HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20150203Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
1
Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM
with members, Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, LJ Erspamer, and Kelly McNicholas.
Also present from City staff; James True and Jessica Garrow.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Ryan presented a commendation to LJ in appreciation for his service on the P&Z board as Resolution
number 5, Series 2015.
STAFF COMMENTS:
On behalf of the Community Development Department, Ms. Garrow presented Mr. Erspamer with a
special parking permit recognizing his service on P&Z.
Ms. Garrow provided an overview of the code amendment change process. Typically City Council directs
Staff to analyze amending code. Staff will then reach out to P&Z to get feedback on the code to be
amended. Other times, City Council initiates code amendments and there is a quick turnaround time so
Staff may check in with P&Z. She stated both situations are applicable this evening.
Ms. Tygre asked Ms. Garrow to confirm there is no provision for the check-ins to be a public hearing to
take in public input. Ms. Garrow agreed but stated Staff tries to build in a public outreach for code
amendments instead of only holding public hearings. Ms. Tygre feels P&Z does not get to hear the
public. Ms. Garrow stated Staff tries to explain what they have heard from the public in regards to code
amendment to P&Z. But she stated there are some circumstances when they don’t have time to provide
notice for a public hearing due to the quick turnaround timeframes. Mr. Erspamer agrees with Ms. Tygre
and feels P&Z would be a good place to start the hearing so imperfect items could be weeded out.
Mr. Walterscheid asked when these items go to City Council, it is a public hearing. Ms. Garrow
confirmed this was accurate.
Ms. Tygre feels in the quick turnaround situations, P&Z does not get the direct benefit of public
comment and it concerns her. She feels the public should be able to address P&Z so they can hear and
interpret comments themselves. Ms. Garrow stated they do post the meetings and all the information is
available on the website so folks who are interested can read the packet and could come to provide
comment even though it is not a noticed public hearing. If someone was at the meeting, the commission
could allow for comment to be heard.
Mr. McNellis asked if there was a process or authorization in which one of the P&Z members felt there
was a need to have code amended. Ms. Garrow stated there is time during Commissioners Comments or
Other Business agenda areas in P&Z meetings for members to determine if the commission wants to
pursue something or not. In the past the commission has passed a resolution requesting code
amendment on issues. In those circumstances, the resolution is presented to City Council. Staff tries to
meet with Council a couple of times a year to review their work plan and they have yet to do this for
2015. City Council can then direct Staff to work on an issue or not.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
2
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES – January 20 2015
Mr. Goode moved to approve the January 20th minutes with the requested corrections, seconded by Ms.
Tygre. The change was noted to be made prior to finalizing the minutes. All in favor, motion carried.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Erspamer stated there is a potential for a conflict. There is an item to be discussed that may impact
his property. Mr. True stated the proposed amendment would not affect his property alone, but all
properties similarly situated so he does not feel there would be a conflict requiring recusal. They agreed
to discuss it further when the item was discussed by the commission.
Other Business – Code Amendment Check-In: Vacated Rights of Way
Ms. Garrow reviewed the Vacated Rights of Way amendment proposed by the Sky Hotel applicants. City
Council passed the amendment on the first reading January 12th. The second reading is scheduled for
Monday, February 9th. Ms. Garrow requested feedback regarding the impacts of the amendment and
the language in the amendment or the policy behind it.
Ms. Garrow explained in the current land use code, floor area is a function of the net lot area. As an
example of the current calculation on a 6,000 sf lot located in a zone district with a floor ration of 1:1,
the owner is allowed to build 6,000 sf. If there is a vacated right of way on the property, it is deducted
from the net lot area. This method of calculating floor area was adopted in 1975, but exempted
properties that had vacated rights of way to that point. In 1988, the City rewrote a great deal of the
code and the exemption was eliminated. The Sky Hotel applicants propose bringing back the pre-1975
exempt status in the lodge zoned district on vacated rights of way in relation to the calculation of floor
area. Ms. Garrow stated Staff was able to identify nine vacations on six properties impacted including
the Sky Hotel, Aspen Alps, St. Regis, Lift One Condominiums, Lift One Lodge and One Aspen AKA South
Aspen Street Townhome project. All the projects currently provide short term accommodations. There is
a broad range of area impacted from 500 sf of floor area to 46,000 sf of floor area. Staff recommends
support for this amendment to City Council. Staff feels it is narrow and focused and corrects something
that perhaps was not intentionally deleted in 1988. The resolution proposes to include vacated rights of
way in the floor area calculation if it occurred prior to 1975 for properties in the lodge zoned district and
directs Staff to conduct outreach with P&Z and effected property owners in their newsletter. She asked
P&Z for the questions and comments.
