Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20221018AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION October 18, 2022 4:30 PM, WebEx Virtual Meeting (See agenda packet for instructions to join the meeting) I.VIRTUAL MEETING INSTRUCTIONS II.ROLL CALL III.COMMENTS IV.MINUTES IV.A DRAFT Minutes for June 21, 2022 V.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI.PUBLIC HEARINGS VII.OTHER BUSINESS TO JOIN ONLINE: Click on the Meeting Link -- OR -- Go to www.webex.com and click on "Join a Meeting" Enter Meeting Number: 2559 122 0912 Enter Password: 81611 Click "Join Meeting" -- OR -- JOIN BY PHONE Call: 1-650-479-3208 Enter Meeting Number: 2559 122 0912 Enter Password: 81611 minutes.apz.20220621.pdf None 1 VII.AMunicipal Code Review VIII.ADJOURN TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met Revised January 9, 2021 2 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 21, 2022 Page 1 of 5 Vice-Chairperson McKnight called the regular Planning and Zoning (P&Z) meeting for June 21st, 2022 to order at 4:32 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Christine Benedetti, Jason Suazo, Sam Rose, Tom Gorman, and Spencer McKnight. Commissioners not in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill and Teraissa McGovern Staff in Attendance: Garrett Larimer, Senior Planner Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner Jeffrey Barnhill, Planner Jim True, City Attorney Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS None PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES None DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Ms. Rockhill declared a conflict of interest so she will not be in attendance. PUBLIC HEARINGS 624 E Cooper Ave – Commercial Design Review Mr. McKnight asked if notice had been provided. Ms. Johnson responded legal notice had been provided sufficiently for the hearing on the agenda. Mr. McKnight turned the floor over to the applicant, Mr. Deryk Cave, owner of Mezzaluna restaurant. Mr. Cave stated he has owned the restaurant since 1993 and about 18 months prior they constructed an enclosure over the patio during COVID restrictions. Last summer they removed the sides making it more of a porch and then they installed the sides during the winter months. He stated last summer they realized how great it was to have a covering instead of the traditional umbrellas to keep customers out of the weather so they could continue to be served. Mr. Cave stated they had pursued an application with the city but was informed the mitigation cost for parking and employee housing would be about $588,000 which would not work for the restaurant. He then noticed another restaurant in town with something similar and discovered if they kept the size under 500 SF, it did not require any mitigation costs. He stated they then reduced the size to 499 SF. He stated this size will not take up the entire patio and provides some protection against the elements. 3 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 21, 2022 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Cave stated they plan to put in steel beams to bring it up to code and requested approval of the application. Mr. McKnight asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Mr. Rose asked the name of the other restaurant. Mr. Cave replied it was Steakhouse No 316. He emphasized their proposed project is not an enclosure, only a porch and he has no desire to enclose it. They do not plan to use it during the winter. Ms. Benedetti asked what they plan to do with the part of the patio that will not be covered by the structure. Mr. Cave replied in the spring and fall, customers want the sun, but they would use umbrellas to cover the area during the summer as needed. Mr. Gorman asked if he would be willing to commit to not go for an enclosure in the future. Mr. Cave responded that would be fine. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner, introduced herself. She then reviewed the application explaining its location and current zoning. She stated the hearing is for a commercial design review of a permanent porch-like structure over part of the courtyard space historically used for outdoor seating for the restaurant. She then displayed pictures of the structure built during COVID-19 as of 2022 and a drawing of the proposed porch structure. She stated the new structure will be primarily built with steel I-beams and a class a roof to support snow loads in the winter. She noted all sides will remain open to street facing areas. She then noted the applicable sections of the commercial design standards for the application including the General section, Pedestrian Amenity section, and the Commercial Character Area section. Ms. Yoon then stated the proposed building materials meets the requirements of sections 1.23. She stated the application is also compliant with the minimum street level pedestrian amenity areas as identified in section PA1.5. Ms. Yoon stated staff supports approval of the application with one condition identified by the Parks department regarding a planter box. The condition would require consultation with the Parks Department regarding the tree in the existing planter box. Mr. McKnight then asked if there any questions for staff. Mr. Gorman asked if the tenants who share the courtyard been polled about their feelings regarding the application. Ms. Yoon stated there is an HOA compliance form as part of the application so it’s staff’s understanding the applicant has done their due diligence related to the space. She added traditionally, the space in the application has been used for dining. Mr. Cave stated they allow the local coffee shop to use their space in the morning as a courtesy because they do not have enough tables. They are aware of the project, and he has not heard anything from them. He stated they have a great relationship with the owner of the jewelry store who takes care of all 4 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 21, 2022 Page 3 of 5 the plants in the courtyard. He stated there is a new gallery in the courtyard, but he has not been able to speak with them. Generally, he identifies the restaurant as the anchor tenant and Local helps to bring people into the area. Mr. Cave stated the planter box had contained a dead tree is on the landlord’s space, not the restaurant’s space. He stated the landlord obtained the necessary permits and removed the tree. He stated based on conversations with the landlord, he is open to discussing options for the planter box with the city. Mr. McKnight asked Mr. Cave to confirm he is fine with the proposed condition. Mr. Cave stated he is fine with it, and he had also communicated with the landlord about it. Mr. Gorman asked if staff is concerned there may be other requests for similar expansions. Ms. Yoon stated there were structures allowed during COVID and now businesses in the commercial core are welcome to submit an application for any type of design review. She added all applications need to go through the design review process to ensure the design standards are met. Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment. Mr. Peter Fornell commended Mezzaluna for the decades of service to the community. He believes their application will improve their guest’s experience and he is supportive of the application. Mr. McKnight then closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. McKnight then opened for commissioner deliberation. Ms. Benedetti feels the application meets the code requirements, so she is in support of it. Mr. Suazo is concerned if the application would enhance the visual experience of the area. He walked around the surrounding area and could not identify any other porch like structures. He is concerned it is not in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood or the courtyard itself. He does not feel he can support it as currently presented. Mr. McKnight asked Mr. Suazo which section of the code does the application not meet. Mr. Suazo responded under section 1.23; it states it should enhance the visual interest of the area. Mr. Rose agrees with Ms. Benedetti and supports the application. Mr. Gorman stated as long as the applicant is willing to commit to not enlarging the space and not enclosing it, he is in support of it. Mr. McKnight is in support of the application and agrees with city staff. Ms. Benedetti motioned to approve Resolution #11, Series 2022, to construct the porch structure as proposed with the condition added by the Parks department. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rose. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call vote: Mr. Suazo, no; Mr. Gorman, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; for a total of four (4) in favor – one (1) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. McKnight thanked the applicant and staff and closed the hearing. 5 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 21, 2022 Page 4 of 5 OTHER BUSINESS Requests to Pay Fee-in-Lieu in Providing Affordable Housing Mitigation Recommendation to City Council Mr. McKnight turned the floor over to Mr. Jeffrey Barnhill, Planner. Mr. Barnhill introduced himself and stated staff is requesting P&Z to consider and send a recommendation to City Council related to the affordable housing mitigation requirements and the ability for three properties to pay a fee-in-lieu to meet their mitigation requirements. Mr. Barnhill stated staff is recommending approval of the resolution providing support for the identified properties to pay the fee-in-lieu. He then provided background information regarding this process noting it was similar to the process completed in February 2022 by Mr. Ben Anderson and this will be the second time this process will be utilized. He anticipates this process will be executed quarterly until more affordable housing credits are available. Mr. McKnight asked staff to confirm there are no other options available for the applicants at this time. Mr. Barnhill replied that was correct. Mr. Gorman asked if there was a price history available for the various transactions that have taken place through this program? Mr. Barnhill responded staff keeps a record of the available certificates which allows the city to assess their availability to applicants. He noted many of the certificates are already tied to other projects. Mr. Gorman asked if this program is conceived as a market. Mr. Barnhill stated all the affordable housing credits are in the free market and there are no pricing controls. Mr. Gorman asked if this program was parallel to the transferable development rights. Mr. Barnhill stated it was an appropriate comparison. Mr. Gorman asked if there has been a similar experience regarding the escalation of prices for the programs. Mr. Garrett Larimer stated the transactional price of the affordable housing credits is not typically disclosed. The information the city has regarding the prices has been provided voluntarily so his is not sure the city has comprehensive information for all transacted credits. He stated as the market demand goes up and supply decreases, prices would increase. He added the city does not have enough information to confirm this is true or not. Mr. Gorman asked staff to confirm the city tracks only the parties involved in the transaction. Mr. Larimer responded the city tracks the landing sites, date of the transaction, credit amount, and sale price if provided. Mr. Suazo asked if it could be presumed the applicants are looking for the best price possible as opposed to paying free market rates. 6 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 21, 2022 Page 5 of 5 Mr. Barnhill replied the city had reached out to the parties holding the certificates to see if they were available for purchase and was told they were tied up in other projects. Mr. Gorman asked if speculators might be in this marketplace. Mr. Barnhill stated for this program, the applicants have to be finished with their zoning review and they have to be really close to finishing their building permit. Ms. Benedetti asked the date when the fee-in-lieu numbers were updated. Mr. Larimer responded there was an updated in January of 2021 and part of the ordinances being presented to Council on the 28th includes an annual update to the code. One proposed change to be presented on the 28th is to increase 8.5% from the amount established in 2021. Ms. Benedetti feel the fee-in-lieu number still seem pretty low. Mr. Larimer responded the number is based of national data sets and are legally defensible based on the anecdotal evidence available around construction and development in Aspen. Mr. Gorman asked how the city is trying to get the program back in balance. He asked how likely this is to happen as noted in item 4 on page 58 of the agenda packet. Mr. Larimer stated affordable housing is a complicated and challenging so numerous solutions will need to be implemented in an attempt to address this situation. He stated there are a number of code amendments and policy changes under consideration near term and some longer range policies are also being considered. One example of code amendments includes zoning allowances to increase density in residential areas and review processes amended to reduce the time required and provide a more predictable outcome. Mr. Barnhill noted staff has provided a draft of resolution 12 which is in support of the proposed fee-in- lieu payments for the specified applicants. Ms. Johnson asked if the resolution includes the application for 815 Roaring Fork Rd. Mr. Barnhill replied that applicant was not included in the draft. Mr. McKnight confirmed the application to be added to the draft resolution is for .22 category 2 FTEs or $82,824.50. Mr. Rose motioned to approve Resolution #12, Series 2022, with the amendment to include 815 Roaring Fork Rd with a .22 category 2 FTEs or $82,824.50. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gorman. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call vote: Ms. Benedetti, yes; Mr. Suazo, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of five (5) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Ms. Benedetti motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Mr. Rose. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned. Cindy Klob, Records Manager 7