Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20150203 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING February 03, 2015 4:30 PM Sister Cities Room 130 S Galena St, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. Meeting Minutes - January 20, 2015 V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Code Amendment Check-in: Vacated Rights-of-Way B. Code Amendment Check-In: Small Lodges C. Code Amendment Check-in: Limits on Variations D. Code Amendment Check-in: Public Projects VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 005-2015 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of ap plicant 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 1 1 ) 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 o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 20, 2015 Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members, Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre, and Keith Goode. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, and Sara Nadolny. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan stated there are new appointments to the board to be sworn in on Monday, January 26, 2015. Ms. Phelan will conduct training for the new members. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES – January 6, 2015 Ms. Tygre moved to approve the January 6th minutes with the requested correction. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gibbs. The change was noted to be made prior to finalizing the minutes. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. Public Hearing – 500 Rio Grande Pl – Skate Park Expansion – Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review Mr. Walterscheid opened the public hearing for 500 Rio Grande Place – Skate Park Expansion. Ms. Quinn has reviewed the submitted the affidavits of public notice as Exhibit F and found notice has been appropriately provided. Ms. Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician for the City of Aspen, stated this hearing is for a minor amendment to a detailed review and P&Z is the final reviewing body. The zoning for the location is Zoned Public with a Planned Development Overlay known as the Rio Grande Planned Development. The park provides both passive and active recreational opportunities. The skate park and basketball courts are part of the active opportunities. The applicant is looking to remove the basketball courts and expand the skate park into the same area which requires approval of a minor amendment to the detailed review. The City of Aspen Parks Department has performed observational studies, public outreach and surveys to gauge the desire for an expansion of the skate park. The results of the survey can be found in the 1 P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 20, 2015 exhibits to the Staff’s memo. The public was in overwhelmingly in support of the expansion. The basketball court was shown to be underutilized and the skate park is heavily used by skaters of all experience levels which can create safety conflicts. An amendment to a detailed review approval requires the proposed changes to be insubstantial in nature or consistent with the allowance and limitation of the original detailed review approval. The detailed review approval in this case is the City of Aspen’s Civic Master Plan included as Exhibit C in the agenda packet. This was adopted by City Council in 2006 as a regulatory document. In regards to the park, the plan focuses primarily on pedestrian movement, borders to the park and urban edges which are already in place and not being changed by this proposal. The plan encourages quality uses to draw people to this area of the park. Staff has evaluated the proposal and finds the proposed skate park expansion to be a quality use consistent with the requirements of the Civic Master Plan. The expansion is also consistent with maintaining an active use within the same space of the park. Staff has also found the proposal to meet all of the criteria requirements for an amendment to a detailed review approval. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed resolution. Mr. Walterscheid asked the commissioners for any questions of staff. Mr. Goode asked for an example of passive recreation. Ms. Phelan stated one example is the John Denver area. Ms. Nadolny stated the open green field is another example because it is not directed for specific use. Mr. Walterscheid then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Scott Chism, Parks Department Planning and Construction Manager, and Mr. Steve Cronin, Parks Department Landscape Designer, represent the applicant for the proposal. Mr. Chism and Mr. Cronin provided a PowerPoint presentation of the proposal including demonstrating where the area to be changed is located, the streetscape features to be included in the expanded skate park, elevations of the features, connections between the existing skate park and the expanded area, and bordering landscape elements separating the adjacent trail and park areas. Mr. Chism added the streetscape features are designed to be at or above ground level instead of bowl type features. Mr. Cronin stated the raised boulder features along the border are designed to mitigate the sound between the skate park and the John Denver Sanctuary as well as prevent the skate boarders from going out of the skate park area on to the trail and causing trail conflicts. Mr. Chism stated the resolution in the packet included conditions associated with geotechnical studies. He pointed out multiple studies have been completed for the entire park and various elements of the parks. The studies basically illustrate the ground water is not going to be a significant concern when it comes to the technicality of draining the space identified for the skate park expansion. 2 P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 20, 2015 The soil is glacial till which is poor, but the ground water is very deep. The ground water is more at the river level and not on the surface. Mr. Cronin showed the proof of the completed reports. Mr. Chism reiterated there are no ground water problems. Mr. Walterscheid opened for questions of the staff and the applicant. Ms. Tygre asked if Mr. Chism if he is suggesting they don’t need the conditions one and two as specified in the staff memo. Mr. Chism stated he had met with the City Engineering Department earlier in the day and the conclusion was sufficient information had been provided and an additional geotechnical study would not be necessary. He felt the conditions in the resolution are not necessary because they will fulfill them with the information they already have available. Mr. Gibbs asked how the survey sample was structured as far as participants. Mr. Cronin stated they conducted two separate open houses two summers ago. The survey was conducted at two separate times during the day during busy and non-busy time periods. They also had a design review meeting in the following winter for the public to comment on the initial conceptual design. With the comments collected they asked the designer, Team Pain, to revise the design followed by another public review. They had 20 or so locals attend the meeting. Mr. Chism noted the events were publicly noticed. Mr. Gibbs asked if they were able to speak with anyone using the basketball courts or not. Mr. Cronin stated they had a couple of participants. He stated the basketball courts are underutilized and he rarely sees anyone using the courts. Mr. Gibbs asked if there are other basketball courts maintained by the City. Mr. Chism stated there are courts located at the Yellow Brick School, Waite/Robison Park, and the Tot Lot Park. Mr. Gibbs asked if they saw any winter use at the park. Mr. Chism stated they don’t actively remove snow from the skate park during the winter and they don’t plan to change that operation. He did not think it would be feasible