Mr. Gibbs asked if the original exemption only applied to properties in the lodge zone district. Ms.
Garrow stated it originally applied broadly and Staff felt limiting it to the lodge zoned district made the
most sense at this time to see how it works in an incremental approach to further understand
unintended consequences before applying it to the broader city.
Ms. Tygre asked Staff to explain more specifically how this policy connects to a dimensional
amendment. Ms. Garrow stated the clearest example is the Sky Hotel which would allow them to
restore 46,000 sf of available floor area. Without this code amendment they would not be able to come
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
3
forward with the lodge they have proposed which includes new lodge rooms. This amendment would
allow the Sky Hotel to provide more and improved lodging. Other properties may take advantage of this
as well. Ms. Tygre is concerned about setting a precedent for other zoned districts to come forward and
to ask for the same opportunity. Ms. Garrow stated they limited it to ensure for now it only allows a
limited number of properties in the lodge zoned district.
Mr. True mentioned it is only vacations pre-1975 and will not include vacations after 1975. Although it
may give someone the argument to pursue post-1975 vacations but there is nothing to mandate it to
happen. Council could decide each on case by case basis.
Mr. Walterscheid wanted to confirm it would not change setbacks. Ms. Garrow confirmed this and
stated former streets and alleys that were vacated are now part of private property and the owner could
build on this area. This code amendment would allow the owner to also take advantage of the additional
floor area. Ms. Garrow added this amendment affects streets and alleys that have already been vacated
and incorporated in the property and the owners have built on them. This amendment doesn’t change
where the building can be built in terms of setbacks.
Mr. Erspamer asked if there could be an instance where an owner obtains the additional floor area, but
may not have the footprint to build it. Ms. Garrow stated each of the properties has code limitations and
many are in planned developments limiting internal floor area, external floor area and non-floor area
floor area. The code amendment doesn’t automatically give them the ability to build without applying
for a planned development amendment. Mr. True stated added it would not give anyone the right to
build in a setback.
Mr. Walterscheid asked what would be the hesitation in giving this opportunity to other zoned districts.
Ms. Garrow stated there are some potential legal ramifications with other properties and they wanted
to see how the amendment would work in a narrow instance. She said P&Z could recommend granting
this to additional zoned districts. Mr. True stated the Sky Hotel applicant had previously argued the
removal of the pre-1975 was by accident. He was not sure this was the case, but it may have
ramifications on decisions made in the past. He added the City is not sure about the ramifications of the
vacations in other zoned districts at this time.
Mr. Erspamer felt it may have negative impacts on him personally if this was allowed in other zoned
districts and would only want it amended in the scope as presented. Mr. Walterscheid feels it would
open up opportunities for land owners to increase the value of property.
Mr. McNellis questioned the decision for the limit of pre-1975 vacations. Ms. Garrow stated typically
when the City made a code amendment that had significant impact, they exempted properties up to the
date of the ordinance. Mr. McNellis understands it would be important to look at other properties pre-
1975 before expanding the scope. Ms. Garrow stated if the included all properties in the lodge zoned
district and dropped the pre-1975 restriction, it would include a lot more areas including the St. Regis
and buildings along Galena, and the Hyatt.
Ms. Garrow asked if P&Z supports what Staff has proposed on this amendment or changes to pass on to
City Council.
Mr. Erspamer asked if any properties with buildings on the vacated rights of way now are
nonconforming. Ms. Garrow stated not necessarily. If an owner wanted to take advantage of the
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
4
additional floor area, they would have go through a plan review process with P&Z. Mr. Erspamer asked if
the St. Regis was passed by a citizens vote and additional buildings would have to be approved by vote.
Ms. Garrow did not feel this was accurate and any additional applications would have to go through the
planning department for approval.
Mr. True explained in 1975 there was a major rewrite of the code. It was determined at that time if a
property owner had a vacation prior to that, the property would be exempt from floor area calculations.
Vacations after 1975 would not be exempt. He doesn’t feel it would be beneficial to allow vacations
after 1975 to be included in the exemption and P&Z should presume the community was vacating a right
of ways after 1975 knowing would not count in any circumstances. The pre-1975 vacations bring up
questions of intent because it was chanted in 1988.
