set forth in the development order, except as set forth in Section 24 -68 -105, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended. B. Exemption from expiration of Vested Rights. 1. The City Council may by resolution at a public hearing noticed by publication (See Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a)) approve an exemption of the expiration of vested rights in accordance with this Section. Only subdivisions composed of detached residential or duplex units shall be eligible for exemption from the expiration provisions of Section 26.304.070(D). To obtain an exemption, an application for exemption shall be submitted at any time prior to the third anniversary of the effective date of the development order which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of City Council that: a. Those conditions applied to the project at the time of its final approval that were to have been met as of the date of application for exemption have been complied with; and b. Any public or private improvements that were required to be installed by the applicant prior to construction of any dwelling unit have been installed. 2. An exemption from the expiration of vested rights shall have no time limit. Ordinance No._, Series of 2000. Page 7 C. Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights. The City Council may by resolution at a public hearing noticed by publication (See Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a)) approve an extension or reinstatement of expired vested rights or a revoked development order in accordance with this Section. 1. In reviewing a request for the extension or reinstatement of vested rights, the City Council shall consider, but not be limited to, the following criteria: a. The applicant's compliance with any conditions requiring performance prior to the date of application for extension or reinstatement; b. The progress made in pursuing the project to date including the effort to obtain any other permits, including a building permit, and the expenditures made by the applicant in pursuing the project; The nature and extent of any benefits already received by the City as a result of project approval such as impact fees or land dedications; d. The needs of the City and the applicant that would be served by approval of the extension or reinstatement request. 2. An extension or reinstatement may be in the form of a written agreement duly authorized and executed by the applicant and the City. Reasonable conditions may be imposed by the City Council including, but not limited to, compliance with any amendments to this title adopted subsequent to the effective date of the development order and associated vested rights. 3. If the request is for reinstatement of a revoked development order, the City Council shall determine the financial impacts of the investigation and may require the applicant to pay the reasonable costs of investigation, enforcement and reporting by City staff. D. Expiration of Vested Rights. Pursuant to Section 26.304.070 a vested property right is initiated on the effective date of a development order for a site specific development plan and expires on the day after the third anniversary of said effective date. After expiration, a development order remains valid, excluding any allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470 growth management, but shall be subject to any changes in the Land Use Code that have been adopted since the development's original approval. The period of vested rights may be extended or the development exempted from expiration pursuant to this section. E. Revocation. The City Council may by resolution at a public hearing noticed by publication and mailing to the applicant (See Section 26.304.060(E)(3)) revoke a development order and associated vested rights upon a finding that: Ordinance No., Series of 2000. Page 8 1. The terms and conditions of the development order have not been met; or 2. The development order is void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050. Section 8: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 9: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 10: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 10"' day of April, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 13th day of March, 2000. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Rachel E. Richards, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 10 "' day of April, 2000. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Ordinance No., Series of 2000. Page 9 Rachel E. Richards, Mayor Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Ordinance No._, Series of 2000. Page 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Long -Range Planner Nick Lelack, Planner RE: Definitions, Special Review, Affordable Housing and Exemptions for Historic Landmarks provisions of the Growth Management Quota System, Development Orders, and Vested Rights Land Use Code Amendments — Second Reading/Public Hearing of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2000 DATE: April 10, 2000 SUMMARY: The Community Development Department is proposing Land Use Code amendments to the Definitions, Vested Rights, and Special Review sections, and Affordable Housing and Exemptions for Historic Landmarks provisions of the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). Please see the attached Ordinance for the specific amendments. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Definitions, Vested Rights, Special Review, and Affordable Housing provisions of the GMQS code amendments on February 29, 2000, by a 4 -0 vote, and recommended denial of the Exemptions for Historic Landmarks provisions of the GMQS amendment on April 4, 2000, by a vote of 5 -0, with one abstention. The proposed amendment to the GMQS Section would allow City Council to waive, reduce, or defer the affordable housing mitigation as required when it finds that no employees will be generated by an increase in net leasable square footage and floor area for historic landmarks. As proposed, the Growth Management Commission would make a recommendation to City Council on these land use cases. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of this amendment for two reasons. First, Commissioners do not support reducing, waiving or deferring affordable housing mitigation requirements in perpetuity for a historic landmark expansion. Should the code change be approved, they believe reducing, waiving, or deferring the requirements should be tied to a site specific development plan that is re- evaluated if and when there is a change in use(s) or operation(s). Commissioners explained that monitoring the generation of employees by a business' operational changes would be extremely difficult. Second, Commissioners support reviewing this code amendment in the context of a whole- sale change of the Growth Management Quota System later this year rather than fixing one section for one property owner now. Commissioners strongly believe that this amendment needs to be considered as part of the "big picture" of growth management. Contrary to the Commission's recommendation, the ordinance has been drafted to approve this code change. This amendment could affect up to 69 buildings along Main Street and in the downtown core. Fifty -four (54) buildings are historic landmarks and 15 additional buildings have been inventoried and are likely to become historic landmarks. Code amendments to the Definitions section are intended to clarify terms used throughout the code that create confusion, are duplicative, or do not exist. Similarly, the Vested Rights code amendments are intended to clarify the difference between a "development order" and "vested rights." A development order describes a land owner's ability to pursue an approved site specific development plan. Issuance of a development order establishes a three -year period of vested rights in which the land owner is protected from changes in the Land Use Code. Once the three -year period is over, the development order is still valid but the owner is subject to any Land Use Code changes that have been adopted since the original approval. The current language confuses the two items. The affordable housing code amendments are designed to provide historic landmark owners more flexibility in how they provide affordable housing mitigation when they request an increase in Floor Area pursuant to Special Review. Currently these owners must provide affordable housin miti ation on -site in the Office, Commercial, and oiM ercial Core Zone Districts. Consequently, providing mitigation on -site is often not compatible with the historic landmark in terms of design, scale, site plan, massing, or volume. This amendment would allow the P &Z, or the HPC if the application were consolidated, to consider off -site or cash -in -lieu affordable housing mitigation in conjunction with a Special Review request to increase Floor Area. This amendment would only affect historic landmarks in the zone districts mentioned above. REVIEW PROCEDURE • Text Amendment: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council on a Land Use Code text amendment after recommendation by the Community Development Director and public comment. City Council shall by ordinance approve or deny a Land Use Code text amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council adopt Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2000, approving code amendments to the Definitions, Vested Rights, Special Review, and Growth Management Quota System Sections of the Land Use Code. ASPEN PLANNING`beZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2000 Bob Blaich opened the regular meeting at 4:35 p.m. held in City Council Chambers with Roger Haneman, Roger Hunt, Steven Buettow, Jasmine Tygre and Ron Erickson present. Tim Mooney arrived at 5:00 p.m. City staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Amy Guthrie, Chris Bendon, Nick Lelack, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Lee Novak, Housing; Jeff Woods, Parks; Ed Sadler, Asset Manager; Steve Barwick, City Manager; Steve Aitken, Golf; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk, COMMISSIONER STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS Roger Hunt said a letter that he received from the Mayor regarding City Council adopting the AACR He said that if there were changes to the plan after P &Z reviewed it then he would like to have P &Z re- review it. Bob Blaich and Jasmine Tygre will be out of town for the month of May. Blaich asked when review process would have second reading at city council and inquired if council amended anything. Joyce Ohlson replied that it would be on April 10`h and she said that council did not amend anything except the changes that P &Z had made. Ohlson said that there may be a code amendment to have the DRAC applicants go to either HPC or P &Z for review with the streamlining process. Ohlson said that community development would like to add an additional meeting on April 25`h for the Highlands Village Rezoning because the April 18`h meeting was very full. Ohlson invited P &Z to attend an all day planning seminar on May 19`h in Glenwood Springs. