Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20121127 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission CC: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bert Myrin RE: Identify areas for code amendments to be initiated by P&Z and make a request to City Council to "endorse"these amendments and for staff to work with P&Z on these amendments WORK SESSION DATE: 4:30p.m. Tuesday November 27, 2012 Sister Cities room SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission is meeting to identify priorities for potential code amendments. The P&Z will discuss making a request to City Council to pass a resolution endorsing the concept of P&Z's top priority amendments and most importantly budget for staff to work with P&Z on these amendments. Additionally P&Z will discuss the process supported by P&Z and City Council earlier this year designed to streamline and speed up the code amendment process. BACKGROUND: As the Planning and Zoning Commission reviews applications throughout the year it is with some frequency that areas for improvement to the code are identified. The P&Z keeps an informal list of these areas (see Attachment A)and periodically reviews this list to prioritize the good learning that comes from many hours of applying the current code across multiple applications. The challenge is the process of writing this good learning into the code timely enough to provide future applicants increased certainty and predictability in the zoning and land use process. DISCUSSION: The Planning and Zoning Commission met on February 7, 2012 to discuss priorities of potential code amendments and identified 8 policy items as top priorities (see attachment B). Subsequently City Council worked with Staff on several of the 8 policy items identified by P&Z. Info on the current status of this work is available here: http://tinyurl.com/cc5crg9. Council took up a few code amendments worthy of the limited time Council was willing to dedicate to code amendments. The remaining recommendations from the February 7t'P&Z meeting have not moved forward. P&Z should again identify priorities for potential code amendments and make a request to City Council to pass a resolution endorsing the concept of these amendments and most importantly budget for staff to work with P&Z on such amendments. The specific language of all amendments will be approved in Ordnance form by City Council after staff has worked with P&Z. The key is to provide the budget for staff to work with P&Z on these amendments and allow this work to progress at a P&Z level prior to final review by City Council. Attached is an informal list of the areas P&Z has identified for discussion and prioritization. Items 1-41 were reviewed in our February meeting and 8 were passed along to City Council (see attachment B). Items A-1 were added after our February meeting. Both the before and after lists are included because P&Z might recognize some overlap or recall some items P&Z forwarded to City Council that continue as top priorities. RECOMMENDATION: Review the 8 top priority items from earlier this year(Attachment B). Identify any that remain a top priority and are not yet in progress with City Council. Skim Items 1-41 from the P&Z informal list(Attachment A) for additional current top priorities. Review Items A-I from the same list to identify additional top priorities. Make a request to City Council to pass a resolution endorsing the concept of these amendments and most importantly budget for staff to work with P&Z on these amendments. Finally, note any tweaks we can suggest to improve the process implemented by City Council earlier this year designed to streamline and speed up the code amendment process (attachment C including minutes). Attachment A 1. Facilitate a process for non-profits to move on from 15. Story Poll's when installed should be photographed by � P P D' Aspen with some certainty for expectations (by the staff in case removed later–Aspen Walk- Mike community and the non-profit)of the transition. The Wampler underlying zoning for each of these sites must remain 16. APCHA 3/1 –Change building code to require AH non-profit and maybe we need a new type of zone. energy efficiency units and energy star appliances– Also consider getting a list from assessor of all tax Bert exempt properties and zone them as non-profit- Bert 17. 3/8/2011 Stage 3 use of TDRs's pg 8 of staff memo: 2. Consider a recapture property tax for conversion of tax Staff believes increasing the units beyond 2,000 sq/ft exempt or agriculture to higher use as occurs NLA to 2,500 sf NLA with the use of TDRs is elsewhere in the country.–Jim acceptable and is consistent with city policies and the 3. Exterior stairways -Exterior stairwells should be current code. However, staff does not believe required to made with metal grate steps so as not to increasing the unit size beyond 2,500 sf is appropriate. collect snow and ice or be covered- Cliff& Jasmine Staff believes this could negatively impact the TDR 4. Roof top elevator structures and covered stairwells Program. Review the effects of the 2,000 sq/ft limit that are required if there is a rooftop deck and both of since the 2006 prohibition–has it become a these create height.