Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20150407Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2015 Keith Goode, Vice-Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members, Jasmine Tygre, Skippy Mesirow, Brian McNellis, Kelly McNicholas and Jessie Morris. Also present from City staff; James True, Chris Bendon, Jennifer Phelan and Hillary Seminick. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES – February 3, 2015 Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes and was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. McNellis stated he would not be able to participate on the hearing for 200 S Aspen, Hotel Lenado. Mr. True stated he did not need to leave, but should not vote on anything associated with the hearing. Public Hearing – Hotel Lenado, 200 S Aspen – Planned Development (Continued from March 17th) The hearing was continued until May 19, 2015. Public Hearing – 69 Shady Lane – Special Review for Variances from Stream Margin Review Standards The hearing was continued to April 21, 2015 by a six to zero (6-0) vote. Other Business – Commission Input on Residential Mitigation Policies Mr. Bendon reviewed the 10 policy questions. Question 1: Should the City continue to require affordable housing mitigation for single-family and duplex development? P&Z agreed with staff’s recommendation to continue to require the mitigation. 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2015 Question 2: Is the RRC report sufficient? Mr. Mesirow asked if we are disincentivizing remodels. Mr. Bendon stated it would be for expansions and added it’s easier to equate additional floor area ratio (FAR) to impacts instead of an activity for remodeling. Ms. McNicholas asked about 40 year career plan for construction workers and wondered if it was reasonable or not. Mr. Bendon stated the study relates to the construction data available at a state level and some assumptions were be made by the consultants including the life of a building. P&Z expressed concern the remodels were not included in the study. Question 3: Should mitigation requirements include both construction and operations? Ms. McNicholas asked if commercial was included, would there not be double counting. Mr. Bendon replied they are careful to avoid the situation. P&Z would like construction included as well and is in agreement with staff. Question 4: Should the requirement affect all residential expansions? Staff feels it should not hinge on demolition and the fee should apply to townhome and condo expansions. Ms. Tygre feels the second part may not come up often because these types of units can’t be expanded. P&Z is in agreement with staff. Question 5: Should the City provide a “credit” for RETT taxes? Mr. Bendon stated the study implies there should be credit for their mitigation. Houses pay $26.26 per sf over the life of the house. Staff suggests the impact fee not be lowered based on the presence of this tax. Staff suggests credit should not be provided as it might undo a citizen tax without allowing them to vote on it. Ms. McNicholas views this as a separate revenue source for the same utilization. Mr. Mesirow asked about a step approach. Mr. Bendon stated based on the report, there is overcharging. Ms. McNicholas feels this may raise additional policy questions to address any gaps. Question 6: Should the City assess the full impact fee? P&Z agrees with staff’s recommendation. Question 7: Should the City provide an exemption or waiver for “small” projects? Mr. Bendon stated currently we don’t have an exemption. Staff does not feel exemption should be allowed. P&Z agrees with staff’s recommendation. 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2015 Question 8: Should the City continue to allow payment deferral as an option for local working residents. Staff feels it is a good policy and works well. The payment deferral is tied to the title of the property. P&Z agrees with staff’s recommendation. Question 9: Should accessory dwelling units continue as a mitigation option? Mr. Goode asked if they fall under Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) at which Mr. Bendon confirmed. P&Z does not feel it should be continued. Would be on board if it could be changed. Question 10: Should there be a voluntary process to eliminate existing ADUs? Staff feels property owners should be allowed to eliminate accessory-dwelling-units (ADUs) if they choose. Mr. Bendon stated currently it is a strenuous process and staff would like to simplify the process. Mr. Morris asked how the mitigation would be calculated. Mr. Bendon stated they are working on flat structure but considering cash in lieu or credit. P&Z in favor of establishing a voluntary process to eliminate existing ADUs. Question 11: Should cash-in-lieu continue as a mitigation option? Staff feels the credit certificate program which will eventually replace cash in lieu program, but feels the cash in lieu program should be maintained at this time. Currently the City has only one developer who holds credits at this time. Ms. McNicholas asked if the cash in lieu can be capped and then require credits above the cap amount. Mr. Bendon stated he would look into this option. Mr. Bendon noted the recommendations from the questions asked during the meeting. Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 3