Mr. Gibbs recommends moving forward with the amendment but at some point in the future, the City
Council should consider the other pre-1975 vacations of right of ways other zoned districts to be fair to
all the other property owners. The original code did not specify only the lodge zoned district and he feels
it would be better to look at those situations now to understand the impact.
Ms. McNicholas agrees with Mr. Gibbs and feels we could be missing part of the interpretation of the
objective from 1988. Mr. True responded going back to the pre-1988 is a benefit to the zoned district
and part of City Council’s goals.
Mr. Erspamer felt it happened because they grandfathered them in 1975, but not in 1988.
Mr. McNellis agreed it should be examined in a broader context. Ms. Garrow stated they have a very
unclear record from 1988. The applicant provided a letter from Alan Richman, Aspen Planning Director
at the time, where he states it was never discussed and could have been an oversight.
Mr. True stated since 1988 we have interpreted the code that no vacation counts for floor area.
Ms. McNicholas asked if Staff had conducted the impacts of the code amendment as it pertains to
benefitting the public including the possibility of increased density in the short term bed base. Ms.
Garrow provided examples including the Sky Hotel which it would enable them to redevelop their
existing 90 room hotel and add another 14 rooms. Without the amendment, the might not be able to
even rebuild the 90 rooms. Other properties may only be able to increase the size on one unit and other
may be able to add two to ten lodge units.
Ms. Tygre asked if the Sky could build under the PUD. Ms. Garrow stated they could and they have
amended their proposal without their floor area variance for a variety of reasons. They are requesting a
code amendment instead of varying through the plan development process.
Mr. Walterscheid asked Mr. John Sarpa if he would like to speak.
Mr. Sarpa stated they have worked with Staff to consider the alternatives and they believe an
incremental approach is the best approach but have it equally applicable. This would allow the City to
better understand the impacts.
Ms. Tygre asked if they can build under the PUD, why is this a better way to go. Ms. Garrow stated this is
just a different way, not necessarily better. Ms. Tygre feels there are many pitfalls with this path when
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
5
the applicants can build what they propose subject to approval without going through this method. She
feels it sets a weird precedent of alternative methods used that are not necessary. Given the public’s
current sentiment about variances and the potential for the variance to be bypassed by a code
amendment that the public does not get to vote on, she does not like the approach. Mr. True pointed
out the proposed charter amendment would not change this at all and the charter would allow the code
amendment.
Mr. Erspamer agrees with Ms. Tygre’s position yet he is sympathetic to their cause. He wants to know
why it’s a better for them to use this chosen method. Mr. Garrow stated they don’t have final approval
yet and their approval is contingent on passage of this code amendment. They are not requesting a
variation of their floor area through planned development. Staff has tried to narrow the impact to
reduce the consequences by stating it is pre-1975 and only in the lodge zone district. Mr. Erspamer
doesn’t feel he has enough information to support the amendment and worries about making a choice
without knowing the full consequences. Mr. True stated P&Z approved the Sky Hotel under a different
type of code amendment. Staff feels this amendment is fairer for others in the same zone district to take
advantage of similar benefits.
Mr. Goode would approve the code change for the lodges and feels it is good to set a standard instead
of an exception for one lodge. He would like to see other ways to use this.
Ms. Garrow summarized what she heard from P&Z:
a. Mixed feelings and opinions
b. Some are concerned about the impacts of amendment
c. Some are okay with the incremental approach but want to look at how it could be applied more
broadly
Other Business – Code Amendment Check-In: Small Lodges
Ms. Garrow reviewed the recent history of the lodge incentive ordinance that was passed and then
rescinded. City Council then directed Staff to conduct additional public outreach and come back with a
revised proposal. Staff conducted additional outreach in the fall 2014 and met with City Council in
December 2014 asking them to approve a new policy resolution giving them direction on lodging. This
policy resolution was approved and the first on the list was providing incentives to small lodges to help
remain operating as lodges.
Staff is asking P&Z to comment on the methodology for defining the list of 12 small lodges, the proposed
incentives and their prioritization of items in the memo. Ms. Garrow added there are budget
implications with many of the items and Staff is not sure the City would be able to implement all of
them.
Regarding the small lodge definition, Ms. Garrow stated it is difficult to come so they came up with a
definition so they defined a list of combined characteristics. To identify the list of characteristics, Staff
reviewed the following:
1. The assessor categorization including moderate and economy lodges
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
6
2. The lodges in the districts with either lodge zoning or a lodge preservation overlay.
3. The lodges identified with the lodge preservation overlay which was established in the 1980’s to
assist existing lodges with updates and refurbishment incentives.