to use the park given the amount of snow at the park. If it comes up, they will address it. The first or second season after the current skate park was completed, there was a competition using snow skates. The event did not take off and has not occurred again. Mr. Gibbs asked about the change to the impervious area. Mr. Chism did not know the exact measure but felt it would be similar to the current surface. The new surface will be concrete so it estimated an increase of about one-third. Mr. Gibbs noted the engineering department would follow up on it. Mr. Walterscheid then opened for public comment. Mr. Brady Hurley has been onboard with the skate park since it was built. He is a teacher at the middle school and is the staff advisor for the high school skateboard club which has over 50 members. He feels there is a significant number of people who would enjoy the expansion to the skate park. In regards to winter use, he stated it doesn’t happen often because there is not enough gravity to allow people to pump skis or snowboards to make it up the features. Mr. Josh Ganz has lived in town for seven-eight years. The skate park is the public recreational space he most frequently uses. Skateboarding and rollerblading has changed over the years and the expansion positively represents the changes. There is a rollerblading event that occurs late every summer which travels through the majority of the skate parks in Colorado. This year it came through both Snowmass and Aspen. Only about a third of the rollerbladers participating in the event stopped at the Aspen skate 3 P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 20, 2015 park because it was so small. A total of 45-60 people showed that day at the park. He supports the expansion to the park. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Walterscheid then opened for staff and applicant rebuttal and clarification. Ms. Nadolny did not have further comment. Mr. Chism responded to Mr. Goode’s question regarding the estimated time to build the expansion and any closures to the existing areas of the park. They are proposing to start construction August 3, 2015 to minimize the impacts to the existing skate park as well as other areas of the park. He estimates the construction will be completed at the end of fall. There will be a short closure time of the existing park when they construct the connection between the existing skate park bowls and the new area. There is also a section of the trail that will need to be replaced once the construction has been completed. He anticipates this section to be rebuilt next year. Mr. Walterscheid then closed that portion of the hearing. Mr. Walterscheid opened the discussion between commissioners. Ms. Tygre moved to approve Resolution #4, Series 2015 with the removal of the two conditions listed under Section 1 approving the request for a minor amendment to the detailed review for Rio Grande Park located at 500 Rio Grande Place. Mr. Goode seconded. Roll call vote; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Gibbs, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Gibbs then adjourned the meeting at 5:03 PM. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 4 P4 IV.A. Page 1 of 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Code Amendment Check-in: Vacated Rights-of-Way MEETING DATE: February 3, 2015 SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on a proposed code amendment related to lands that are former vacated rights-of-way. This code amendment is proposed by the owners of the Sky Hotel property. The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the Sky Hotel application in October of 2014, recommending in favor of the project. At the time, the Applicant was requesting the City Council amend previous right-of-way vacations from the 1960s that impacted their property. The Sky Hotel Applicant has removed this from their request, and is now proposing this code amendment. Because this is an Applicant initiated code amendment, authorization from City Council in the form of a Policy Resolution is the required first step. City Council approved a Policy Resolution on January 12, 2015 authorizing the requested code amendment to move forward (Attached as Exhibit A). The also reviewed the proposed code amendment at first reading (Attached as Exhibit B). Staff suggested, and Council agreed, that a check-in with the Planning and Zoning Commission on this proposed amendment occur prior to second reading of the code amendment. Second reading is scheduled for February 9, 2015. BACKGROUND: The City’s Calculations and Measurements section of the Land Use Code outlines how spaces within a project are calculated in overall floor area, and is quite technical in nature. Allowed floor area is a function of how large a parcel is. Certain areas of a parcel are removed for floor area calculations, including areas within a current or former (a vacated) right-of-way (street/alley). As an example, if a zone district allows a 1:1 floor area ratio, a 6,000 sq ft lot would be allowed 6,000 sq ft of floor area. 1 If that same lot includes 1,000 sq ft of vacated right of way, the allowed floor area is 5,000 sq ft. 2 This method of deducting previously vacated rights-of-way was implemented in code changes that went into effect in 1975, but it exempted properties with rights-of-way that were vacated prior to 1975. In 1988 the City embarked on a significant re-codification of the Land Use Code, and this exemption was removed. According to Alan Richman, the Planning Director at the time, the removal of the exemption was not discussed and the impacts it had to already development properties, such as the Sky Hotel, was not analyzed. A copy of his letter is attached as Exhibit C. 1 6,000 sq ft gross lot area x 1 = 6,000 sq ft allowed floor area 2 6,000 sq ft of gross lot area – 1,000 sq ft of vacated right-of-way = 5,000 sq ft of net lot area 5,000 sq ft of net lot area x 1 = 5,000 sq ft of allowed floor area P5 VII.A. Page 2 of 5 OVERVIEW: The Sky Hotel Applicant has proposed a code amendment to the calculation of net lot area in Section 26.575.020. They propose to include vacated rights-of way in the calculation of net lot area if they occurred prior to 1975, and are located in the Lodge zone district. The result of the proposed amendment would be to restore floor area development rights to properties with a pre-1975 right-of-way vacation if they are located in the Lodge zone district. Using the example above, a 6,000 sq ft property with a 1,000 sq ft pre-1975 right-of-way vacation, would have an allowed floor area of 6,000 sq ft. 3 Over the past three years, the City has focused on ways to ensure that a robust bed base exists for our community, as it is critical to the overall success and vitality of Aspen's economy. During this time, the City has embarked on studies to examine Aspen’s diminishing bed base, such as the study resulting in the Triumph Report, as well as exploring policy changes to encourage the updating and refurbishment of the short-term bed base. The Applicant's proposed code amendment would contribute to this effort by enabling properties in the lodge zone district to include pre-1975 vacated rights-of-way in their net lot area. Using a Right-of-Way Vacations Map from the Engineering Department, staff has determined there are nine (9) individual vacation actions that are affected by this code amendment. These vacations impact six (6) properties, including the Sky Hotel, Aspen Alps, St. Regis, Lift One Condos, Lift One Lodge, and One Aspen. Below is a listing of each right-of-way vacation, when the vacation was granted, what property it is located on, and how the proposed code amendment would impact the property’s allowed floor area. A map of the vacation areas is also below. 