Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20110906 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes September 06, 2011 Comments 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 Miscellaneous Code Amendments — Vacation Rentals 2 Monarch on the Park (233 E Cooper) PUD Amendment 8 Aspen Club (1450 Crystal Lake Rd) Final Commercial Design Review 10 1 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes September 06, 2011 Stan Gibbs opened the regular meeting September 6 2011 of the Planning & Zoning Commission in Council Chambers at 4:30. Commissioners present were: Cliff Weiss, Jasmine Tygre, LJ Erspamer, Bert Myrin, and Stan Gibbs and Jim DeFrancia. Staff in attendance: Jim True, Special Counsel; Chris Bendon, Drew Alexander and Jessica Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Minutes MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the minutes from August 16` seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, APPROVED. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve the minutes from August 23 Stan Gibbs amended the word Council to Counsel on page 3, seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor APPROVED. MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to approve the minutes from August 25` amending lose to loose on page 2, seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor APPROVED. Conflicts of Interest LJ Erspamer said that his wife works at Stewart Title but has no conflict. Jim DeFrancia stated that he was the receiver for the Dancing Bear but that doesn't affect his decision. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (7/5, 7/19, 8/2, 8/16, 8/23): Miscellaneous Code Amendments — Vacation Rentals Code Amendment Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing on Code Amendments — Vacation Rentals. Sara Adams said this was the third public hearing and discussed this for about 5 hours with the Planning & Zoning Commission. Sara said that P &Z was asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding this code amendment language. Sara Adams said that she took the code amendment language that P &Z gave her on August 23` and rewrote the Resolution to address all of those comments. There was a straw poll on August 23` that was 3 -2 in favor of these changes. Sara summarized the new Resolution states that the code will remain the same with a cap on the rentals that are in non -lodge zone districts; so every zone district that is not in lodge will have a cap, exactly what we have in place today. Sara said all the rentals within the City limits will require a short term rental permit; the rental permit would be issued annually with the business license and the permit would be revocable. 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes September 06, 2011 Jasmine said there were 3 definitions on the 1 page of the memo and asked for the differences between Short Term and Short Term Rental. Jim DeFrancia stated that Short Term was hotel and lodging and Short Term Rentals was residential. Sara answered the hotel and lodging approvals are so we have to leave that definition in our land use code because it talks about the occupancy "not exceeding one month in duration" and she added "or the occupancy of a dwelling unit for residential purposes for a time period that is 6 months or less in duration per year." Sara said Short Term Rental came out of Bert's comment that he wanted the words "Short Term" added before Vacation Rental and when she did that it was getting long so she took out Vacation and made it Short Term Rental. Sara said she would put Vacation Rental back in there if that was desired. Sara said that Short Term Rental was for the permit program. Sara said the term Long Term and Short Term were defining the duration of those time periods and defining the program. Cliff said the confusion wasn't Short or Vacation but under Short Term Rental there was no longer a time frame; is he supposed to refer back up to Short Term. Sara replied yes. Cliff asked how would he have known that. Sara responded that it would be right above that definition. Bert said that they were up- zoning the lodge district to allow unlimited short term rentals. Sara replied no. Bert said okay we are not changing the number of nights to anywhere they are allowed and then we are overlaying the whole program whether you are in the lodging district or not with this rental permit process. Bert said if you are outside the lodging district you would need that if you do one of your 2 short as in 30 days per year and if you do two 31 day rentals and you are outside the lodging district or any district you don't need that and that is all you do. Sara answered no, the duration of time for Short Term that exists in the code today is 6 months or less and was what you had asked me to keep in the code. Sara stated you would need a 7 month rental to not require Short Term rental permit. Bert said that a short term rental permit will apply for everything under 7 months. Sara replied under 6 months. Bert said under 6 months throughout all zones. Sara answered yes. Bert stated that is all that is really changing. Sara responded yes, essentially all that was changing was requiring a Vacation Rental permit with review standards. LJ asked what does available mean and shouldn't we describe it distinctly. Jennifer Phelan responded that you have heard from the public and they want some leniency on what that means; if she was a representative and in California and somebody called her she would call the plumber or whomever to handle the issue; you want someone to respond to issues that come up. LJ said available. Stan asked where in the current code is the 2 rentals allowed. Sara responded that it was on the first page of your memo; it is listed under Long Term. Stan asked where does it mention for that