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE INITIAL ZONING MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing for the Aspen Highlands Village rezoning to April 25 "'. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 7 -0. ASPEN PLANNING"&'ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING: TRUSCOTT AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCEPTUAL PUD Michele Powers posed questions Ed Sadler noted that Council was not very different in th of units. Bendon stated that P &Z got to present more of comments on the whole project. Michele Powers asked for clarification of the remote that the City was to investigate the idea of remote pa Area Community Plan keeping in mind location, util The commissioners stressed t] every aspect of the plan. The over -flow, remote and storagq Bendon stated that conc( did not include anything that the time limit was of 2006, if an extensiorlo MOTION: Ro recommendin Cr Club /Truscott have been met Roll call vote: Hane. yes; Hunt, yes; Blau PUBLIC HEARING: for adequate ;sioners also T facilities. gave the asked fi it was conter W it could be the number idler responded of the Aspen administration. ding the need in absolute need for to apply for final, which me limit. Bendon replied it Phase 3 be completed in )r in 2005. F move adop esolution #00 -15 cil app t spen Golf and Tennis nceptual s amended finding the criteria nditions of approval: Ron Erickson second. yes; Mooney, yes; Erickson, yes; Vresilovic, :h, yes. APPROVED 6 -0. 213 WEST BLEEKER— HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. Amy Guthrie had provided the notice and mailing at the March 7`s' meeting. Guthrie explained that 3 of the 5 review standards had been met (the architects importance, neighborhood character and community character). Tim Mooney inquired as to when the house was built. Guthrie replied that it was sometime the late 1880's. 0 No public comments. ASPEN PLANNING &i ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2000 MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt Resolution #00 -17 recommending Historic Landmark Designation for 213 West Sleeker Street finding 3 of the 5 criteria have been met. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Mooney, yes; Haneman, yes; Vresilovic, yes; Erickson, yes; Hunt, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 6 -0. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT — GMOS EXEMPTION Bob Blaich opened the public hearing for the Growth Management Quota System Exemption. David Hoefer stated that the Public Notice was provided. There were no members of the public present for this hearing. Nick Lelack stated that the vested rights and expansion of conditional use, which was taken to City Council by Alan Richman. Lelack said that Richman proposed this amendment to the Land Use Code to waive or defer the affordable housing mitigation as required for historic landmark properties for floor area ratio and net leasable square footage as long as City Council and Growth Management Commission found that no additional employees were generated as a result of the project. This amendment gave City Council and Growth Management the authority to alter the affordable housing mitigation requirements. Richman stated this was a fairly simple request for the Explore Conditional Use and Exemption. He said that they thought that they had the right to ask P &Z to 1z waive the fees because there was a determination that there were no employees added. Richman said that the attorney at that P &Z meeting stated that P &Z did not have the authority to waive those fees and that the attorney at the City Council meeting made that same determination. He said the code was based upon a formula that stated if you add square footage, you must pay fees. Richman stated that they proposed to City Council and the attorney that the authority be placed into the code to look at the desecration for City Council to waive the fee. Richm said that City Council agreed 5 -0 that it was a fabulous idea and wanted to have P &Z agree that this should have the authority for the opportunity to waive the fees or not. Ron Erickson said that he was at the City Council meeting and heard Alan say that P &Z and GMC approved this amendment to waive these fees 100 %. Erickson stated that P &Z was not 100% for waiving the fees. Erickson noted from the P &Z meeting minutes that Mooney questioned any mitigation ever being done. Erickson said that the P &Z Resolution stated that all affordable housing mitigation 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2000 fees should be paid. Erickson stated that he felt that Alan misrepresented P &Z to City Council. Richman responded that the Growth Management action had a 6 -2 vote in favor of waiving the housing mitigation, Ron and Tim voted against the motion. Erickson stated that his problem with the code amendment was not with Alan's client, she was a very respectable person, the problem was that any changes made to the land use code were on the books until they were changed again. . Erickson stated that was difficult to then go back and change the land use code again. Erickson said that the future ramifications could be the problems that have not been anticipated; he stated that the land use code should not be revised by exception but be fair to everyone. Blaich stated that the points made at P &Z and GMC were that the employee generation had to be monitored and the statistics were agreed to be presented to City Council. Richman said that he wished that the code did not have to be amended but the city attorney was clear that they could not waive the fees. Richman said that the code could be amended and if the results could be monitored, then it could be repealed. Richman said this was the only remedy for this applicant and everyone agreed that this was a reasonable way to approach this particular case. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 5 -0. Roger Hunt stated that if this code amendment was in the conditional vein and the rights remained only with the present owner. Joyce Ohlson explained that this code amendment required that the decision - makers make a finding that there were no employees generated. Hunt reiterated that it had to stay with this particular operation; if the operation were sold, then it would go away. Ohlson responded that it had to run with land use, but it would have to be restated. David Hoefer noted that it could not be tied to a certain owner. Blaich noted that it would then need to be tracked and enforced. Blaich stated that P &Z was put in a very difficult position with this whole process and this has the potential of opening a can of worms. Blaich said that he felt that P &Z handled it appropriately. Erickson noted that part of the staff analysis was that there were 69 building in town that this amendment could effect. Erickson said there was no public here and it was a rushed issue without proper thought. Erickson agreed with Bob that the amendment could come back to haunt. Erickson said he would like to restudy the issue; he realized it did not solve the problem with Explore but this was not a traditional code amendment because it came from 0 ASPEN PLANNING*SUONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2000 the private sector and not staff. Erickson stated that the public process should not be given up to meet the needs of one individual. Hunt said that he was not comfortable with the wording as it stood. Mooney and Erickson stated that it would then become a variance and not a code amendment. Mooney asked for the hardship. Erickson asked if the applicant had ever paid for mitigation for anything. Richman said that the amendment would then allow the Growth Management and City Council to review the issues and rule on them. Hoefer noted that was the problem with this kind of ordinance was that it came in after the fact, it should have been reviewed prior to the application going forward. Richman stated that had they did not have staff referrals therefore they had no direction. Mooney said that when floor area was expanded, then mitigation was required. Mooney said if the code was to be rewritten then it should be rewritten so that it works not to just amended. Mooney stated that the applicant's display of emotion should have included the willingness to pay the mitigation as their responsibility to the community. Mooney stated that this code amendment compounded the problems with this language. Lelack responded that later this year there would be a major overhaul to the entire Growth Management System. Hunt stated objection to this motion turned down by P &Z without any directive information to Council. Ohlson responded that the Community Development Memo could reflect the P &Z concerns with the reevaluation of the GMQS. Mooney and Erickson agreed with Roger on the directive to Council. Hunt restated his disapproval for stating the motion in the positive. Ohlson stated that she would provide P &Z with the memo for council. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to recommend approval of the Text Amendment to the Growth Management Quota System Exemption for Historic Landmarks Sections of the Land use Code finding it complies with the criteria amendments and Resolution #18 series 2000. Ron Erickson second. Roll Call vote: Haneman, no; Vresilovic, no; Erickson, no; Mooney, no; Hunt, abstain; Blaich, no. DENIED 5 -0. Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Long -Range Planner Nick Lelack, Planner RE: Definitions, Vested Rights, Affordable Housing (Special Review) Land Use Code Amendments — First Reading of Ordinance No. _, Series of 2000 DATE: March 13, 2000 SUMMARY: The Community Development Department is proposing Land Use Code amendments to the Definitions section, Vested Rights section, and Affordable Housing provisions of the Special Review section. Please see the attached Ordinance for the specific amendments. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 4 -0 vote. Code amendments to the Definitions section are intended to clarify terms used throughout the code that create confusion, are duplicative, or do not exist. Similarly, the Vested Rights code amendments are intended to clarify the difference between a "development order" and "vested rights." A development order describes a land owner's ability to pursue an approved site specific development plan. Issuance of a development order establishes a three -year period of vested rights in which the land owner is protected from changes in the Land Use Code. Once the three -year period is over, the development order is still valid but the owner is subject to any Land Use Code changes that have been adopted since the original approval. The current language confuses the two items. The affordable housing code amendments are designed to provide historic landmark owners more flexibility in how they provide affordable housing mitigation when they request an increase in Floor Area pursuant to Special Review. Currently, these owners must provide affordable housing mitigation on -site in the Office, Commercial, and P ti n�J Commercial Core Zone Districts. Consequently, providing mitigation on -site is often not ^ compatible with the historic landmark in terms of design, scale, site plan, massing, or (�y volume. This amendment would allow the P &Z, or the HPC if the application were consolidated, to consider off -site or cash -in -lieu affordable housing mitigation in \`r conjunction with a Special Review request to increase Floor Area. This amendment would only affect historic landmarks in the zone districts mentioned above. City Council should also be aware that Alan Richman, representative for Explore Booksellers and Bistro, will propose an additional code amendment at First Reading. The proposed amendment is to the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Section Y ,N4) of the Land Use Code. Specifically, the amendment is to the GMQS Exemption for Historic Landmarks section on affordable housing, which would give the Growth Management Commission the authority to waive the affordable housing impactfee when itfinds that no employees will be generated by an addition to a historic landmark. On February 29, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission and Growth Management Commission approved a Conditional Use to expand the Explore's bookstore and restaurant uses, Special Review to expand the net leasable f oor area by 410 square feet, and a GMQS exemption for the historic landmark. The purpose of the expansion is to enclose the deck on the alley side of the structure with a glass conservatory so it can be used year round, and to separate the bookstore and restaurant uses. According to Mr. Richman, tables located within the bookstore would be moved to the deck, resulting in no increase in the number ofseats. Mr. Richman contends that separating these uses will not increase the number of employees at the Explore, and the Commissions agreed. Mr. Richman provided Community Development Staff with the proposed code amendment just prior to the submittal of this memorandum for the Council packet. Consequently, Staff has not had an opportunity to review and evaluate the proposal. The Planning and Zoning Commission and Growth Management Commission indicated that they would support this amendment during the Explore's public hearing, but have not formally considered this code amendment. Staff recommends that Mr. Richman's code amendment be referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration. Then, City Council could review and make a decision on the proposed amendment after the Commission, Community Development Department, and Housing Authority have provided recommendations. REVIEW PROCEDURE Text Amendment: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council on a Land Use Code text amendment after recommendation by the Community Development Director and public comment. City Council shall by ordinance approve or deny a Land Use Code text amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council adopt Ordinance No. _, Series of 2000, upon first reading, and refer Mr. Richman's proposed code amendment back to the Planning and Zoning Commission." RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No. , Series of 2000, upon first reading. 2 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B — Letter and proposed additional Code Amendment from Alan Richman EXHIBIT A AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.310.040, Text Amendment Standards of Review In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the proposed code amendments are in conflict with any applicable portions of this title or the Municipal Code, or represent new land use policy or a change in land use policy for the City of Aspen. The purposes of the amendments are to clarify terms used throughout the code that create confusion, are duplicative, or do not exist; and to provide greater flexibility for historic landmark owners in providing affordable housing mitigation. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The amendment is designed to add clarity to the Land Use Code, as well as to strengthen the City's historic preservation and affordable housing programs, which are both top community goals. Staff believes the amendments are consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: These two criteria apply to rezoning applications and do not apply to this text amendment. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. in Staff Finding: This text amendment will not, itself, introduce additional demands on public services. Amending the Definitions section will in no way impact the provision of public services. Applications requesting to expand historic landmark structures, such as the Explore Booksellers and Bistro, will continue to be subject to Conditional Use approval, which includes standards that must be met relating to increased demands on public facilities and services. In addition, these applications will also be subject to Special Review approval to determine the method of affordable housing mitigation and Floor Area bonuses. Therefore, standards are and will remain in place to evaluate each application on whether and how it will impose greater demands on public facilities and services. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The Definitions section code amendments will not result in any adverse impacts on the natural environment. The amendments that affect historic landmark sites and structures should not negatively affect the natural environment because most of these sites are already developed and all are located in the Office, Commercial and Commercial Core Zone Districts — areas where more intensive development already exists. In fact, allowing historic landmark owners greater flexibility in how they provide affordable housing mitigation may positively impact the natural environment if a site is located in an environmentally sensitive area that is not suitable for an additional dwelling unit. Staff does not believe these amendments represent the potential for significant adverse impacts upon the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: The amendments are proposed to strengthen the historic preservation and affordable housing programs, both of which will preserve the community character of the City of Aspen. Staff believes the amendments are consistent and compatible with the City's character. Amending the Definitions section will not impact community character. K Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: This criteria applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment. L Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: The purposes of these amendments are to insert language to bolster land use policies that were specifically adopted to address the public interest. Staff believes these amendments promote the purpose and intent of this Title and is in harmony with the public interest. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Joyce Ohlson, Deputy DirectorJft1c, FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Long -Range Planner Nick Lelack, Planner0_ RE: Land Use Code Amendments — Public Hearing of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 DATE: March 13, 2000 SUMMARY: The Community Development Department is proposing to continue the public hearing on Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000, the Land Use Code amendments to the Definitions section, Vested Rights section, and Affordable Housing provisions of the Special Review section, and GMQS Exemption for Historic Landmarks to April 10, 2000. This request to continue the public hearing is based on the Land Use Code requirement that the Planning and Zoning Commission review and make a recommendation to City Council on the proposed code amendment by Alan Richman, representative for the Explore Booksellers and Bookstore owner, Katharine Thalberg. This amendment, added to Community Development Staff s proposed amendments, would authorize City Council to waive, reduce, or defer the affordable housing mitigation for historic landmark properties when it finds that no employees will be generated by an increase in the floor area ratio and net leasable square footage. A public hearing on the code amendment is scheduled for the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 4, 2000. This schedule for the public hearings is acceptable to Mr. Richman and Ms. Thalberg. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council continue the public hearing on Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000, to April 10, 2000." RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue the public hearing on Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000, to April 10, 2000. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE DEFINITIONS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISIONS OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM, AND SPECIAL REVIEW PROVISIONS OF THE LAND USE CODE, RESPECTIVELY SECTIONS 26.100.104, 26.470, AND 26.430 OF THE LAND USE CODE. Resolution #00 - 10 WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the Community Development Department proposed amendments to the Definitions, Affordable Housing provisions of the Growth Management Quota System, and Special Review provisions of the Land Use Code pursuant to sections 26.208 and 26.212; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Sections 26.104.100, 26.470, and 26.430 of the Land Use Code of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended approval of amendments to the Land Use Code, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the existing and proposed Land Use Code amendments, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a four to zero (4 -0) vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Sections 26.100.104, 26.470, and 26.430 of the Land Use Code, as amended by the Commission during the hearing, as described hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: That the Aspen City Council amend the Land Use Code of the Municipal Code, as follows: Section 1• Pursuant to Section 26310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.100.104 Definitions with the following amended language denoted by add and sire: Townsite or Original Aspen Townsite: Land depicted on the City of Aspen incorporation plat of record, dated 1880. Parcels of land lying partially within this area shall not be considered within the Original Townsite. P &Z Reso. 00 -10, page 1 Essential Public Facility. A facility which serves an essential public purpose, is ••^ 4 gotao;atorTis available for either use by or benefit of the general public e; and serves the needs of the community. Non - Profit Organization. An entity which has received a favorable determination letter from the United States Internal Revenue Service regarding their tax exempt status, and is incorporated, subject to or in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) Corporations and Associations articles 121 to 137. Carport. A roofed structure providing space for the parking of automobiles and enclosed on not more than three sides. Garage. A roofed structure providing space for the parking of automobiles and enclosed on all sides. Commercial Use. Land or a structure intended to support offices, retail, warehousing, manufacturing, commercial recreation, restaurantfbar, or service oriented businesses, not including lodges or hotels. Retail Use. Commercial land use intended for sale or distribution of products or services to the general public for profit. Storage Area. A detached accessory structure, or a separately accessible portion of structure, intended to house items normally associated with the principal use of the property but not independently capable of residential, commercial, or lodging use. Wildlife Resistant Dumpster or Trash Enclosure. A device or structure intended to store domestic refuse and limit access by non - domestic mammals meeting the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 12.08 — Wildlife Protection. Trash Compactor. A mechanical device intended to minimize volume and store domestic refuse meeting the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 12.04 — Solid Waste. P &Z Reso. 00 -10, page 2 Development Order. A written authorization issued pursuant to the terms of this Title to undertake development according to an approved site specific development plan. (See, Common Development Review Procedures — Section 26.304.070 Development Orders.) PUD Development Plan. A recorded document describing the land uses, densities, configuration, improvements, and character of an approved Planned Unit Development referencing associated regulatory approvals and agreements. PUD Development Agreement. A recorded document between the City of Aspen and a project owner /developer describing an approved Planned Unit Development and describing or referencing regulatory approvals, policies related to land uses financial assurances for physical improvements, deed restrictions, timing of improvements, acceptance procedures for improvements, non - compliance provisions, and any other requirements of the land use approval. Subdivision Agreement. A recorded document between the City of ASDen and a project owner /developer describing an approved Subdivision, the associated regulatory approvals, financial assurances for physical improvements, timing of improvements, acceptance procedures for improvements, and non - compliance provisions, and any other requirements of the land use approval. Pre Application Conference. A meeting between a potential land use applicant, and/or their representative, and member(s) of the Community Development Department held prior to submission of a land use application where aspects of development regulations, review criteria, review processes, application contents, and application fees are discussed. (See, Common Development Review Procedures — Section 26.304.020 Pre - Application Conference.) Footprint. The horizontal extent to which a structure covers the ground plane as represented in plan view including cantilevered building elements but excluding eaves and similar architectural projections of the roof plane. Deck. An outdoor, unheated area appended to a living space but not intended for living. Balcony. Same as a deck. Loggia. A deck, or porch attached to a living space and open on at least one side developed under a roof as an integral part of the building's mass rather than as an appended element. Aspen Metropolitan (Metro) Boundary. That geographic area described and illustrated in the Aspen Area Community Plan, as amended from time to time, P &Z Reso. 00 -10, page 3 encompassing both the City of Aspen and its environs. (Also known as the Aspen Community Growth Boundary.) Aspen Community Growth Boundary. Same as Aspen Metropolitan (Metro) Boundary. Lodge. Same as hotel, except that lodges, and all lodge units within a lodge, in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District must be available for overnight lodging by the general public on a short-term basis for at least six month of each calendar year, and may have kitchens within individual lodge rooms. Section 2• Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.430.030 Special Review with the addition of the following language, denoted by add: Special review shall apply to all development in the City of Aspen designated for special review by the following Chapters or Sections of this Title: • Dimensional requirements (Chapter 26.710 - Zone Districts), • Replacement of non - conforming structures ( Chapter 26.312) • Reduction of open space requirements in CC zone district (Section 575.030(B)), • Increase of floor area. • Off -street parking requirements (Section 26.515.040), • Reductions in the dimensions of utility /trash service areas (Section 26.575.060), • Subdivision standards (Section 26.480.050). • Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards (Section 26.520) Section 3: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.430.040 Special Review with the amendment of the following language, denoted by add and sWka: P &Z Reso. 00 -10, page 4 a. -Inl NI P &Z Reso. 00 -10, page 4 26.430.040(D) Increase of Floor Area. Whenever a special review is conducted to determine an increase in the external Floor Area Ratio, as provided in specified zone districts, the development application is subject to the following criteria: 1. A minimum of sixty (60) percent of the additional floor area shall be affordable housing, with no more than forty (40) percent of the additional floor area intended for other uses. 2. The development complies with the dimensional requirements criteria of Section 26.430.040(A) above. 3. For Historic Landmark Structures the affordable housing portion of the additional floor area may be provided either off -site or via a cash -in -lieu payment, if the following criteria are met: a) In order to ensure the addition is compatible with the Historic Landmark in terms of design, scale, site plan, massing, or volume, on -site affordable housing mitigation is undesirable. b) Any off -site affordable housing mitigation is provided at a level meeting or exceeding the provisions of Section 26.470.070(D)(5). c) The amount of non - affordable housing floor area does not exceed forty (40) percent of the additional Floor Area Ratio allowed by Special Review. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend section 26.470.070(J) — growth management exemptions - by adding ands language as follows: 26.470.070(.). Affordable housing. All affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee shall be exempt from the competition and scoring procedures. The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this Section shall include: the City's ee.l F ,..h h.,... kag ro;iSidegil4B the PF.QPQSod ,ppli n-a with a adgpted hooks.,g pla% the ., ..,l.o...F "toll:.... 