–Cliff negotiating point for developers?A similar request was 5. Sub grade calculation and#of levels. Subgrade is not denied by P&Z on an Aspen Alps unit. The city has calculated into FAR. Subgrade should be limited to 1 not been consistent with the 2,500 s/f cap.–Bert level within the building envelope. The calculation of 18. Developers are paying cash in lieu for pedestrian subgrade on steep slope with partial exterior exposure space. What is the process for this being spent versus needs to be reexamined. –Cliff& Stan returned to the developer eventually? Suggest this 6. Solar orientation should be considered when a new goes into the parks department fund. 3/8/11 Stage 3 pg PUD is laid out to provide south facing roofs. Also 16 $50k- Bert consider the glare from solar panels. (Sanitation 19. Parking deficits may not be carried forward. E.g Stage District housing) - Bert 3 parking applicant pg 8—Bert 7. Concern that hedges of 42 inches may grow taller with 20. Little Annie's–review pedestrian amenity calculations time. Problem is that we allow plantings and these for what is essentially proposed as a scrape and replace grow greater than 42 inches. The code needs to say because they appeared to reduce the 25%requirement that nothing may be planted that may grow over 42 down to 10%for this development based on credits for inches. Goal is to do it right the first time and avoid what is existing even though it will be entirely scraped enforcement.–Cliff and replaced. 8. Need hard FAR capon R30 zone including GMQS and 21. Code needs to require that noisy mechanical or lighting TDR. Shady Lane–Cliff be located in the least intrusive places. Aspen Walk- 9. Stream margin review–consider revising the code to Bert remove loopholes for non-conforming properties to 22. Parking at AH needs discussion. Create consistency of give developers clarity on the code. - Cliff expectations for developers 1 space per unit. 10. 8040 green line review criteria –consider revising the Boomerang–Cliff code to remove loopholes for non-conforming 23. There is a disconnect between results developer properties to give developers clarity on the code. receive on requests from HPC versus P&Z. The same 11. Chart House–Buildings on south side of streets building can have entirely different results depending should be limited in height to avoid ice buildup in on the review board. Commercial historic review shadows and protect views. process should include P&Z on topics we deal with all 12. Fix parking requirements to address the proposed the time. –May 19,2011 518 W. Main - Cliff building the Clark's Market Parking Lot(met all 24. May 19,2011 Consider ending versus perpetuating codes,yet would have put Clark's Market out of non-conforming uses. 217/219 S. Third–Bert business, yet we haven't fixed the code since)–Bert 25. Project Monitors assigned by P&Z as currently occurs 13. Residential downtown no parking requirement for with HPC? See remodel/demolition of Spring Street penthouse 11/16/10 632 E Hopkins can't be zero– Commercial building. Stan& Bert Jasmine 26. 7/5/11 The tree regulations are improperly drafted or 14. Standardize when greenway sidewalks are appropriate improperly enforced. Either we should preserve trees and when non-greenway sidewalks are appropriate so or not, because whenever tree removal comes up,the expectations are set in advance. 1/16/10 632 E Hopkins result is removal of the trees.–Jasmine . Also eliminate breaks in sidewalks not spanning the 27. 7/5/11 The timeshare regulations are improperly street facing side. Eg. Obermeyer–Bert drafted or improperly enforced. Timeshare regulations Page 1 Printed November 24,2012 should get tourists in beds.—Jasmine lodging—Cliff 28. 7/19/11 We should prevent outcomes like the one at 40. Avoid other AH units sitting empty as was the case Spring and Hopkins when a renovation results in with the Motherlode. The MotherLode was able to different development than what was approved. The avoid occupancy because they delayed getting a CO. - example here is the sunken first floor. Is it possible, in Bert a resolution to put in elements of conditions,that if you 41. Cooperation between P&Z and engineering and told us you can't do this because of A, and A didn't Community Development regarding traffic plans. -LJ hold, so they changed something,then a developer is obligated to return to P&Z. - Stan ----Above was handed out February 2012, below is new--- 29. Review lodging zone code for height.—Lift 1 —Height A. 3/20/12 Review and revise code for Residential Multi measurement for Lift 1 was calculated differently than Family.NE corner of Original and Cooper- . Jasmine code. Was this successful? Should the code change to B. Consider a code amendment for new buildings to match this? 7/19/11 -Bert require sound attenuation requirements in building 30. 