particular zone district you can have 2 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes September 06, 2011 rentals a year. Sara replied that it was listed in the definitions section and was very clunky. Stan said he doesn't understand why it is read to apply; it doesn't explicitly explain in what zone district it is to apply. Sara replied in the definitions it references that the lodging zone districts don't have to meet rental occupancies and all other zone districts have this cap. Sara said page 2 of 20 of the Resolution under Section 1 the definition Hotel (a.k.a. Lodge) look at the 3` paragraph that is crossed out, that is where it is location. Stan said that we seem to be trying to fix a problem and the solution that we are going toward is not changing the code. Stan said there are 2 short term occupancies permitted in residential zone districts and he doesn't find it in the code and that is what he is trying to understand. Jim True responded the code districts talk about allowing long term rentals and the definition of long term rentals is except 2 shorter rental occupancies may be allowed per dwelling unit so by definition in the zone districts 2 short term rental occupancies are allowed per dwelling unit per year. Stan said in the definitions was a bad place to put exceptions. Stan Gibbs opened the public comments section of the public hearing. Public Comments: 1. Jeffrey Shoaf, public, said he was more in favor of the staff decision rather than where the P &Z is going on this as far as limiting to 2 rentals; staff said that if there were problems with this and basically the bandit issue. Jeffrey said that he agreed with the staff on limited vacation rentals. 2. Tracey Sutton, public, said that she was with Aspen Signature Properties and agreed with Jeff; a lot of their homes have rented 3 and 4 times a year which is stimulating our economy why is there any purpose in limiting it. 3. Trisha McIntyre, public, agreed with both Tracey and Jeff; it has never been an issue. 4. Zizka Childs, public, stated that she owned a couple of condominiums at the Fifth Avenue and was trying to get clarification if it is less than 6 months are you then saying that under 6 months, so for 5 months season rental I should collect sales tax on that or after 30 days or not. Sara answered the finance department collects tax on 30 days or less and that is not changing. 5. Steve Fallender, public, said that he could support the local economy a little different by going out to dinner, buying his skies locally, by living in town. Steve said that his neighborhood is local people and it doesn't mean that anyone who rents short term is bad or that long term is better; 4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes September 06, 2011 they are very different uses. Steve said that he and his family bought a condo at the base of the mountain and it was a neighborhood of short term rentals and they moved into the West End and it is a neighborhood of long term rentals. 6. Kerry Bryant, public, with Aspen Signature Properties, said she disagrees with a change and fully agrees with your summary on page 3; she said that the companies represented here do pay the taxes. 7. Kathy Shulman, public, with Aspen Signature Properties, said that we live in a resort town and the property rentals are up and they have legal contracts and collect taxes. Bert asked if there were any other communities that have extended the tax collection beyond 30 days. Don Taylor replied no they don't; it is pretty typical that it is less than 30 days is kind of a breaking point between long term and short term rentals. Jim True said that we are not proposing to change the tax code here. Bert said he was confused and could not see other people being able to understand this. Stan said what was currently in place was not being changed. Bert suggested amending the tax definition of short term with the definition of short term for short term. Bert suggested moving the short term to 30 days and would be aligned with the tax and permit. Bert proposed you could have 2 rentals for less than 6 months as the current code states. Cliff said he wasn't for the City in something that has been going on for over 40 years as intrusive as all this seems; there does need to be a definition of where too much is too much in any given neighborhood other than the lodging zone. Cliff said if he was a property manager renting out more than one unit he could understand having a business license but if he were renting his apartment to a music student for just the summer he didn't see why he needed a business license and he understands to register with the City and pay a fee but the whole tax business he didn't believe in because there was no tax money involved in this to make this worthwhile. Cliff said he had no problem with people being registered, if he was going to put his unit out there for a short term; he still feels education of short term rental tenants is important. Cliff said this just goes too far, the general purpose was honorable; keep it simple. Bert said that P &Z has been taxed to figure out the direction from 2 Councils over a few years. LJ said that we need 3 definitions; Vacation Rentals is an industry standard around the United States, less than 30 days; Sort Term Rental is 31 days to 1 day less than 6 months and 6 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes September 06, 2011 months and more is Long Term Rental. LJ said those were industry standards that everybody can understand and he said that he did not believe in business licenses for people because if you are going to do 2 rentals per year he didn't think it was worth the paperwork and the City will not ever get ahead collecting money; the code should be enforced and he was okay with the lodge districts. Jasmine said this really wasn't