4aiu p srd --A A—" 1..,... iQ14 the tj'pw „F d "'WhAg ,,. iU P 9W Gi .X.,133 . 2.A:.,.. the ...l.e; o9l.e,l;.,Qmr. ka .,,.h ;uait the giza 4the d— ,.Grog ugi% the ;wUallgale FAiN 1. A determination of the City's need for affordable housing. 2. The proposed development's compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, housing sections, and addendum of said plan. P &Z Reso. 00 -10, page 5 3. The proposed location, number, type, size, rental /sale mix, and price /income restrictions of the affordable housing units. 4. The phasing of affordable housing unit production in relation to impacts being mitigated through such provision. This exemption is deducted from the respective annual development allotment established pursuant to Section 26.470.040 and from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Review is by City Council. Section 5• Pursuant to Section 26.310.050 of the Municipal Code, the adoption of this resolution by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered a pending ordinance. APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on February 29, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cify Attorney ATTEST: ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk P &Z Reso. 00 -10, page 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Robert Blaich, Chair VIEVIORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Deve opment Director Joyce Olilson. Deputy Director FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner Nick Lelack, Planner RE: Definitions and Affordable Housing Code Amendments — Public Hearing DATE: February 29, 2000 SUMMARY: The Community Development Department is proposing Land Use Code amendments to the Definitions, and Affordable Housing provisions of the Special Review and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) sections. Please see the attached Resolution for the specific amendments. Code amendments to the Definitions section are intended to clarify terms used throughout the code that create confusion, are duplicative, or do not exist. The code amendments to the affordable housing provisions are designed to achieve several purposes. (2ne pu ose 's to re-insert a provision into the Land Use Code that was mistakenly taken out during the July 1999 related to the method by which a developer proposes affordable housing. A second reason is to allow the Housin Authority Executive Director to administer referrals on Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) exem_ ptions for a or a e o� applications. The current language implies t at the Community Development Staff conducts the hearing with the Housing Board. The third reason is to provide historic provide affordable housing mitigattor. lore flexibility in how they an increase in Floor Area owners must housing Commercial, and Commercial Core Zone Districts. Consequence providing mitigation on -site is often not compatible with the historic landmark in terms of design, scale, site plan, massing, or volume. This amendment would allow the P &Z, or the FIPC if the application were consolidated, to consider off - site or cash -in -lieu affordable housing mitigation in conjunction with a Special Review A. request to increase Floor Area. This amendment would only affect historic landmarks in the zone districts mentioned above. �nl � p�Finally, the amendment proposes raising the annual allotments from the current 43 pe r year to the current ceiling — approximately 550 units. This amendment is in response the Growth Management Commission motion to adjust the cap as an interim measure r333 prior to revising GMQS in its entirety. The GMC motion was passed by a 11 -0 vote. to RECOMNIENDATION: Staff is recommending apf:,,..,al of the code amendments to proviu,--dreater clarity for terms used in the Land Use Code, greater flexibility for historic landmark and property owners to preserve their structures and parcels, and' increased opportunities for the development of affordable housing units. REVIEW PROCEDURE Test Amendment: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council on a Land Use Code text amendment after recommendation by the Community Development Director and public comment. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of the Definitions and affordable housing text amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Aspen Comnunih, Growth Boundary. Same as Aspen Metropolitan (Metro) Boundarv. Lode. Same as hotel, except that lodges, and all lodge units within a lodge, in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District must be available for overnight lodging by the general public on a short-term basis for at least six month of each calendar year, and may have kitchens within individual lodge rooms. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.430.030 Special Review with the addition of the following language, denoted by add: Special review shall apply to all development in the City of Aspen designated for special review by the following Chapters or Sections of this Title: • Dimensional requirements (Chapter 26.710 - Zone Districts), • Replacement of non - conforming structures ( Chapter 26312) • Reduction of open space requirements in CC zone district (Section 575.030(13)), • Increase of floor area. • Off- street parking requirements (Section 26.515.040), • Reductions in the dimensions of utility /trash service areas (Section 26.575.060), • Subdivision standards (Section 26.480.050). • Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards (Section 26.520) Section 3: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.430.040 Special Review with the amendment of the following language, denoted by add and sib: 26.430.040(D) P &Z Reso. 00- 4 a. I �11 IF �11 IRE 26.430.040(D) P &Z Reso. 00- 4 Increase of Floor Area. WIenever a special review is conducted to determine an increase in the external Floor Area Ratio. as provided in specified zone districts. the development application is subject to the following criteria: 1. A minimum of sixty (60) percent of the additional floor area shall be affordable housing, with no more than forty (40) percent of the additional floor area intended for other uses. 2. The development complies with the dimensional requirements criteria of Section 26.430.040(A) above. 3. For Historic Landmark Structures the affordable housing portion of the additional floor area may be provided either off -site or via a cash -in -lieu payment, if the following criteria are met: a) In order to ensure the addition is compatible with the Historic Landmark in terms of design, scale, site plan, massing, or volume, on -site affordable housing mitigation is undesirable. b) Any off -site affordable housing mitigation is provided at a level meeting or exceeding the provisions of Section 26.470.070(D)(5). c) The amount of non - affordable housing floor area does not exceed forty (40) percent of the additional Floor Area Ratio allowed by Special Review. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend section 26.470.050(C)(1) GMQS Maximum Allotment Pool - by adding and4#W4;g language as follows: 26.470.050(C) (I) Maximum Allotment Pool. C. Establishment of Maximum Allotment Pool. . The maximum number of allotments available within a single year will vary based on at least two factors: (1) the number of allotments granted in previous years, and (2) whether the City Council authorizes the use of optional multi -year allotments pursuant to Section 26.470.050(A)(4). This Section establishes the method by which the maximum annual allotment pools for residential and tourist accommodations development shall be calculated. Standard maximum allotment pool formula. No later than June 1 of each year, the Community Development Director shall calculate the number of development allotments available during the upcoming year using the following formulas: a) For Affordable Housing: P &Z Reso. 00 -_, page 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director., FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner RE: Code Amendment — GMQS Exemption for Historic Landmark, Resolution No. LS, Series of 2000 DATE: April 4, 2000 SUMMARY On March 13, 2000, Community Development Staff proposed Land Use Code amendments to the Definitions section, Vested Rights section, and Affordable Housing provisions of the Special Review section to City Council at First Reading. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended City Council approve these amendments by a 4 -0 vote on February 29, 2000. In addition, Alan Richman, representative for Explore Booksellers and Bistro, proposed an additional code amendment at First Reading. The proposed amendment is to the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Section of the Land Use Code. Specifically, the code amendment states: Upon a recommendation from the Growth Management Commission, City Council may waive, reduce, or defer the affordable housing mitigation as required, pursuant to subsection 5(a) below, when it finds that no employees will be generated. The amendment means that owners of historic landmark properties proposing to expand both floor area ratio and net leasable square footage can have their affordable housing mitigation requirement waived, reduced, or deferred if City Council finds that no employees are being generated after considering a recommendation from the Growth Management Commission. City Council unanimously approved this amendment at First Reading after hearing testimony from about 50 residents. The Land Use Code requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to conduct a public hearing on text amendments and to recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council. The Commission has not yet reviewed Mr. Richman's proposed amendment. Therefore, the Commission is conducting a public hearing and a making a recommendation on this code amendment today. Next Monday, April 10, City Council will conduct a public hearing and take final action on this code amendment. This amendment could affect up to 69 buildings along Main Street and in the downtown core. Fifty -four (54) buildings are historic landmarks and 15 additional buildings have been inventoried and are likely to become historic landmarks. REVIEW PROCEDURE Text Amendment: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council on a Land Use Code text amendment after recommendation by the Community Development Director and public comment. City Council shall by ordinance approve or deny a Land Use Code text amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve of Resolution No. (g, Series of 2000, recommending approval of a Land Use Code amendment to the GMQS Exemption for Historic Landmarks section." RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of the text amendment to the Growth Management Quota System Exemption for Historic Landmarks section of the City of Aspen Land Use Code." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT A AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.310.040, Text Amendment Standards of Review In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the proposed code amendments directly conflict with any applicable portions of this title or the Municipal Code. Expansions to historic landmarks are already exempt from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) if they expand floor area or net leasable square footage. This amendment gives the Growth Management Commission and City Council the authority to waive, reduce or defer affordable housing mitigation requirements only if it is determined that no employees will be generated by the expansion of both floor area and net leasable square footage. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Staff believes the amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The Plan calls for protecting historic resources, managing growth, and providing affordable housing. This amendment further protects historic resources by allowing owners of historic landmarks to expand their structures in terms of floor area ratio and net leasable square footage to sustain their commercial operations, and does not affect the affordable housing mitigation requirements for growth- generating projects. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: These two criteria apply to rezoning applications and do not apply to this text amendment. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: This text amendment will not, itself, introduce additional demands on public services. This I amendment is intended to require affordable housing mitigation roughly proportional to the number of employees generated by floor area and net leasable square footage expansions for historic landmark properties. Review standards are and will remain in place to evaluate each application on whether and how it will impose greater demands on public facilities and services. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in kw V signifu ant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe these amendments represent the potential for significant adverse ` impacts upon the natural environment. X G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: The amendments are proposed to strengthen the historic preservation program, which is intended to preserve the community character of the City of Aspen. The City's community character should not be impacted because only non - growth generating projects will be subject to the new regulation. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: This criteria applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment. L Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment is in the public interest because it helps historic landmark property and building owners preserve these sites and structures by expanding their commercial users without being required to provide affordable housing mitigation when no employees are generated. \n� ex r `�' A 0 RESOLUTION N0. _!_D (SERIES OF 2000) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS PROVISION OF THE LAND USE CODE, SECTION 26.470.470(3)(B). WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the Community Development Department proposed an amendment to the Growth Management Quota System Exemptions for Historic Landmarks provision of the Land Use Code pursuant to Sections 26.208 and 26.212; and, WHEREAS, the amendment requested relates to Section 26.470.470(3)(B) of the Land Use Code of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the amendment to the Land Use Code, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has opened the public hearing to consider the existing and proposed Land Use Code amendments, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a _ to _ (_ -_) vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Section 26.470.470(3)(B) of the Land Use Code, as described hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council amend Aspen City Council amend Section 26.470.470(3)(B) Exemptions — Historic Landmarks with the following amended language denoted by the underlined text the Land Use Code of the Municipal Code: Enlargement for use as a commercial or office development. b. Increase in FAR and net leasable square footage. The enlargement of an historic landmark to be used as a commercial or office development which increases the building's existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage or the enlargement of an historic landmark for mixed -use as a commercial or office development and which adds a residential dwelling unit, which increases the building's or parcel's existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage. Review of this exemption is by the Growth Management Commission. The applicant shall demonstrate that as a result of the development, mitigation of the project's community impacts will be addressed by the standards set forth at sub - Section 5, below. Upon a recommendation from the Growth Management Commission City Council may waive, reduce, or defer the affordable housing miuganon as requtr employees will be generated. to APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 4, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk when it finds that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Robert Blaich, Chair MEETING DATE: 02/29/2000 NAME OF PROJECT: EXPLORE BOOKSELLERS GMQS EXEMPTION FROM SCORING COMPETITION CLERK: Jackie Lothian STAFF: Nick Lelack WITNESSES: (1) (2) (3) Alan Richman Katharine Thalberg Katalina EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( x ) (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( x ) (Check If Applicable) #1. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt Resolution #02- 2000gmc for the Explore Booksellers and Bistro for a Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) exemption for an historic landmark to increase the net leasable square footage by 440 square feet, and to increase the floor area ratio to 0.85:1, by enclosing a deck on the second floor, located at 221 East Main Street with the conditions of approval: 1. Unless otherwise herein amended, all prior conditions of approval contained in City Council Ordinance 61, 1976 and Planning and Zoning Resolution 89 -23 remain in full force and effect. 2. The City of Aspen Land Use Code is amended to allow City Council to approve the method of mitigation for the provision of affordable housing after considering a recommendation from the Growth Management Commission. 3. The Historic Preservation Commission approves the final plan, including making the determination that locating the affordable housing on site would not be compatible with the design, scale, massing, or volume of the historic landmark structure. 4. The Aspen City Council shall approve the amount of cash -in -lieu to be paid for affordable housing mitigation, if any. Peter Martin second. Roll cal vote: Sanzone, yes; Erickson, yes; Martin, yes; Mooney, yes; Thomas, yes; Whipple, yes; Hunt, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 8 -0. #2. MOTION: Peter Martin moved that GMC recommend City Council waive the housing mitigation in connection with the Explore Booksellers GMQS Exemption application based upon the representation that there were no additional employees. Sheri Sanzone second. Roll call vote: Thomas, yes; Mooney, no; Blaich, yes; Hunt, yes; Erickson, no; Martin, yes; Sanzone, yes; Whipple, yes. APPROVED 6 -2. GMCVOTE ASPEN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION EBRUARY 29, 2000 COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ...................................................... ............................... I DISCLOSUREOF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................................................... ............................... 1 CODE AMENDMENT - AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DEFINITIONS ........................ ............................... 1 EXPLORE BOOKSELLER CONDITIONAL USE AND SPECIAL REVIEW ................... ............................... 3 DEVELOPMENTREVIEW PROCESS ................................................................................... ............................... 