4. The self-identified moderate and economy lodges from a survey conducted in 2012 by the City
of all the lodges in town to gather information regarding existing conditions.
The list of lodges from Staff’s review is on p 17 of the agenda packet. She stated the Hotel Lenado was
originally on the list, but was pulled off because of their assessor category which is defined as deluxe
accommodations. The Chalet Lisl was initially missed from the survey, but Staff decided to add it based
on the categorization of the lodge.
She stated Staff decided they did not want to identify size as a limiting characteristic. For example, the
Mountain Chalet is quite large but was included on the list because it is a family-operated lodge and is
an economy-moderate accommodations.
She asked if P&Z had comments regarding the definition of the list.
Mr. Erspamer asked if the City was looking to preserve the lodges or tear them down and replace them
with a moderate type lodge. Ms. Garrow replied the overall goal expressed by City Council was to enable
the lodges to continue to be in operation. The incentives would primarily be to remodel the existing
structures. Ms. Garrow stated the goal may be somewhat different for each of the lodges based on
historic designations and other restrictions and abilities to expand. The Aspen Mountain Lodge may
decide to add to existing structure whereas the Snow Queen is historic and cannot be torn down. Mr.
Erspamer feels Staff is on the right track.
Mr. Goode asked if the Mountain House is slated to be demolished. Ms. Garrow stated it is potentially
identified to be demolished and they included it partly in the hope that the owner may decide to
maintain the existing structure if incentives were made available.
Mr. Goode also inquired about the Hotel Durant. He thought P&Z had approved a full remodel. Ms.
Garrow stated they did some basic interior upgrades. She stated their application was the event that
started the lodging conversation. Once they determined what their fees would be to redevelop based on
the approval, they asked City Council and the City Manager’s Office for some form of relief.
Ms. McNicholas asked if there was a requirement for the identified lodges to remain an economy lodge
if they take advantage of the incentives. Ms. Garrow stated that is one area they want to obtain
feedback from P&Z at the meeting.
Mr. Erspamer asked about the theory of changing the zoning after ten years. Once a property is zoned a
lodge, does it always have to remain a lodge. Ms. Garrow stated a change in the zoning would require a
land use review. In some cased the existing structures are too large for a single family home.
Mr. Walterscheid feels there should be a defining category with thresholds instead of a list of properties
to allow for future properties to be included in the category. Ms. Garrow feels his thought is valid, but
stated the direction provided by City Council was to preserve existing lodges.
Mr. Gibbs feels they are missing the free market residences and he has a hard time having the tax payers
fund incentives when they include significant free market components. He feels the developers should
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
7
understand they can utilize the offered incentives or utilize the free market components. Ms. Garrow
stated Staff agrees with this point. She stated they plan to include a trigger for free market component
that would exclude applications from the upper tier of incentives. The other commissioners agreed with
Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Erspamer stated maybe future developments could petition to be included on the list at a later time.
In response, Mr. Walterscheid doesn’t feel the City will attract affordable lodging unless is incentives are
available.
Ms. Tygre felt it was best to keep it small and concentrate on the existing lodges initially. Mr. Goode
stated based on Ms. Tygre’s comment, he feels the Boomerang should be a candidate for the list. Ms.
Garrow stated should would review the Boomerang to determine if it could be added to the list. Ms.
Garrow asked P&Z if they would support the Boomerang being added based on the assumption it is less
than 60-ish rooms and in the assessor category is economy. The commissioners agreed they would want
it added to the list if those assumptions were verified.
Mr. Walterscheid asked about other smaller lodges located in the core at which Ms. Garrow stated they
are deluxe accommodations. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there was any desire in keeping these smaller
lodges. Ms. Garrow stated at this time, they are focusing on the moderate and economy lodging.
Ms. McNicholas asked if the categorization of the properties on the list could change over time. Ms.
Garrow stated that it is possible and noted the Molly Gibson as an example of an economy lodge moving
to moderate or even deluxe.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if they could require a property to remain moderate or economy for a 7-10 year
period or require them to pay back a portion of the fees.