clear and the 3 definitions was good and going back to Bert's question addressed when you look up R -6 there should be a definition of a permitted use long term and there should be the definition of what long term means. Jasmine said a good modification would be that in the residential districts where you are allowed the 2 short term per year as allowed in the current code for those 2 rentals per year you don't need the whole business license because it is just like an incidental use, if you do more than that then you are subject to these other regulations and you could spell it out district per district so that anybody who comes to buy a house in R -6 they will know what they are allowed. Cliff said they were trying to eliminate bandit rentals and reiterated that the tax was onerous. Bert asked if they can use 2 definitions and long term. Jim True responded that if you are re- defining long term to 31 days or more then somebody could rent 7, 8 times a year. Jasmine stated that right now it was 6 months. Jim True said if you allow these 2 short term rentals a business license would probably be required. Jim True said this all gets down to what P &Z wants to propose to Council which is what it is now in the code; you are allowing 2 short term rentals in the residential areas both not more than 30 days each. Cliff said Bert recommended changing the definition to match the tax code so 30 days or less was short term. Bert said that he would like to modify that to be vacation, seasonal, and long term. Jennifer said that P &Z should make a decision on the resolution before you but if you are going to vote it down outline what you want to see; so at least Council sees your concerns and goals for this issue. Sara said if you don't want the code to change, if it is ok the way it is then say that. Stan said there wasn't enough good reason to change the code except in so far as to making possible and giving the city better tools and process to put in place some oversight; picking a number for the rental times with the concern from residents on one side and he doesn't want us to do anything to make it more active and then we have business people who would like to see an unlimited situation. Stan was in favor of leaving things as much as possible alone but likes proposals that are part of the resolution that puts in place the processes, notifications, owner representatives, education but other than that he was very reluctant to if Bert's idea going to the 30 days was to be in the resolution he would vote against it because he doesn't see a good justification for making that 6 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes September 06, 2011 change; the unintended consequences concern him. Stan said the tax stuff will handle itself and then if problems come up in the future then they can deal with it. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve Resolution #16 -22 seconded by Bert Myrin. Discussion prior to the vote: Bert stated that he will likely vote it down; he support Jim's summary and did not think that he could make an amendment to this resolution. Bert suggested having dinner and have staff address the education that Cliff has wanted all along; this doesn't change anything. Sara said this is what is in the code right now and adds a rental permit program with the standards that Bert and Cliff are taking about education. Jim DeFrancia said we have 2 more items and staff should have a chance to have the resolution done more thoughtfully so we can consider it. Bert said if it should be done more thoughtfully why vote on this resolution; why not direct staff to work on it. Jasmine withdrew her motion. Jennifer said that staff would like P &Z to make a final decision tonight so it can go to Council and give staff clear direction and Council will get the minutes and staff will craft P &Z's concerns. Cliff agreed with not more than 30 days each to C in the Resolution and education but not the onerous oversight stuff like putting signs out on lawns, no business license, a permit and putting a tax instead of just a fee but it is too complex. Cliff said he was responsive to Steve Fallendar's comment that the neighborhoods are changing and some people are leaving and he does not see this as a way to economically hold up the community. Cliff said there was a big difference between the business of property management and my taking my own home and renting it out. Cliff said that we have come with a very big stick of taxes, permits, business licenses, signs out in front of the house, notifying my neighbors. Bert wanted Short defined and the definitions. Stan said this has become a brainstorm issue and he suggested that we vote on the current resolution. Bert said this was an example of P &Z writing code and have spent a couple of years writing the AACP; if we don't make an example that we can write code and this is writing code. Bert said he doesn't have a clear picture of how the whole code amendment is working. Bert said he would like to hear from staff where the commission is differing from the document. Sara replied there were inconsistencies on almost everything; on the duration of the rentals, 7 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes September 06, 2011 definitions, whether or not you require a permit, licenses, specific review standards. Sara said there seems to be a consensus on a limit to the number of rentals; the lodging district should remain unlimited in the number of rentals. Jim True said those 2 statements were key. Sara said that it seems like the way that the code is written today is meeting what you are wanting it to meet, it doesn't have the final review process, which seems to work with what Cliff is saying, she wasn't sure about everyone else, and if you don't think that there should be a code amendment that is clear direction to Council and it is clear direction to staff. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to approve Resolution #015 -11 seconded by Cliff Weiss. Roll call: Jasmine Tygre, no; Bert Myrin, no; Jim DeFrancia, no; Cliff Weiss, no; LJErspamer, no; Stan Gibbs, yes. DENIED 5 -1. Jasmine said the majority of the commission felt that we should enforce current code. Jasmine said that there may be other things like education but they didn't feel that they had correct information to change the code. PUBLIC HEARING: Monarch on the Park (233 E Cooper Unit P -3) PUD Amendment Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing. Sara Adams said the alley elevation showed the 3` floor balconies. Sara said the reason that the Planning & Zoning Commission is seeing this application tonight is that staff felt the architectural changes and the height of the screen qualified it as an other amendment; that it warranted a discussion by the entire commission. In summary staff found the stepped nature of the screen with the difference in heights and the location on the alley is setback in the center of the alley was good. Sara said the proposed materials meet the PUD that is listed on page 2 of the packet and staff is recommending approval. Bert Myrin said staff found on page 2 of the memo that the criteria has been met but yet we are trying to determine whether the criteria has been met. Sara replied yes; there is a threshold for what staff can administratively approve and it did not meet that threshold because it is a change to the architectural character. Bert asked what can we find to vote against this. Sara answered that if it doesn't meet the criteria. Cliff asked if this would set a precedent; are there other units on the 2 or 3 floors that could have the potential to screen in their patios. Sara replied that was a good question and she would assume they would have to go through the same process because it is located on the alley; it is not very visible from the right of way and it is case by case. 8 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes September 06, 2011 Stan asked if the PUD Amendment could be specific to this unit. Sara replied that it was. Jasmine asked what was across the alley. Sara answered it was Dancing Bear. Jasmine asked what the screen was made of. Robin Schiller from CCY Architects represents the project said the origin of this was that this 3 floor condominium has deck all along the South side of it and that deck is directly in front of the master bathroom with a full window and rather than simply putting drapes on the inside they would like to put a privacy screen on the rail of the deck so they would have more privacy in the master bath and there are no other condominiums that have the master bathroom off the deck. Robin said the materials were perforated steel panels which are similar to the panels that are already in the railing around the balcony and above the railing height sandblasted glass so it will have a white appearance. Robin pointed out that this screen doesn't quite reach the overhang above the balcony; this does not increase the overall mass of the building and it on the alley side on the 3` floor only and it is about 30 feet long. Cliff asked what you are screening on the 30 foot side. Robin replied it was the Dancing Bear. Cliff spoke about the length of the building. Robin responded that off to the left is the Dancing Bear Building which is tall and that is why the screen is tall. Bert asked if the screening was squares or rectangles. Robin answered that was a perspective with the photograph taken from the west end of the block; they were rectangles. Bert asked where the frosted glass was located. Robin replied that is in the upper portions. LJ asked if the owner thought of tinting the bathroom door window for privacy. Robin replied he can't tell what the owner did or didn't think about; this is the choice that he made and we think it is consistent with the building and has been reviewed by the Homeowners Association with no objection. LJ asked how many glass doors there were to this balcony. Robin answered there was one from the bathroom, one from the Master Bedroom and one from the study. LJ asked if we were the last review. Sara replied yes. Public Comments: 1. Paul Yeoham, public, said that he was a homeowner in the Monarch and was not part of the homeowner's committee on the approval and he is here to understand this proposal and he owns the window adjacent to this patio and wanted to make sure the screen did not go beyond the 9 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes September 06, 2011 overhang. Robin said that the screen does not go beyond the railing. Paul supported the screen. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution 016 -11 amendment to the Limelight PUD as proposed for Unit P -3, seconded by Jim DeFrancia. Roll call: Cliff Weiss, yes; Bert Myrin, yes; Jasmine Tygre, no; Jim DeFrancia, yes; LJ Erspamer, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 5 -1. Discussion prior to vote: Jasmine said that she would vote no on this because she believes there are other solutions than modifying a PUD, which we spent a lot of time discussing. LJ said that he was going to vote no until the neighbor supported the change. PUBLIC HEARING: Aspen Club (1450 Crustal Lake Road) Final Commercial Design Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing for the Aspen Club. 1450 Crystal Lake Road. Jessica Garrow said this was the Final Commercial Design Review and the applicant was the Aspen Club and Spa LLC represented by Michael Fox. Jessica said that Sunny Vann of Vann Associates also represented the applicant and Richard Campo and Chris Writings of Poss Architecture and Planning. Staff is recommending approval of their request. Jessica provided background