1. Resolution, approved on August 18, 1960 vacated the alley across Block 3 of the Connors Addition. This alley ran east-west and was located between Monarch & Mill streets and between Lawn and Johnson (Juaniata) Streets. This area is now part of the St Regis property. The area is approximately 1,500 sq ft. Using the floor areas allowed in the Lodge zone district, inclusion of this area would result in 3,750 sq ft of additional floor area allowed for the property. 4 2. Ordinance 12, Series 1961 vacated the alley in Block 102 and a portion of Ute Avenue. Block 102 is where The Little Nell is located. The Little Nell is not impacted by this code amendment, as it is not located in the Lodge Zone District. A small portion of this vacated alley is located on the Sky Hotel property. On the Sky Hotel property, the vacation is approximately 200 sq ft, equating to 500 sq ft of floor area. 5 3. Ordinance 2, Series 1962 vacated S Spring Street between Durant Ave and Ute Ave. This area is now part of the Sky Hotel property. At approximately 18,444 sq ft this is the 3 6,000 sq ft gross lot area x 1 = 6,000 sq ft allowed floor area 4 The St Regis is a lodge, which pursuant to the Lodge zone district have an allowed FAR for 2.5:1. 5 The Sky Hotel is a lodge, which pursuant to the Lodge zone district have an allowed FAR for 2.5:1. P6 VII.A. Page 3 of 5 largest right-of way vacation subject to this code amendment, and equates to 46,110 sq ft of floor area. 6 4. Ordinance 3, Series 1962 vacated a portion of Ute Ave near Spring Street. This area is part of the Sky Hotel and Aspen Alps properties. On the Aspen Alps property, this vacation is approximately 450 sq ft, equating to 450 sq ft of floor area. 7 Then portion on the Sky Hotel property was previously vacated in Ordinance 2, Series 1962, and therefore has no additional floor area impact. 5. Resolution, recorded on August 21, 1963 at Book 203 Page 375 vacated the alley between Lots 1 and 14 and between the West 20 feet of Lots 2 and 13 of Block 9 of the Eames Addition. This is where the Holland House was located is approximately 400 sq ft and would equate to 1,000 sq ft of floor area under the proposed code amendment. This area is part of the approved but unbuilt Lift One Lodge project. 6. Ordinance 1, Series 1965 vacated a portion of Dean Street adjacent to what is now the Residences at Little Nell. This vacation does appear to result in any additional development potential, as the area is still owned by the City, and is not part of a developable parcel. 7. Ordinance 24, Series 1967 vacated the alley in Block 6 of the Eames Addition between S Aspen St and Garmish St, as well as a small triangle of right-of-way at the intersection of Garmisch and Juan Streets. The small triangle is not located in the Lodge zone district, and is therefore not subject to this code amendment. The vacated alley is now part of the approved One Aspen Residential PUD (aka “the S. Aspen St. Townhomes Project”). 8. Civil Action 3982, 1969 involved the vacation of a portion of Dean Avenue where the Lift One Condos, 131 E Durant, are located. The area is approximately 5,400 sq ft in size. Given the property’s use as free-market residential units, the area equates to 5,400 sq ft of allowable floor area. 8 9. Resolution 14, Series 1972 closed a portion of Ute Avenue to vehicular traffic and allow the Aspen Alps to landscape the area in accordance with a “mall area plan.” This area is still owned by the City as right-of-way, and is therefore not part of a developable parcel. 6 The Sky Hotel is a lodge, which pursuant to the Lodge zone district have an allowed FAR for 2.5:1. 7 The Aspen Alps are considered free-market residential units that are periodically available for short-term rentals, which pursuant to the Lodge zone district have an allowed FAR for 1:1. 8 The Lift One Condos are considered free-market residential units that are periodically available for short-term rentals, which pursuant to the Lodge zone district have an allowed FAR for 1:1. P7 VII.A. Page 4 of 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the proposed amendment, as it bolsters the City's efforts to support improvements to the bed base. The proposed amendment would apply to properties with pre-1975 right-of-way vacations, essentially returning code language that was previously in the Land Use Code while limiting it to areas with which the City is concerned, namely the lodge-zoned properties. There are other options Council could consider, including: 1. Adopt an amendment that applies to all properties within the lodge zone district that have vacated rights-of way, regardless of when they occurred. 2. Adopt an amendment that applies to all properties with pre-1975 right-of-way vacations. Staff supports the amendment as proposed by the Applicant as staff has been able to determine what the potential development impacts might be with this approach. The staff would not recommend Council move forward with these alternative options as we are not clear on the number of properties that can be affected. Staff believes it is in the City’s best interest to see how the more restrictive approach works. If the Council likes the result created by this amendment, further study can be undertaken to determine what additions areas should receive the vacated rights-of-way floor area benefits. P8 VII.A. Page 5 of 5 REQUEST OF P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on the proposed code amendment. Attachments: Exhibit A – Approved Policy Resolution Exhibit B – Code Amendment, as approved at Council’s First Reading P9 VII.A. Resolution No. 4, Series 2015 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 4, (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS OF THE LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen Club Lodge Properties, LLC, represented by Vann Associates, requesting a code amendment to allow certain right-of-way vacations that occurred prior to 1975 to be included in floor area calculations; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the miscellaneous supplemental regulations in the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on January 12, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 4, Series of 2015, by a four to zero (4 – 0) vote, authorizing the Applicant to request and the Community Development Director to process code amendments to the miscellaneous supplemental regulations in the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, implementing policies to bolster the City of Aspen’s short-term bed base has been a City Council priority, including a Top Ten Goal for the past two (2) years; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution implements the City’s goals related updating and bolstering the short-term bed base, as articulated in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Code Amendment Objective and Direction The objective of the proposed code amendments is to update the calculations and measurements section in the Land Use Code, specifically the method of floor area calculation for vacated rights-of-way. The following are the proposed changes: 1. Include vacated rights-of way in the calculation of floor area if they occurred prior to 1975, and are located in the Lodge zone district. P10 VII.A. Resolution No. 4, Series 2015 Page 2 of 2 Section 2: City Council directs staff to conduct the following public outreach prior to Second Reading of any code amendments: a. Planning & Zoning Commission referral b. Informational outreach through the Community Development Newsletter c. Direct outreach to affected property owners Section 3: This resolution 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 resolutions or ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior resolutions or ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution 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. FINALLY, adopted this 12 th day of January 2015. _______________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ ______________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney P11 VII.A. Code Amendment – ROW Floor Area First Reading Ordinance 4, Series 2015 Page 1 of 4 ORDINANCE No. 4 (Series of 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26.575 – MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development Department to prepare amendments to the Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the recommendation from the Community Development; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach regarding the code amendment; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on January 12, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No.4, Series of 2015, requesting code amendments to the Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations Chapter of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.575 – Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050; and, WHEREAS, implementing policies to bolster the City of Aspen’s short-term bed base has been a City Council priority, including a Top Ten Goal for the past two (2) years; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution implements the City’s goals related updating and bolstering the short-term bed base, as articulated in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Chapter 26.575.020.C –Measuring Net Lot Area, which section clarifies what P12 VII.A. Code Amendment – ROW Floor Area First Reading Ordinance 4, Series 2015 Page 2 of 4 portions of a lot are included in floor area calculations, shall read as follows: C. Measuring Net Lot Area. A property’s development rights are derived from Net Lot Area. This is a number that accounts for the presence of steep slopes, easements, areas under water, and similar features of a property. The method for calculating a parcel’s Net Lot Area is as follows: Table 26.575.020-1 Percent of parcel to be included in Net Lot Area to determine allowable Floor Area Percent of parcel to be included in Net Lot Area to determine allowable Density Areas of a parcel with 0% to 20% slope. Notes 2, 3. 100% 100% Areas of a parcel with more than 20% and up to 30% slope. Notes 2, 3. For properties in the R-15B Zone: 100% For all other properties: 50%. 100% Areas of a parcel with more than 30% slope. Notes 2, 3. For properties in the R-15B Zone: 100% For all other properties: 0%. 100% Areas below the high water line of a river or natural body of water. Note 1. 0% 0% Areas dedicated to the City or County for open space or a public trail. 100% 100% Areas within an existing, dedicated, reserved for dedication, proposed for dedication by the application, or vacated public vehicular right- of-way, public vehicular easement, or vehicular emergency access easement. Notes 4, 5, 6. 0% 0% Areas within an existing, dedicated, reserved for dedication, or proposed for dedication by the application private vehicular right-of-way or vehicular easement. Notes 4, 5, 6. 0% 0% P13 VII.A. Code Amendment – ROW Floor Area First Reading Ordinance 4, Series 2015 Page 3 of 4 Areas within a vacated private vehicular right- of-way or vehicular easement, when any affected parcel has no other established physical and legal mea ns of accessing a public way. Notes 4, 5, 6. 0% 0% Areas within a vacated private vehicular right- of-way or vehicular easement, when all affected parcels have established alternate physical and legal means of accessing a public way. Notes 4, 5, 6. 100% 100% Areas of a property subject to above ground or below ground surface easements such as utilities or an irrigation ditch that do not coincide with vehicular easements. 100% 100% Notes for Table 26.575.020 - 1: 1. Lot Area shall not be reduced due to the presence of man-made water courses or features such as ditches or ponds. 2. In instances where the natural grade of a property has been affected by prior development activity, the Community Development Director may accept an estimation of pre-development topography prepared by a registered land surveyor or civil engineer. The Director may require additional historical documentation, technical studies, reports, or other information to verify a pre-development topography. 3. The total reduction in Floor Area attributable to a property’s slopes shall not exceed 25%. 4. Areas of a property within a shared driveway easement, when both properties sharing the easement abut a public right-of-way, shall not be deducted from Lot Area. This enables adjacent property owners to combine two driveways into one without reducing development rights. 5. When a property of 9,000 square feet or less contains a private vehicular access easement dedicated to no more than one back parcel, when such back parcel has no other means of access, the area of the access easement shall not be deducted from Lot Area for either Floor Area or density purposes. Otherwise, areas of a vehicular access easement serving another parcel shall be deducted from Lot Area as provided in the table above. 6. Within the Lodge zone district, areas vacated prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1975, located within a vacated vehicular right-of-way, public vehicular easement, or vehicular emergency access easement may include 100% of the vacated area in Net Lot Area for purposes of determining allowable Floor Area and Density. P14 VII.A. Code Amendment – ROW Floor Area First Reading Ordinance 4, Series 2015 Page 4 of 4 Section 2: Effect Upon Existing Litigation. 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 3: Severability. 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 4: Effective Date. In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. Section 5: A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the __ th day of ______________, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was 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 the ____ day of ____________, 2014. Attest: __________________________ ____________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ______, 2015. Attest: __________________________ ___________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor Approved as to form: ___________________________ City Attorney P15 VII.A. Page 1 of 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Code Amendment Check-in: Small Lodge Programs MEETING DATE: February 3,2015 SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on the priorities for code amendments related to small lodges. In December 2014, Council directed staff to pursue code amendments that focus on the benefits the city could provide to better enable small lodges to remain in operation. Many of the proposed small lodge benefits have little to do with the Land Use Code, but are instead administrative processes and fees. The Commission is asked to provide general feedback on the proposed programs outlined below. Staff anticipates holding a work session with City Council in February or March to discuss the Small Lodge Programs prior to moving into code language. The Commission’s comments will be provided to City Council as part of that discussion.. BACKGROUND: In 2012 and 2013, City Council adopted “top ten” goals regarding updating and bolstering the short term bed base. In August 2014 City Council passed a lodge incentive ordinance that provided incentives for both lodges and condominiums that are available for short-term rentals to upgrade and expand. A number of community members expressed concerns about aspects of the ordinance, particularly portions related to affordable housing mitigation reductions and increased heights, and they circulated a referendum petition to overturn the ordinance. Two weeks after the ordinance was adopted, City Council voted to rescind the ordinance. City Council directed staff to conduct additional public outreach to determine if there are general areas of agreement related to the bed base. Following that outreach, City Council passed a Policy