Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20150630Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015 Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jesse Morris, Skippy Mesirow, Kelly McNicholas, Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, and Ryan Walterscheid. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, Hillary Seminick, Chris Bendon and Jessica Garrow. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. McNicholas asked if Council has made a decision regarding the SCI zoning for Obermeyer Place. Ms. Phelan replied the first reading is scheduled in July. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes for April 21st, seconded by Mr. Morris. All in favor, motion passed. The draft minutes for May 26th were discussed. A couple of corrections were requested by Ms. McNicholas. Mr. Morris moved to approve the minutes pending the requested corrections and was seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Mesirow moved to approve the minutes for June 16th and seconded by Ms. McNicholas. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no conflicts expressed. 540 E Main St – Rezoning – Public Hearing Mr. Walterscheid opened the public hearing and asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn replied it appeared notice had been appropriately provided. Ms. Seminick, Community Development Planner Technician, reviewed of the application. The City of Aspen, Capital Asset Department is requesting to rezone the subject property. The property is currently zoned Service Commercial Industrial (SCI), Commercial (C-1) and Commercial Core (CC) and they are requesting it be zoned as Public (PUB). As a City asset, the Public zoned district is an appropriate one and clears up the mix of zoned districts. The property is also designated as Historic due to three cabins located on the northern portion of the property. The property is approximately 27,000 sf and the City 1 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015 Parking Department is currently located on the property. There is no proposed change in use at this time. The City Parking Department is considered a public use and is not allowed in within the SCI zoned district. The C-1 and CC allow for public use on the ground floor only. She displayed a map to show where the property is located and the location of the current single story Parking Department structure located on the CC zoned portion of the property. There is an accessory use building located on the SCI portion of the property which are allowed within the SCI zoned district. She also pointed out the location of the historic structures. She added no development is being proposed at this time, but the parcel is being considered for the future expansion of City facilities. Nothing has been approved at this time for any future development. The PUB zoned district would require a Planned Development (PD) review when any development is proposed for the property. With the PUB zoned district there are no dimensional requirements and would be set in the PD review. Should a development be proposed in the future, a Historic Preservation review would be combined with the PD review. The PUB rezoning as would consistent with zoning of adjacent properties which provide public uses. To the west is Pitkin County Courthouse, Plaza and Jail. Further west is the Pitkin County Library and to the north is the Rio Grande Park. Staff recommends P&Z provide a referral to City Council by adopting Resolution 12, series 2015 to approve the request to rezone the subject property to the PUB zoned district. She showed photos of the existing property including the existing structures. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of Staff. Ms. Tygre wanted to know if the same result could be obtained by changing SCI to allow public use. Ms. Seminick stated it wouldn’t address the issue with the property currently being in three different zoned districts. To change the SCI zoned district would require a change to the code. Ms. Phelan stated the project would also be subject to the dimensional requirements of the SCI zoned district. She added when you have a property with multiple zoned districts, you must stick to the allowed uses on the specifically defined areas. Mr. Mesirow and Mr. Morris asked if had been proposed previously and why not. Ms. Phelan asked Mr. Richman, representing the City, when the property was purchased by the City at which he answered in 2002. Mr. Richman added the property was previously a private property and zoned as such. He feels this is a housekeeping issue in that the property has been owned by the City for 13 years and the rezoning will allow for current and future public uses. He does not believe the City plans to sell the property. Ms. Tygre asked if zoned PUB, it would have no dimensional requirements. Ms. Phelan stated she was correct and added and it would have to go through a PD review for any proposed development which includes review criteria regarding mass, scale and context. 2 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015 Mr. Walterscheid asked Staff to confirm the review process for a proposed development application. Ms. Phelan stated it would be reviewed by HPC for mass, scale and historic resources and then to City Council for review and ordinance approval and then back to HPC for the final skin approval. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services Inc, represents the City of Aspen as the applicant. With him was Jack Wheeler, City of Aspen Capital Asset Manager, and Scott Smith, the project architect. Mr. Richman feels this is more of a housekeeping option. The property was purchased in 2002 to serve as a public function and was considered for the new fire station. More recently it has been considered to meet the long term office needs of the City or possibly a site for the Police Department. No uses are being proposed at the meeting. He added having a site trisected by three different zoning districts is a confusing situation. All the current zoned districts are all high density and high intensity commercial zones which would anticipate a big building. He does not feel this would be upzoning the property. Rezoning the property will ensure the uses are conforming. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Ms. Tygre asked at what point in the planning process will the public have a chance to weigh in on the uses they feel are appropriate for the property. Mr. Richman feels it will happen in two phases. One being during the public discussions going on right now to identify uses in the building replacement projects. The second phase will be during the project review phase to go over the use and mass. Mr. Wheeler stated public outreach started a year ago including several open houses presenting concepts to the public. The City has also reached out to stakeholders and neighbors and have received a lot of feedback on what they think is appropriate for the site. They are currently going through a rigorous process internally, with Council, the public and stakeholders. They plan to go to Council later in July to discuss the conceptual designs. He added the City is going through the inventory of all City properties and rezoning property over the next year where appropriate to eliminate zoning issues. Mr. Walterscheid asked for any public comment at which there were none so he closed that portion of the meeting. Mr. Walterscheid opened for discussion with the commission members. Ms. McNicholas feels it is an appropriate change to make and is in line with the uses of adjacent properties to the west. Mr. Goode, Mr. Morris and Mr. Mesirow agreed. Ms. Tygre stated on the surface it seems to be a reasonable request and it makes sense to have the public adjacent to County Courthouse. She is concerned is what happens down the road. Although this is a housekeeping measure, she feels we’ve been burned by housekeeping measures before because once you allow step one to happen, then step two, which you didn’t anticipate, winds up being a 70,000 sf building. She wants to make sure we are not going down that road especially since there has been a lot of concern expressed by a lot of people including herself about the potential size of some the buildings to be constructed for public use and what types of public use. 3 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015 Mr. Mesirow agreed you could be setting the environment where that could be possible based on the needs the City states it has for public uses. He feels a building for the expressed public uses will be built somewhere and is this an appropriate location for a public entity. He feels the community will have an opportunity to say what they do and do not want in regards to the building to be proposed. Mr. Goode motioned to approve Resolution 12, Series 2015 recommending the approval of the rezoning for 540 E Main St. Ms. McNicholas seconded the motion. Mr. Walterscheid requested a roll call to vote: Ms. McNicholas, yes, Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a six to zero (6-0) vote. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the hearing. Work Program Check-In – Other Business Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to Staff for the work program check in with Mr. Bendon and Ms. Garrow. Mr. Bendon stated Staff wanted to touch base with P&Z on the department’s work program. They will be meeting with Council in late July to update them on the items they were asked to pursue. They also want to update Council on items that have come out of HPC, P&Z and things from the community plan that should be added to the work program. The meeting will also allow Council to clarify what they want Staff to work on. He said tonight is an opportunity for P&Z to ask questions on any of the items identified in the agenda packet. Mr. Morris asked in regards to transportation the two items currently on the work program include the Rethink the Street and the Off-Street Parking Requirements. Ms. Garrow confirmed those are the two transportation related items. He agrees both items should be on the work plan and feels Rethink the Street is number one. When looking at the community plan and how the community is performing on the sustainability front, he feels transportation is the weakest in terms of congestion. He feels the Off- Street Parking item could be key in transforming Aspen. He recommended conducting a study similar to on conducted for the city of Fort Collins by Donald Shoup, known as a parking guru. He added it could be used as a case study to help other cities. Mr. Morris asked for an update on the Rethink the Street item. Mr. Bendon stated with street related projects, typically the City will study, budget, plan and build without obtaining outside input. Now they are trying to engage people with experimental projects. One project is the bulb-outs near City Hall and another one with the new island with flexible curbing on N. Mill St. They would like to experiment more and make more changes. Mr. Walterscheid asked about the feedback they have received on the experiments. Mr. Bendon replied about two thirds (2/3) or stronger responding like the City Hall experiment. The major pushback is on aesthetics for the one near City Hall. Folks who do not like it are pretty adamant about it. Others have stated it is more dangerous for bikes by pushing them more into traffic. 