7/19/11 Lift 1 —resolution section 8 defined code to reduce conflicts with residential.—Bert measurements for height and FAR. Chris suggested C. 6/19/12 Bert—Draft code to tighten regulations of this language might be appropriate for a code recycling and trash for buildings that are not on an amendment for lodging and commercial but not alley. E.g. Garfield&Hecht building no trash residential.—Chris Bendon requirement because not on alley yet environmental 31. 8/2/11 Ongoing tracking of AH rental units that have health wrote a letter supporting ideas that would help mandatory occupancy. Housing commitments are the building with their recycling and trash but there are made by owners and developers. In the past the no tools in the code to require a building not on an housing office has had a licensed real estate broker on alley to meet any trash/recycling recommendations by staff—we need a process. -Jasmine the city. 32. 8/2/11 Aspen Walk- no one on council could approve D. 8/23/12 Bert—Review last few code changes on how it as presented after P&Z. We should work on aligning roof heights are calculated because of the way the P&Z approvals (or the code) closer to the expectations current code drove the Hotel Durant to propose peaked of the elected officials(who in theory,represent the roofs versus flat roofs. I don't recall this conflict from community). Also discuss call ups and council prior applicants. What changed and why? sending things back to us. —Bert E. 9/4/12 Potamkin house provided many examples of 33. 8/9/11 all development must go through public notice/ neighborhood context. Challenge is when code approval. It is very confusing to the public because on changes and code also says to consider neighborhood historic homes neighbors will receive lots of context, how does a community move forward opportunity to comment while a non-historic home can implementing the code changes because applicants are go through staff approval with absolutely no notice to always showing us what is in the neighborhood from the neighbors.—Stan the past? 34. South Aspen PUD—concerned about the 50% F. 10/2/12 Hotel Durant and many other rooftop glass replacement in our code—Mine Dump Apartments.— railings - Reflection of balcony glass—is there an Stan industry standard that measures reflectivity? 35. PUD's on lots less than 27,000 sq/ft.—Jasmine G. 10/16/12 616 E Hyman—Environmental Health 36. Review all present code for PUD and revise if recommended shrinking the recycling and trash area necessary.—Cliff from the code. Jennifer said this might be something 37. At the time of a request for an extension of vested P&Z should change in the code because several rights we should require current code because there has applicants have requested this. Also code requires the been too much good learning. If an applicant wants long side along the alley while applicants suggest the benefit of extended vested rights they should rotating the requirements so it doesn't take up limited comply with the current code at the time of the request parking along a 30 foot wide city lot.—Staff for an extension.—Stan H. Volumetric FAR residential. The calculation should 38.Explore a maximum# of years for vested rights. be 3 dimensional rather than 2 dimensional so you 39. South Aspen PUD—wanted a hotel—zone to prohibit don't have a 5,000 sq/ft house that is actually 10,000 non-hotel use in the area. Single family was already s/f. Everything above the first 10 ft be counted at half removed as a use from this zone so expand on that to a foot.—Cliff. prohibit townhouses. CC zone now prohibits L Code varying building heights. In CC and C1 we have residential on ground floor so it can be done. When code with 2 foot variations. Consider the height something gets torn down in a lodge zone it turns into variation being a full floor rather than 2 feet. - Cliff Page 2 Printed November 24, 2012 Attachment B MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner CC: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission RE: AACP Implementation, P&Z Priorities Recap The Planning and Zoning Commission met on February 7, 2012 to discuss AACP implementation priorities. Members in attendance included LJ, Stan, Cliff, Bert, and Keith. The group reviewed a number of items, and settled on the following policy items as their top priorities. Staff has provided a brief summary of the topics discussed. The priorities are listed below, in no particular order. Where applicable,the priorities are listed with the AACP Policy they further. An overarching theme of these priorities is to create certainty and predictability in the development review process. Specifically, the P&Z believes the following priorities further Growth Management Policy VII.1: "Restore public confidence in the development process," and Growth Management Policy VII.2: "Create certainty in zoning and the land use process." A. Examine and Amend the Downtown Codes. The P&Z is interested in a comprehensive review