Resolution directing staff to process code changes to support Small Lodges. A copy of the Policy Resolution is attached as Exhibit A. There are a number of small lodges in Aspen, many of which have been operated by the same family for generations and that often provide economy/moderate accommodations for Aspen’s visitors. Throughout the previous public outreach, there was overwhelming support for these lodges. The individual feedback from the lodges supports a role for the City to assist them, particularly through reduced time and fees related to the building permit process, as well as free or reduced cost street parking passes. SMALL LODGE DEFINITION : Establishing a system for “small lodges” requires defining what constitutes a “small lodges.” Staff has used a number of criteria to establish a list of Aspen’s small lodges, including the Assessor’s categorization, how the lodge self-identified in terms of price point in the City’s 2012 lodging study, their zoning, and the number of units. The commonality is the lodge is generally located in the Lodge or Lodge Preservation Zones, and is commonly known as an economy or moderate lodge. This categorization enabled staff to narrow the list to a total of twelve (12). The following is staff’s proposed list of small lodges: P16 VII.B. Page 2 of 5 Hotel Address Number of Units Assessor category Underlying Zone District Overlay 2012 Self- Identified Category Annabelle Inn 232 W Main St 35 Aspen Moderate Lodge MU LP Moderate Aspen Mountain Lodge 311 W Main St 38 Aspen Condos MU LP Moderate Chalet Lisl 100 E Hyman 9 Aspen Economy Lodge RMF None N/A Hearthstone House 134 E Hyman Ave 16 Aspen Moderate Lodge RMF LP Moderate Hotel Durant 122 E Durant Ave 20 Aspen Moderate Lodge L None Moderate Molly Gibson 101 W Main St 53 Aspen Economy Lodge MU & R-6 LP Moderate Hotel Aspen 110 W Main St 45 Aspen Condos MU & R-6 LP Moderate Mountain House 905 E Hopkins Ave 27 Aspen Economy Lodge RMF LP Moderate Mountain Chalet 333 E Durant Ave 58 Aspen Moderate Lodge L LP Moderate Snow Queen Lodge 124 E Cooper Ave 8 Aspen Economy Lodge RMF LP Economy St. Moritz Lodge 334 W Hyman Ave 37 Aspen Economy Lodge R-6 LP Economy Tyrolean Lodge 200 W Main St 16 Aspen Economy Lodge MU LP Economy P17 VII.B. Page 3 of 5 PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS: The proposed code amendment focuses on the benefits the city can provide to better enable small lodges to remain in operation. LODGE OMBUDSMAN : The Lodge Ombudsman would be available on an as-needed basis to assist small lodges who may be exploring a remodel, expansion, or redevelopment. At this time, existing staff cannot take on this role due to workloads, so a consultant would need to be hired. The Lodge Ombudsman would serve a number of roles for the small lodges, including: 1. Understand the City’s Land Use, Building, Engineering, and other codes to provide accurate information to the lodge as they determine if they wish to move forward with any changes. 2. Assist the lodge in identifying a private project team (planner, architect, engineer, etc) to prepare all the necessary documentation for City review and approval of the proposal. 3. Work with the lodge and the city to help shepherd the lodge project through the relevant processes. 4. Work with City Departments and other community organizations to identify existing incentives available to small lodges, such as CORE grants. “E XPRESS LANE ” FOR LAND USE REVIEWS : This proposal would create an expedited or “express” process for any small lodge that is required to go through a planning review. The creation of an “express lane” requires either (1) additional staff to process the small lodge land use cases and additional meetings by the review boards, or (2) placing other land use cases on hold while the small lodge land use requests are expedited. Staff recommends option 2, placing other land use cases on hold. AspenModern designations and Appeals are currently the only land use case types that are eligible for an expedited review. These cases are limited, so staff believes this would be an effective way to process small lodge requests. In addition, the review boards are already quite busy, and in staff’s experience there is often not a quorum to accommodate additional meetings. “E XPRESS LANE ” FOR BUILDING PERMIT REVIEWS : This proposal would create an expedited or “express” process for any small lodge that is required to get a building permit. The creation of an “express lane” requires either (1) additional staff to process the permits, or (2) placing other permits on hold while the small lodge permits are expedited. Staff recommends option 1, hiring building and engineering subcontractors or part-time staff to review the expedited permits. Many projects already receive an expedited permit review (i.e. affordable housing, phased permits, historic buildings), and adding yet another category to this list is likely to render the expedited process meaningless. And, both the Building and Engineering departments already use subcontractors and part-time staff for permit reviews. FREE BUILDING CODE ASSESSMENT : This proposal would establish a free building code compliance review by a certified building code consultant. This person would do a walk-through of the building and examine everything from egress and ADA access to compliance with modern plumbing and mechanical codes. Following the assessment, the lodge would receive a detailed report outlining areas that should be upgraded to meet life safety and other requirements. ENERGY EFFICIENCY UPGRADES : This proposal would bolster the community’s existing efforts around energy efficiency by creating further discounts and programs for small lodges to receive an energy assessment and implement the findings in the assessment. P18 VII.B. Page 4 of 5 Existing Programs: Currently, The City of Aspen and CORE (Community Office for Resource Efficiency) offer rebates for energy efficiency projects. All lodge properties are eligible for a rebate of 25% of the project cost, up to $2,500 from CORE. In addition, properties on the Aspen Electric Utility are eligible for an additional rebate of 25% of the project cost, up to $2,500 from the City. 1 The City and CORE also provide rebates for energy assessments, tune-ups, solar PV panels, and ground source heat pumps. Rebates are also available from Source Gas and Holy Cross energy. Both the City and CORE will provide basic energy advice to a lodge for free. This includes a site visit to review some energy basics, such as lighting, door seals, and windows. A formal energy audit is available, and cost is based on the size of the building and the complexity of the existing mechanical system. The City provides a rebate for these detailed assessments of 50% of the cost, up to $1,000. CORE estimates that assessments cost between $500 and $2,000, meaning the City’s rebate to a lodge is currently between $250 and $1,000. Two (2) of the small lodges have completed an energy assessment. In 2014, the City held an energy efficiency challenge for lodges, which included a Utility Bill Analysis (UBA). Three (3) of the small lodges participated in this, and received a detailed list of energy efficiency upgrades. Proposed Programs: This proposal would create additional subsidies for small lodges that complete an energy assessment. This program would enable free energy assessments for small lodges, and provide greater financial support for lodges looking to implement energy efficiency upgrades. BUILDING PERMIT FEE REDUCTIONS : The area of most agreement in all the public feedback was the importance of providing some fee discounts on permit fees for small lodges. Staff ran a number of scenarios from a minor remodel to a full redevelopment to get a general estimate on fees associated with building permits. The costs of building permit fees are based on the square footage of the