4 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015 Mr. Walterscheid asked if they plan to do experiments it in other areas. Mr. Bendon stated they would like to but the City departments involved with helping including Parks and Streets are at operational capacity now with the summer season. Ms. McNicholas asked it the experiments are limited to the core currently and Mr. Bendon confirmed it is right now. There are not necessarily limits for future projects. Mr. Walterscheid asked about experimenting with Main St and Mr. Bendon stated they will probably not occur on Main St because it is a State Highway and would involve other agencies. He added there are continuing discussions with Engineering to address the barriers in crossing Main St. Mr. Bendon stated the City is also looking into utilizing a text based service to allow the public to easily respond to the experiments. Currently the public can utilize a Quick Response (QR) code to take them to a site for a response and they are using a chalkboard. Ms. McNicholas asked if they are considering any experiments for the pedestrian malls. Mr. Bendon stated they are not right now, but they will probably started a process next year to re-imagine the malls. There is a need to update some major infrastructure for the malls. There are also some significant development projects stacking up. The City may try to leverage some of its improvements at the same time the development will be occurring. Mr. Goode asked when the malls were built at which Mr. Bendon replied the 70’s and it was a grassroots effort to close off the streets for a year to obtain feedback. Ms. McNicholas asked if there was a plan to put together a comprehensive transportation plan. Ms. Garrow stated it is broadly covered within the transportation chapter of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The Transportation Department completed some internal planning related to busses but there is no overall transportation master plan. The City has strived to implement it by targeting specific areas including policy. In 2012, one of Councils top goals was a mitigation system for development to ensure any addition trips generated are mitigated. This is now a new requirement for all development applications and it has been incredibly successful. The Parking item on the plan is a next step in the mitigation plan. Ms. McNicholas asked if the Lift One neighborhood fits in any type of master plan or vision. Mr. Bendon stated there has been a lot or recent activity in the area. The townhomes are in for a building permit and should start construction by the end of the year. The Lift One Lodge was recently purchased and they just started conversations with the new owner who they anticipated will be in the next month or two with a development application. There is plenty of opportunity for the City to step in to organize a plan for the area. Ms. McNicholas asked if there is a plan to retain the area as residential or become a gondola plaza west and include commercial. Mr. Bendon stated previous planning involved re- invigorating the area as a portal. Currently it is three percent or less of the uplift traffic and largely because it takes too long to get from Dean St up the mountain to the current lift. Right now as part of the Lift One Lodge approvals there would be a historical museum run by the Historical Society focused on skiing. Improvements to Dean St to include pedestrian access to connect to the gondola as well as a platter pole lift to move skiers up to a redeveloped Lift One A. There have been recent efforts to encourage the owners of the properties work together. The Lift One Lodge has lodging with a timeshare ownership and a restaurant. There are plans for 50 public parking spaces in the lodge as well. Ms. McNicholas feels it should be a priority for the City to engage to ensure the parts become cohesive for the town. Mr. Bendon feels with the two remaining parcels there is a scenario for a positive or negative outcome and feels it is important how the two projects relate to each other. 