9 10 ASPEN PLANNING(' ,LONING COMMISSION OEBRUARY 29.2000 Bob Blaich opened the regular meeting at 4:10 p.m. with Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney and Ron Erickson present. Jasmine Tygre, Steven Buettow and Roger Haneman were excused. Staff present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson, Chris Bendon, Nick Lelack, Sarah Oates, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Erickson asked if there was a clear violation of the housing rules, how were the restrictions enforced. If a person owned an employee housing unit, then that person cannot own another piece of property on Aspen. There would be a time period for the sale of the free - market unit and staff would check into the rules. David Hoefer stated that there have been problems receiving notice so that the affidavit of notice would now be required prior to the commencement of any hearing. If the notice was not provided the hearing would be continued. PUBLIC HEARING: DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT — AFFORDABLE HOUSING and DEFE IITIONS Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. Chris Bendon and Nick Lelack presented the notice. Lelack said the affordable housing, definitions and special review sections of the code would be taken out and replaced the section for mitigation for off -site affordable housing. The second provision would allow referrals on GMQS exemptions on affordable housing projects by the executive director of the housing authority. The P reason was to provide historic landmark owners more flexibility in how affordable housing mitigation was provided when a special review on increased floor area was requested. This was just for historic landmark owners when applied in the Office, Commercial and Commercial Core Zone Districts. This would allow P &Z or HPC to consider off -site or cash -in -lieu affordable housing mitigation. Lelack stated the amendment proposed raising the annual GMQS allotments for affordable housing form the current 43 per year to the ceiling (approx. 550 units). The amendment was in response to the GMC's request to adjust the cap as an interim measure prior to revising the GMQS Section in its entirety. Lelack noted 1 ASPEN PLANNING (.TONING COMMISSION EBRUARY 29, 2000 that GMC approved this amendment 11 -0 and the County was revising their text amendments to their land use code similarly. Lelack said the amendments to Section 26.430.040(d) included that 60% of an addition to a project would have to be for affordable housing. He distributed the revised Section 26.430.040(A) & 26.470.070 (D)(5) Exhibit 5. Bendon explained the amendments to the definitions. The commission stated concerns for the GMQS allotments and allocations by each year and taking the allotments off the back. Other concerns were the exceptional project requirements, design elements and competition levels. The discussions included the team concept eliminating the review process, that a City Council project had the ability for exaction, and deviations from the process on certain projects. No public comments. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to table and continue action of the Code Amendment Affordable Housing Definitions to the end of the meeting tonight. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 4 -0. Blaich re- opened the hearing. Bendon stated that the review process followed the rules for land use from the code especially for general life - safety, general PUD and parking standards. Mooney stated that there were portions that were being thrown out that were more important. Mooney said the pool and going above the annual allotments were just for exceptional projects. He said that just because a project was affordable housing did not make it an exceptional project; it had to be determined on the merits of each project. Erickson noted there could be applications that would take up the entire year's allotment, which would basically deny any other project from applying. Bendon said that if a large project was deemed exceptional then it would come out of the ceiling. Blaich stated that the guidelines and rules had to be followed. Mooney said that this might eliminated a lot of legitimate long -range planning. Mooney said that cash -in -lieu or off -site housing mitigation should be done privately instead of the public forum. Bendon replied that the code supplied the criteria for increased floor area to be mitigated 100% for affordable housing of what the threshold was. Ohlson stated that only City Council could waive the fee. Mooney stated concern for waivers of parking. 2 ASPEN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION OEBRUARY 29 2000 MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing for 1/2 hour. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 4 -0. Hunt corrected language in the memo. Bendon stated the corrections would be reflected in the code amendment resolution. Mooney stated concern for the essential public facility and the impacts should be offset. Bendon responded that the essential public facilities were exempt from Growth Management but not exempt from mitigation. Bendon noted that certain essential public facilities could be viewed as growth generators. Ohlson said that some language needed to be left in the definitions to qualify the essential public facilities. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve Resolution #00 -10 with Sections 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, Definitions and affordable housing text amendments. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 4 -0. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing to April 18th on Sections 4 and 6 for the Definitions and affordable housing text amendment. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 4 -0. PUBLIC HEARING: EXPLORE BOOKSELLER CONDITIONAL USE and SPECIAL REVIEW Bob Blaich opened the public hearing for the Explore Bookseller conditional use and special review. David Hoefer stated for the record that the notice and affidavit were provided; the commission had the jurisdiction to proceed. He provided the criteria sheet for review. Nick Lelack explained there were two issues. The Conditional Use to expand the bookstore and restaurant uses which were both conditional uses in the Office Zone District. The Special Review was to increase the floor area for the Explore Building from 0.75 - 1 to 0.85 —1; FAR in this zone district was allowed at 1 —1. He said that the approval for this project was dependent upon the Code Amendment that was just discussed in the previous hearing, in whether or not affordable housing was provided for mitigation via a cash -in -lieu payment because it would be incompatible with this structure to provide on -site mitigation. Lelack stated that P &Z made final decisions on the review procedures for special review and conditional use; the Growth Management Commission would review the exemption for Historic Landmark; Historic Preservation Commission for conceptual and final review; City Council to approve the method of mitigation. ASPEN PLANNING aONING COMMISSION "')EBRUARY 29, 2000 Lelack stated that this project essentially enclosed the back deck, becoming a Victorian conservatory enclosed by glass and would separate the dining facilities from the bookstore. The plans also included adding an elevator, which would add handicap access to the 2nd floor dining facilities. The memo from the housing authority and the recommendation was supplied as Exhibit 4. Alan Richman asked if comments could be taken from the public prior to the commissioners comments. Nick Lebby, LaCocina, stated support for this project as a small locally owned business in Aspen and he noted that they were becoming extinct. He stated that long -time local business should be given every consideration to stay in town and keep their business. He said this was an asset to the community. Ellen Hunt, public, agreed with Nick Lebby. Barbara Convisor, public, stated that she wished to add her voice in support and noted that it was very sad that Aspen was being changed by chain stores, loosing the character of town. She said that Katharine was being held ransom with the employee housing trade -off and that it was a sad trade -off if it made no economic sense to improve her business. Phyllis Bronson, public, stated support for Explore because it was a bastion of local energy with a joiner's table based upon reading and learning. James Salter, public, said that it was more than a business because this bookstore had the cultural value that Aspen has always been proud of and supported. He said that it should be given special consideration because of the value of Explore. Jesse Boyce, public, said that Explore was a place in town that guaranteed a great vegetarian meal and books. He agreed with Phyllis that it was a great place to get together with friends at the joiner's table as was the Main Street Bakery. Mike Behrendt, public, said that for years he had asked Katharine to expand to that back deck and she explained that it was difficult to do that. Behrendt stated there should be some flexibility with the addition of the elevator which did not add square footage but rather was an asset to the community. Alan Richman said there was an area to focus on, which was the amount of the affordable housing impact fees required to be paid. He said that they believed that they could provide justification for the flexibility that the folks in the audience raised. David Hoefer stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission did not have jurisdiction on fees. Richman stated that he wanted to speak to the commission to ASPEN PLANNING CZONING COMMISSION �'DEBRUARY 29, 2000 determine if they could waive the fee. Hoefer reiterated that P &Z could not legally waive the fee; City Council could be argued with on the fees but not P &Z. Richman asked if the commission could recommend that council waive the fee. Hoefer responded that it was not appropriate for P &Z to look at the issue. Richman stated that this was a surprising development because he had discussed this with staff making about this presentation to P &Z. Richman said that he could make the argument and P &Z could make the determination for themselves whether they had jurisdiction or not. Hoefer said P &Z made the decision if the criteria have been met and the city attorney's office made the legal determination. Richman said that he felt they could demonstrate that the criteria would be met and that affordable housing would not be required. Lelack asked if a determination could be met as to the number of employees. Hoefer replied that was done by formula. Ron Erickson said that the procedures for dealing with employee housing mitigation were determined by the Housing Authority for cash -in -lieu because it was a historical structure. Erickson stated that P &Z would not discuss