of the allowable dimensional requirements (height, floor area, open space, lot coverage), mitigation levels, and design standards. There is some concern by P&Z related to design standards, and ensuring they are reflective of our historic character. They would like to examine these standards, which relate to Growth management Policy V.3, calling for codes that result in development that "reflects our architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and diversity of heights..." The P&Z believes this will improve the predictability of the land use process, and will further Growth Management Policy 1.6 which calls for lowering building heights. In addition, the P&Z believes this furthers the protection of our small town character, which is referenced in a number of philosophy statements and policies throughout the AACP. The P&Z would also like to examine the current code language that enables a redevelopment to carry forward an existing non-conformity. For instance, the code allows a lot that has less parking or public amenity space than is required in the underlying zone district to carry forward that deficit in a redevelopment. Overall, the P&Z wants to ensure the codes get us the kinds of buildings and development that"fits" in our community. B. Strengthen the Lodge Zone District. The P&Z has expressed concerns related to the allowed use mix in the Lodge Zone District. They are interested in amending the zone district to better encourage the development of lodging units. The P&Z believes this will improve the predictability of the land use process, as well as further the policies set forth in the Lodging Section of the Growth Management Chapter(Policies IV.1 —IVA) C. Amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations. The P&Z has expressed concern about the ability to request a PUD designation on lots less than 27,000 square feet. They are Pagel of 2 interested in examining the appropriate "cut off point" for a PUD designation. Over the past few years, they have seen applicants with relatively small parcels (6,000 — 10,000 sf) request a PUD to vary some aspect of their underlying dimensional requirements. The P&Z believes examining the minimum lot size requirement, and the PUD process in general will help improve the general predictability of the land use review process, as outlined in AACP Growth Management Policies VII.1 and VII.2. D. Update Residential Zone Districts. The P&Z has expressed concern about the zone district requirements in the residential zones. Specifically, they would like to examine site coverage requirements, heights, and general mass and scale. They are also interested in examining the exemptions to floor area calculations (e.g. basement exemptions). This furthers the Policies outlined in the Residential section of the Growth Management chapter(Policies III.1 —III.4). E. Update Stream Margin Review and 8040 Greenline Review. The Land Use Code requires a heightened review for any project located near our rivers and streams, as well as for any development within 100 feet of the 8040 elevation line. The P&Z is interested in updating these regulations to ensure they are adequately protecting these environmentally sensitive areas. This furthers Growth Management Policy II.2, which calls for controlling the location and size of homes to protect out natural environment, as well as Environmental Stewardship Policy III.3, which calls for preserving our riparian habitats. F. Update Parking Requirements. The P&Z is interested in examining and updating the parking code. This would include an examination of the program generally as well as the specific parking requirements for development. This furthers Transportation Policy V.1, "Develop a strategic parking plan that manages the supply of parking and reduces the adverse impacts of the automobile." G. Explore Amendments to Vesting Extensions. The P&Z is concerned about the number of recent requests to extend vested rights for projects that were approved more than 3 years ago. The P&Z believes a significant amount of good learning goes into code modifications and that an applicant should, in exchange for extending development rights, agree to accept the current code. They are concerned that extensions will result in development that is not consistent with current community goals, and believe that projects should meet the current code, rather than relying on old codes. The P&Z believes this creates confusion in the community, and that exploring changes to the requirements could improve the certainty and predictability in the land use code process. H. Explore Amendments to the Multi-Family Replacement Program. The Land Use Code requires that any multi-family unit that has ever housed a local working resident be replaced with affordable housing when it is demolished. The code allows for a 50% or 100% replacement of the number of units, bedrooms, and net livable space that is demolished. The P&Z would like to examine the ability to replace at the 50%level. Page 2 of 2