project and the valuation. Water tap fees are based on the net new fixtures on the property (i.e. the lodge has 5 sinks, and is adding 10 new sinks, they will pay for the 10 new sinks), as well as past utility billing. If a lodge was undergoing a full redevelopment (scrape and replace), their credits are based on past payment for fixtures (i.e. if the lodge paid $20,000 in 1990 for their current fixtures, that is their credit for the new project’s tap fees). Sewer tap fees are based on the increase in fixtures from existing Aspen Consolidated Sewer District (ACSD) records (i.e. the lodge has 5 sinks and is adding 10 sinks, but if ACSD records don’t show any sinks, the lodge will pay for 15 sinks). Staff recommends a sliding scale of fee reductions for building permit fees, with smaller scale projects receiving a higher fee reduction, and more significant remodels receiving a lower reduction. While tap fees can be larger, staff is not recommending reductions to these fees at this time. If all twelve small lodges came forward for some kind of improvement, the estimated building permit fees would range from $150,000 for minor interior upgrades, up to $5 million for full redevelopment and expansions. In determining fees associated with various remodels and expansions, staff used the following scenarios: 1. Minor interior upgrade (paint, carpet, light fixtures) 2. Minor exterior upgrade (new windows, new paint/exterior materials) 1 All of the small lodges, except for Mountain Chalet, are on the Aspen Electric Utility. P19 VII.B. Page 5 of 5 3. Major interior upgrade A (remodel units, including bathrooms) 4. Major interior upgrade B (remodel common areas and any kitchen/food service facilities) 5. Redevelopment (complete scrape and replace) COMPLETION OF INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS : When properties redevelop, the city requires a number of improvements to infrastructure around the property, including to sidewalks and landscaping. Because most of the small lodges have not undergone significant upgrades for a number of years, the infrastructure around their property is in need of upgrades. SMALL LODGE GRANTS : This program would provide grant money for lodges to complete various upgrades. They would need to demonstrate need, and the loan requests would be reviewed by the City much like the non-profit grants are reviewed. Staff recommends the grants be available for basic infrastructure upgrades that promote long-term use of the property as a lodge, such as the cost of new carpeting, new windows, energy efficient appliances, etc, as well as upgrades to amenities such as kitchen areas, and pool/hot tubs. SMALL LODGE LOANS : This program would provide low interest loans for lodges seeking to implement upgrades. The loan would be for a ten year period, and the lodge would agree to a temporary use restriction on the property for the term of the loan to ensure the property continues to operate as a lodge. If the lodge sought to convert to a different use during the term of the loan, they would be required to pay the loan back with interest. Staff recommends the loans be granted at the sole discretion of City Council. Staff recommends the loans be limited to infrastructure upgrades that promote long-term use of the property as a lodge, such as roofing, siding, and significant remodels. PARKING PASSES : This program would provide reduced cost parking passes for small lodges. This was the item of most interest to the small lodges. Parking passes currently cost $3 each for lodges and are valid for 7 days from the date of issue. The Parking Department estimates that four (4) of the twelve (12) small lodges purchase around fifty (50) parking passes each year. Their records indicate the other small lodges rarely, if ever, purchase parking passes. 2 Because there are inherent costs with providing parking (road maintenance, snow plowing, etc), as well as environmental costs related to car emissions, staff recommends some fee for street parking, and would suggest the parking passes be offered at half-cost for the small lodges. REQUEST OF P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on the proposed code amendment. Some questions for the Commission to consider: 1. Does P&Z have any feedback on the list of small lodges? Should any be removed or added? 2. Assuming there were no costs associated with the proposed programs, which ones (some, all, or none) does P&Z recommend moving forward with? 3. Given that many of the items will represent a financial cost to the City, are there certain programs that the Commission believes are a higher priority than others? ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Approved Policy Resolution 2 Most of the parking passes sold to the lodge sector are for larger lodges, like the Limelight, as well as to property management companies. P20 VII.B. RESOLUTION NO. 136, SERIES OF 2014) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO LODGING IN ASPEN. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development Department received direction from City Council to explore code amendments related to the creation of a lodging incentive program to bolster the bed base in both traditional hotel units and condominium units; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department conducted existing conditions research to understand Aspen's existing lodge inventory, the occupancy and rate characteristics of Aspen's bed base, the economics of upgrading, expanding, or developing lodge products, the latest visitor demographics, and the types of lodging product most in demand; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted extensive Public Outreach with community members, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, condominium and lodging owners, managers, and stakeholders, the Planning & Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, and City Council regarding a lodge incentive program code amendment; and, WHEREAS, implementing a Lodge Incentive Program that bolsters the bed base has been a City Council Top Ten Goal for two (2)years; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended adoption of a Lodge Incentive Program; and, WHEREAS, City Council approved a Lodge Incentive Ordinance (Ordinance 19, Series 2014) on August 11, 2014; and, WHEREAS, City Council voted to rescind Ordinance 19, Series 2014 on August 18, 2014, and directed staff to conduct additional outreach on the topic and return with a new Policy Resolution; and, WHEREAS, City staff conducted additional outreach in the form of small group meetings, online surveys, and a telephone survey, receiving comments from over 400 people; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended adoption of code amendments to assist lodges and condominiums available for short-term rentals; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2014 and continued to December 8, 2014, the City Council approved Resolution No. 136, Series of 2014, by a five to zero (5 — 0) vote, requesting code amendments to implement a Lodge Incentive Program; and, Resolution No 136, Series 2014 Page 1 of 4 P21 VII.B. WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution implements the City's goals related replenishing and diversifying the lodging inventory, as articulated in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Code Amendment Objectives The goals and objectives of the code amendments are to: a. Recognize that the bed base, particularly the small lodges, is a critical part of the City's overall infrastructure. b. Ensure the Aspen bed base provides a number, diversity, and quality of lodging options to be attractive and welcoming to the next generation of visitors. c. Encourage investment in existing lodges and short-term rental condominiums to meet visitor expectations. d. Strive for lodging being the"highest and best'use in the lodging zone. e. Make