mitigation at all. Roger Hunt stated that if P &Z had no purview of fees why was 4b in the Resolution #11. Bob Blaich stated that there was no legal position to take even though the commission could be in favor or not in favor of the project because it had no bearing on it; Council made that determination. Blaich said that the aspects could be reviewed that were in the P &Z purview. Richman stated that there was a requirement under the conditional use criteria that he said if the finding was made that no additional employees were generated by this project, then no employee mitigation was needed. He said that he should have the right to speak on that point and that the commission should hear that point and make a finding on that point. Richman said that if P &Z agreed with that position, then that position could be used by the council, which could accept or waive the cash -in -lieu and P &Z was charged with looking at affordable housing under the conditional use review criteria. Richman said the only reason that P &Z was looking at the addition of the 40 %/60% for the affordable housing requirement imposed by the code. Blaich said that P &Z could hear the arguments knowing full well that council made that determination and it was not P &Z purview. Hoefer reiterated that was his point and the criteria simply stated that the applicant committed to meeting the need for affordable housing. Richman responded that if there was a need, but there were no employees generated, then there was no need. Hoefer reiterated that this board did not have the authority to waive that. Richman replied that he understood that, but if there was a determination that the applicant was required to pay cash, then they met that requirement. 5 Tim Mooney stated that what P &Z was determining was that there was an expansion in the size of the building. He said that if there was no mitigation at this point, when would the mitigation come forward. Mooney noted that if another operator would go into that space and determined a different way of operating, this space might need more mitigation. Richman responded that the conditional use was based upon this operation. Mooney asked if the building was sold, what would happen to the conditional use approval. Richman replied that if the building was sold and operated in a different way, to change what was approved with the conditional use, then the conditional use would have to, be amended or go away. He noted that conditional use was not just site specific but operation specific. Mooney stated that this did not get at the point that there was an increase in the available space and that the operation could change at any time. Richman said the #1 point was that this was not a project that was intended to increase or expand this business; there would not be an increase in seating associated with this proposal. He said this was to make the dining and shopping experiences more comfortable for both patrons and employees who have to function in this space. He said there were presently 3 rooms within the building that had seating as well as book functions and 2 of those 3 rooms will be eliminated as seating for the dining area; they will be solely functioning as areas where books are sold. The area in the middle, in the back where the kitchen was, will remain as a seating area and the seats get replaced outside on the deck. Richman said the net loss was 1 seat, so there was no additional seating but rather a reduction of seats to the bistro because there would no longer be outside seating in the summer. He said that since there was no increase in seating to the bistro and no increase to the bookstore, there would not be an increase in employment. He said the basis of the fee should not be mitigation because there were no employees to mitigate. Richman stated they would be happy for the business to be audited as a condition of approval to demonstrate that there would not be an increase in the business as a result of this change. Richman said if the mitigation was not based upon employee generation but rather floor area increase from .75 to .8 5, that was a different argument and that was the argument that he would now have to make to Council and not to P &Z. He said that was not appropriate here. He said the $90,000.00 fee was a significant fee for a project of this size; he said the total construction cost of this enclosure was $200,000.00 excluding the fees. Richman stated that it makes the project infeasible. He said that this was a highly visible landmark structure that has been maintained and appreciated by residents and visitors because of the business that occupies it. Richman said that this wasn't an expansion but an enclosure of a space that was already being used; it was not growth but an enhancement of an existing experience. 2 ASPEN PLANNING 'ONING COMMISSION )EBRUARY 29.2000 Ron Erickson asked if there were drawings to visually illustrate the floor plan. Lelack said there was a resolution that allowed only 50 seats for the restaurant. The architect explained the loss of seating utilizing a blue line for illustration. Mooney inquired about additional parking and the mitigation requirements. Richman stated that the way the code was written, if HPC ruled that there was no room for additional parking on site, then parking would be waived. Richman stated that there was not anywhere on site that additional parking spaces could be provided. He said that when the Katie Reid Building was preserved the city determined that.if parking could not be accommodated on site, HPC waived the parking requirement. Richman said that HPC approved the conceptual addition of 440 square feet. Lelack noted that HPC has not yet discussed the parking mitigation issue. Joyce Ohlson explained the criteria sheet and the P &Z Resolution conditions. The commission amended several of the conditions, which were reflected in the motion including the need to address the employee mitigation and annual audit. Mooney asked how many employees were being mitigated for at the present time. Richman replied none. Mooney requested that the number of employees be documented now and after the addition. Richman responded that all representations made in this meeting were part of the approval process. Bill Stirling, public, explained the P &Z role to Council was advisory. He stated that he was an interested party and also a co -author of the legislation that applied to this particular application. He stated that was drafted in the spirit of growth paying its own way and not designed to stop local businesses from improving and becoming more dynamic. Stirling stated this was the chance to keep local business local protecting the character of town. John McBride, public, stated a whole - hearted support for this application and encouraged P &Z to support it. He stated that he had just been through a similar situation with the County and believed in fair and equal rules. He said that the City and County violated their own rules for their own benefit. McBride implored P &Z to preserve old Aspen by approving this request. MOTION:Roger Hunt moved to approve Resolution 11, 2000 for the Explore Booksellers and Bistro, consisting of an affordable housing unit addition to the existing lodge, is approved to expand the existing book store and restaurant conditional uses by a total combined 440 square feet an increase the Floor Area Ratio for the site to 0.85:1, finding the criteria have been met and subject to the conditions of approval 7 ASPEN PLANNINGL✓ZONING COMMISSION JEBRUARY 29, 2000 described hereinafter. Conditions of Approval: 1.) Unless otherwise herein amended, all prior conditions of approval contained in City Council Ordinance 61, 1976 and Planning and Zoning Resolution 89 -23 remain in full force and effect. 2.) The building permit application shall include: a.) A copy of the recorded P &Z Resolution. b.) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 3.) The building plans shall demonstrate a fire suppression system approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal and Chief Building Official. 4.) Prior to issuance of a building permit: a.) The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b.) All affordable housing mitigation payments, tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. 5.) No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines. 6.) All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on -site and not within public rights -of -way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 7.) The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 8.) The City of Aspen Land Use Code is amended to allow the Applicant to mitigate for affordable housing with a cash -in -lieu payment. 9.) The Historic Preservation Commission approves the final plan, including making the determination that locating the affordable housing on site would not be compatible with the design, scale, massing, or volume of the historic landmark structure. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Mooney, yes; Erickson, yes; Hunt, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 4 -0. The Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission adjourned to meet with the County Planning & Zoning Commission as the Growth Management Commission and reconvened at 6:25 p.m. as the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission. Blaich requested that the chair review the agendas prior to publishing and posting. He requested that the attorney be present for the entire meeting. Mooney noted that it didn't matter since the commission did not follow his advise. ASPEN PLANNING &ONING COMMISSION QBRUARY 29 2000 PUBLIC HEARING: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS Bob Blaich noted that because of time this public hearing would have to be rescheduled. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the Development Review Process to March 14`h. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 4 -0. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 0