information that the Callahan subdivision and PUD was originally approved in 1976 with 16 lots with a number of changes over the years. This lot was approved for recreation and the club and has acted as a recreation club since then. The most recent amendment to the PUD came last year in 2010 when Council approved a PUD Amendment and a new SPA as well as 20 Timeshare Units, 14 of which are in townhouse configuration and 6 club units attached to the Aspen Club; reconfigured some spaces in the recreation club, also approved were 12 2bedroom affordable housing units with a mix of categories 2, 3 & 4 and a subgrade parking garage. Jessica said the approved unit count, building location, massing, height, parking and site plan was approved by City Council. Jessica said tonight P &Z is here to review the final commercial design review and there are 3 sections; building design and articulation, architectural materials and paving and landscaping. Staff finds that these 3 areas of the commercial design standards have been met. Jessica said building design and articulation had to do with massing, making sure there are human scale; staff finds that the building design and material do reflect a human scale especially on the club building. The applicant has paid attention to the mechanical on the roof and there are 2 green 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes September 06, 2011 roofs for this proposal one is for yoga and the other is a more traditional green roof for site drainage and those kinds of things. Jessica said the Commercial Lodging was designed with the minimum 9 foot ceilings as required. Jessica noted the affordable housing units had a standalone building with 8 foot ceilings and staff believes that the design meets the intent of the guidelines; the 8 foot ceilings are met in the international building code. Jessica said the architectural materials were a mix of stone, wood siding and glass on the townhouse units; on the affordable housing units and the club building was a mix of stone, wood siding and glass; there were high quality materials that are typical for the neighborhood with the same color pallet with slight variations that reflects the uses for those buildings. Jessica said there was a requirement for some fire egress and the applicant will use grass pavers instead of concrete to have a more landscaped feel. Staff does feel that the project meets all of the applicable standards. Cliff Weiss asked about a roof top level with grass planted. Chris Writings replied correct on the back side. Jessica said on page 20 of the application you will see that the roof top gardens are on the top of the club building, there is one on the Avenue and one on the club new entrance is the yoga roof top garden. Cliff asked how one enters the roof top garden area. Jessica replied that it was through the club entrance and meets the height requirements of the zone district and was approved. Jasmine asked the actual requirement for the affordable housing heights. Jessica replied 7' h. Chris Writings, Poss Architects, provided an abbreviated overview of the project to draw upon the neighborhood context of materials, massing and what you see in terms of the scale of the facades. Chris said the neighborhood and the project contained stone, wood siding, glass and some stucco; the stucco is part of the clubhouse. The roof shapes are what you have in the neighborhood in terms of gables, low slope roof pitches and flat rooftops. The chimneys helped articulate what we were doing as well as breaking up that mass. LJ Erspamer asked to point out the stucco. Chris Writings replied there wasn't any stucco in the townhomes it is just wood. Stan Gibbs asked if this was an actual simulation of the buildings. Chris replied that it was another project but the imagery gives you an idea of where we intend to go with materials. Chris said the stucco would be a mixture along the base on the employee housing and it is articulated like they have done with the club and similar materials. Cliff asked if there was any hardy plank. Chris replied no. 11 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes September 06, 2011 Chris Writing said the club now has a solid wall and they have added a streetscape and residential scale and components on the roof that varies. Cliff asked where the elevator is built into the entrance and there is a lot of glass. Jessica said it was on page 14 of the application. Chris utilized the power point to enlarge the area. Cliff said that everything was built into that, the stairwell and the elevator. Cliff asked to go to the affordable housing units on page 19 of 25. Public Comments: 1. Jennifer Delundy Smith said she was interested since she lives across the way and it looked good to her. Jim DeFrancia commented that it looked great with the blend of stone and wood and the elevations were attractive. Bert Myrin asked about the butterfly roof drainage being heated and who would pay for that. Jessica responded that the affordable housing was actually owned by the Aspen Club so they will pay for it; the units are rental units. MOTION: LJmoved to extend the meeting 15 minutes, seconded by Cliff. APPROVED 5 -1. Discussion prior to the motion: Bert said this residential area of Aspen is not appropriate for this in the partial Rural Residential but that was not the issue here tonight so he would support it tonight. Cliff echoed Bert's comments. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to approved Resolution #17, series 2011, Final Commercial Design Review for the Aspen Club project, seconded by Jim DeFrancia. Roll call: Jasmine Tygre, abstain; Bert Myrin, yes; Cliff Weiss, yes; LJErspamer, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 5 -0. Adjourned into City AACP. 4 1.04(j . ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 12