sure the bed base continues to be compatible with community character. f Focus on small and economy/moderate lodge investment first. g. Reduce or eliminate city process and fee barriers to investment in existing lodge and short-term condominium properties. Section 2: Small Lodges The lodge code amendments should reduce improvement barriers for small lodges by offering: a. Free building code and energy audits, b. Building permit and impact fee reductions for remodels and minor expansions, c. An "express lane" in building and planning, d. Lodge ombudsman to assist small lodges through the process, e. Possible need-based loans for small lodges, f. Possible grants for small lodges, and g. Free or reduced cost street parking passes. Section 3: Height No changes to allowed heights shall be proposed as part of the lodge code amendments. Section 4: Parking No changes to required parking shall be proposed as part of the lodge code amendments. Section 5: Floor Area The existing overall floor area caps in all the zone districts shall be unchanged in the lodge code amendments, with some minor changes in the allowed floor area for lodge uses. For instance, increasing the allowed lodge floor area in all zone districts to the same as the overall floor area cap to make it easier for a property owner to build an entire lodge project. These changes to floor area caps shall not affect allowed heights. Resolution No 136, Series 2014 Page 2 of 4 P22 VII.B. Section 6: Maximum Residential Unit Size Maximum unit sizes for residential units shall remain unchanged in the lodge code amendments. Unit size limitations should be added for vacation residences. Section 7: Maximum Lodging Unit Size The lodge code amendments should include lodge unit sizes caps of 1,500 sq ft with the ability to expand beyond that through a Special Review. Section 8: Condominium Units The lodge code amendments should include implementation of an "express lane" in building and planning for small condominium projects and fee rebates for building permit and impact fees for condominium units that are available for short-term rentals. This must include adequate assurance that the rental requirements will be met. Section 9: Vacation Residences The lodge code amendments should include the creation of a new land use type called Vacation Residences that are required to be available for short-term rentals at least six (6) months in a calendar year. This must include adequate assurance that the rental requirements will be met. Section 10: Citv Process and Fees The lodge code amendments should simplify the city process, including: Timeshare regulations, Growth Management, and possible amendments to Multi-Family Replacement. In addition, create an "express lane" for building permits and land use review for small projects. The code amendments should include analysis and accounting of the costs of enhanced services and fee reductions to ensure the annual budget and service levels reflect community goals. A sunset provision for fee reductions should be included. Section 11: Affordable Housing Requirements The lodge code amendments should not intend to reduce affordable housing requirements "across the board,"but some flexibility for small lodge and condominiums may be necessary. Section 12: This resolution 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 resolutions or ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior resolutions or ordinances. Section 13: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution 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. FINALL7L,.adop ed this 8th day of December 2014. Steve adron, ayor Resolution No 136, Series 2014 Page 3 of 4 P23 VII.B. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Linda Manning, City Cle k Iames R True, City Attorney Resolution No 136, Series 2014 Page 4 of 4 P24 VII.B. Limitations on Variations to Land Use Requirements – P&Z Check-In Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner RE: Code Amendment Check-in: Limitations on Variations to Land Use Code Requirements MEETING DATE: January 26, 2015 SUMMARY : The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on a proposed code amendment that would to establish limitations on what variations may be requested by a land use Applicant, and establish thresholds for when dimensional and other variations trigger a public vote (referendum). BACKGROUND : This code amendment focuses on creating additional clarity and predictability in the land use review process. Currently, properties over 27,000 sq ft (and smaller properties after receiving authorization from the Community Development Director) may request a Planned Development to establish dimensions that exceed those of the underlying zone district. An Applicant may request any dimension through this process. In addition, some Applicants have requested reductions in affordable housing requirements through Growth Management or through a Planned Development. Over the past few months, there have been a number of community members who have expressed concern regarding the magnitude of variations that are being requested. They have argued that dimensional variations, in particular, should be subject to a public vote (referendum) or simply not allowed. City Council has expressed a desire to examine the issue, and find code language that would continue to allow some flexibility for properties, while allowing a greater public say in projects that have more significant variations. A copy of their approved Policy Resolution is attached as Exhibit A. OVERVIEW: Staff proposes a code amendment that would establish an upper limit on the amount of dimensional variation, particularly for Height and Floor Area, that can be requested through a Planned Development process. City Council would continue to be the final review authority for Planned Developments that change dimensions. In addition, staff proposes that if an Applicant requests and City Council approves dimensional variations beyond the established limits, it would trigger an automatic public vote at the next regularly scheduled election. Alternatively, Council could prohibit dimensional variations through a Planned Development, and require any dimensional variations be processed as a code amendment for the entire zone district. Staff believes that some ability to vary dimensions due to site specific constraints should remain in the code and would not recommend entirely eliminating that option at this time. P25 VII.C. Limitations on Variations to Land Use Requirements – P&Z Check-In Page 2 of 2 Some Land Use Applicants have requested reductions in affordable housing mitigation requirements as part of their land use application. Staff proposes that this code amendment include language that would allow a certain percentage reduction be approved by City Council, with any request and approval beyond that percentage triggering an automatic public vote. In addition, staff proposes to consolidate the boards that hear different variance requests. Currently, the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) and Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) review requests for Planned Development, Growth Management Allotments, Subdivision, Timeshare, Residential and Commercial Design, and Special Review applications. They each meet every other week and are well equipped to review all manner of land use requests, including dimensional variation requests. Hardship Variances (those variance requests due to a specific physical constraint or other hardship that uniquely impacts a property) are currently reviewed by the Board of Adjustment (BOA), which meets infrequently, sometimes as few as once or twice a year. While the BOA carries out their responsibilities well, staff proposes that hardship Variances be reviewed by the P&Z and HPC, and that the P&Z be designated as the City’s Board of Adjustment. REQUEST OF P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on the proposed code amendment. When this topic has been discussed with P&Z in the past, the Commission indicated general support for the direction of this code amendment. Staff is interested in getting more detailed comments from the Commissions and to hear if the Commission’s opinions have changed. Staff has not discussed designating the P&Z as the City’s Board of Adjustment, and would like feedback from the Commission on this proposed change. ATTACHMENTS : Exhibit A – Approved Policy Resolution P26 VII.C. Resolution No. 13, Series 2015 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 13, (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO ESTABLISH LIMITS ON DIMENSIONAL AND OTHER VARIATIONS THAT MAY BE REQUESTED BY A LAND USE APPLICANT. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development Department received direction from City Council to explore code amendments related to establishing limits on the amount of variation from Land Use Code requirements an Applicant may request prior to triggering an automatic public vote (referendum) on the project; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the Land Use Code and/or City Charter to implement City Council’s direction; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on January 26, 2015, the City Council approved Resolution No. 13, Series of 2015, by a five to zero (5 – 0) vote, requesting code amendments to establish limits on dimensional and other variations that may be requested by a land use Applicant; and, WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code or City Charter, but provides direction to staff for processing amendments to the Land Use Code and/or City Charter; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution implements the City’s goals related to creating a clearer and more predictable land use review process, as articulated in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Code Amendment Objective and Direction City Council herby directs staff to process amendments to the City Land Use Code and/or City Charter to create more clarity and predictability in the land use review process by: • Establishing limits on the dimensional and affordable housing variations that may be requested by an Applicant; and • Establishing thresholds for when an automatic public vote (referendum) would occur on a land use application that requests a variation from Land Use Code requirements. • Designating the Planning & Zoning Commission as the City’s Board of Adjustment. P27 VII.C. Resolution No. 13, Series 2015 Page 2 of 2 Section 2: This resolution 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 resolutions or ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior resolutions or ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution 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. FINALLY, adopted this 26 th day of February 2015. _______________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ ______________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney P28 VII.C. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Justin Barker, Planner Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: February 3, 2015 RE: Public Projects Code Amendment BACKGROUND: Currently, there is a conflict between State Statute requirements and what the Land Use Code requires regarding land use review process. For certain projects submitted by the City, a governmental entity, quasi-municipal organizations or public agency (hereinafter called “public entities”), the State requires a decision (approval or not) within 60 days of a submitted complete application. However, the review process required by the Land Use Code can often exceed this timeline. The applicable entity has the ability to overturn whatever decision is made, but it is imperative that the City have a process in place to comply with State regulations, while providing adequate review of the projects. This meeting is a check-in with P&Z to share progress made by staff and solicit further input from the Commission. Staff has been collaborating with the public entities that this code amendment may affect. CODE AMENDMENT PROCESS: All code amendments require a three-step process. This meeting represents a portion of Step One – gather feedback from key stakeholders. Because P&Z members may be involved in the process, staff wants to make sure the Commission has an opportunity to weigh in early on the potential code amendments. The second step is City Council passing a Policy Resolution, which provides official direction to staff to craft a code amendment. The Third and final step are public hearings with City Council to adopt the code amendment. DISCUSSION: The purpose of the proposed Code Amendment is to create a process that provides adequate review of certain projects proposed by public entities, in order to eliminate conflict between State requirements and the City of Aspen Land Use Code. This memo outlines the process that staff has developed to this point. P&Z’s feedback will be used to provide further focus for the potential code amendments, and will be presented to City Council as part of their review. Expansion of COWOP Chapter: Staff believes that the existing COWOP (Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public) Chapter 26.500 is the most appropriate location in the Code to include this amendment, as this is an existing alternative review process. Staff suggestion is to include two new levels of review to this Chapter to create a total of a three-tier review system for public projects. The first tier of review would be for very simple projects such as trail construction or adding ramps for accessibility requirements. The Page 1 of 2 P29 VII.D. second tier of review would include most remodels, expansions, and some new construction. The existing COWOP process would be the highest level of review for large new construction projects that would benefit from extensive public exposure and involvement. Review authorities: Staff recommends that the first tier of reviews be reviewed administratively. They would often include minor or no visual change to a property and would be in line with many approval types that are typically already administrative. The second tier of review would include an advisory group and final decision at City Council. The advisory group would consist of members of City boards, key referral agencies, and other interested parties, as applicable. The purpose of the advisory group would be to quickly review the application and provide feedback to the applicant and a recommendation to City Council. The current COWOP process would remain the same. Review process: The first two tiers of review would need to be completed within 60 days, unless the applicant agrees to a longer timeframe. This should be reasonable, as the first tier would be strictly administrative, and the second tier only requires final decision by City Council. On larger projects, the review may not be able to be completed within 60 days and would need to be negotiated with the applicant. Exemptions: Certain projects should not be required to go through the public projects process. Projects located within the right-of-way are not traditionally subject to land use reviews, so routine maintenance and/or upgrades to the right-of-way should be exempt. Additionally, staff suggests that an entity should have the option to elect to go through the standard review process that is outlined in the Land Use Code instead. The public projects review should only serve as an opportunity to expedite review and not a requirement if it is not desired by the entity proposing a project. Questions for P&Z: 1. Does P&Z support the general direction of the proposed amendment? 2. Is P&Z concerned with any area of the amendment that Staff should focus on more? Page 2 of 2 P30 VII.D.