5 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015 Mr. Mesirow feels he shared his opinions during the Next Generation meeting. The four priority items identified by the Next Generation Board included Housing Credits, Rethink the Streets, and the Uphill Economy in conjunction with looking at the SCI rezoning. He felt the overall list is pretty impressive. Mr. Walterscheid asked about the status for the lodging code improvements. Ms. Garrow stated there are a few more items to move forward on. In December, Council approved a policy resolution as the first step in code amendment listing a number of priorities. The first one was helping small lodges. The next one was looking at the condominium bed base which makes up 40% of the bed base. They also want to look at timeshares and multi-family replacements. In June, Council passed a small lodge preservation program including incentives for small lodges for the 12 identified lodges including planning assistance, energy efficiency related rebates, reductions in building permits and other general assistance with general code compliance. They have obtained feedback from P&Z related to condos and timeshares and want to confirm with Council this is still a priority. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there is any prioritization of items with the recent passing of Referendum 1. Mr. Bendon stated there has been some amendments to integrate it into the code language. They are trying to make people fully aware of what triggers a vote. Mr. Bendon and Ms. Garrow stated there will be some code cleanups in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) code section which includes Hallam Lake, 8040 greenline reviews, stream margin reviews, and view planes. The view plane language has not been updated since the 70’s. There are some confusing areas regarding exemptions from view planes. Mr. Bendon explained currently there is a process for P&Z and HPC to exempt a project from view plan limitations if it is behind a building that already blocks the view. Now this exemption would trigger a Referendum 1 vote which highlights the need to cleanup the code. There are similar little items that need to be addressed. As an example, Ms. Garrow stated the Aspen Alps would have never thought they were in a view plane, but it submitted an application and discovered it is in the Cooper St view plane. The application was submitted prior to Referendum 1 so it is not subject to a vote. Ms. Garrow stated they asked City Council to adopt a map to identify the zone districts identified as of the date specified by Referendum 1 (Resolution 69, Series 2015). Staff is working on compiling additional information to help out everyone. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there was any way to adjust zoning to address the ‘Zone it like you mean it’ statement. Mr. Bendon stated they haven’t had the opportunity yet to discuss it but feels it will come out in the upcoming retreat. The trick is getting past the sound bite and figuring out the definition of “mean it” or “fix it”. He feels there needs to be a good and thorough conversation to determine the destination prior to amending any code. The Council retreat is scheduled for July 23rd - 24th. Mr. Walterscheid asked when the housing credit item goes before Council. Ms. Garrow replied it has been stalled with the Aspen \ Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) because there has not been a quorum at the last two meetings. Ms. Garrow anticipates it will be presented to Council in August. Mr. Walterscheid asked when the residential mitigation would go before Council. Mr. Bendon stated the first reading is scheduled for the end of July. He added APCHA is still working on the cash-in-lieu rates. Mr. Walterscheid asked if Staff could hold a meeting for calculations and measurements similar to the residential design standards update meeting held earlier in the day. Mr. Bendon stated it was possible. 6 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015 Mr. Walterscheid asked it the permit process change and standardized building subdivision items were Council directives or just items within the department. Mr. Bendon stated they are identified because they require a big effort on the part of Staff to update and maintain. Mr. Walterscheid thought it would be beneficial to standardize as much as possible and Mr. Bendon agreed. Mr. Walterscheid asked if they are seeking any 3D models from architects in town who may have generated them in the last five years. Ms. Garrow stated they just recently resolved an issue converting some of the GIS data in SketchUp. She anticipates reaching out to local firms for completed models. Mr. Bendon stated they have temporary help dedicated to the project. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there would be a surveyor provided actual heights on items and contours. Ms. Garrow stated they are requesting new data on the next flyover when the information is collected. She stated all the building heights should be accurate as it relates to topography. She added having the entire town surveyed is cost prohibitive. Mr. Morris asked if Staff had updated P&Z on the housing credit policy changes. Ms. Garrow stated P&Z had been updated and she is still waiting on formal feedback from the APCHA Board. The APCHA Staff is recommending is similar to the City’s Staff recommendation except the APCHA Staff is recommending allowance of credits to be available for housing created anywhere in the Roaring Fork Valley. Mr. Walterscheid asked about the fee. Mr. Bendon stated they are still evaluating cash-in-lieu methodologies APCHA should use. Mr. Goode would like to add an item to address interior lighting code. Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting at 5:50 pm. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 7