Ms. Garrow reviewed the proposed amendments on p 18 of the packet. She clarified some are more
policy adaptations versus code amendments. The policy adaptations may not amend the code but they
require funding and change to administrative policies. City Council stated they do not want to see
additional height, additional floor area or a reduction in affordable housing mitigation. The first idea is
to have a small lodge ombudsman to assist the lodges navigate the City review process and assist the
lodge to determine if they need a minor remodel up to a major redevelopment. The ombudsman could
assist with the selection of a project team to fit the scale of the project and shepherding the lodge
through the process whether it be a building permit, land use process or both. The ombudsman could
also help them identify additional incentives that may be available. The lodges that may be considering a
project in the near future felt an ombudsman could be valuable.
Mr. Gibbs asked how this would be limited so the City would not be competing with the private planning
businesses. Ms. Garrow stated this person would not currently on staff and could be an outside
consultant and perhaps one of the private planners at a discounted rate.
Mr. Walterscheid felt it may create competition and a conflict of interest. Ms. Garrow stated they would
need to identify a separate, private team. She stated they may need to add language limiting the role of
the ombudsman. Mr. Gibbs felt the smaller lodges would receive the most benefit but was having
difficulty understanding the benefit to the lodges as defined. Ms. Garrow stated the ombudsman would
assist the lodge in understanding what the property could accommodate and the parameters they
would have to work within. Mr. Erspamer felt this may be helpful with the Development Review
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
8
Committee (DRC). Mr. Walterscheid asked how this would be different than the current Planner of the
Day. Ms. Garrow stated Staff wants someone identified specifically for the lodges and they hope the
person would know the engineering side as well as the planning side. Ms. Garrow stated the current
level of staff could not absorb this responsibility.
Ms. Tygre feels there is a thriving private sector that could help these lodges and she doesn’t feel the
ombudsman is needed.
Mr. Erspamer feels identifying architects (#2) is a liability and feels they should do it themselves.
Ms. Garrow summarized as having mixed support but removing bullet #2.
Mr. Gibbs feels this role would be similar to a HPC project monitor.
Mr. Goode does not feel this would be a full time position at which Ms. Garrow agreed.
Mr. Erspamer asked who would pay for the person. Mr. Goode thought ultimately the taxpayers would
be responsible. Mr. Walterscheid noted current permitting fees include payment for staff time. Ms.
Garrow stated the building and planning fees subsidize long range planning efforts. The permit fees
subsidize services including planner of the day, future planning, etc.
Ms. Garrow then moved on to the topic of the express lane. She stated there are two proposed express
lanes. One for land use reviews and one for building permit reviews. There are two options for providing
express lanes. One is adding staff to process the case load or place permits already in the queue on hold
and move the small lodges to the front of the line. For the planning review, Staff recommends
expediting the small lodge reviews over the other reviews. On the building side, small lodges already
have priority over other applications. For the building permit review, Staff recommends the hiring of
subcontractors or part time staff to process the expedited review. She added this would be for permits
within the engineering and building departments which already contract out certain services and
personnel is available who already know the code and willing to take on the extra services.
Mr. Walterscheid wished in general the city departments had more staff.
Ms. Garrow next reviewed the building code assessment topic. She stated probably someone contracted
by the City would perform a walk-through of the small lodges to identify the accessibility, energy and
other building code upgrades needed. Following the assessment, a detailed report would be provided
including items in urgent need of an upgrade and items to consider updating in the next 5 years. This
report would help lodges know what to plan for in the future. This type of services costs about $0.50 per
sf. Mr. Erspamer asked if this would be required of the lodges and Ms. Garrow replied it would be
voluntary.
Ms. Garrow stated Staff proposes to create additional funding so small lodges could obtain an energy
assessment for free. Currently there is a rebate of 50% of the costs up to $1,000. Staff is recommending
a subsidy of 100% up to a $2,000. The P&Z commissioners were in favor.
Ms. Garrow stated the building permit fee reduction is the main incentive and carries the largest cost.
Staff attempted to identify the scenarios the lodges may want to address from simple face lifts to a full
redevelopment. The costs if everyone did the minor upgrades are about $150,000. If all the lodges
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
9
wanted to pursue redevelopment, the costs would be about $5,000,000 to the city for building permit
fees. This does not include fees associated with sewer and water. Staff feels the overall cost to the City
would be somewhere between these two extremes. She asked if they would support a reduction in fees
for the small lodges and under what circumstances.
Mr. Erspamer asked about the hard costs and said he would be in favor of reducing the fees to assist the
small lodges.
Mr. Walterscheid wanted to know if the budget for Community Development could absorb the costs.
Ms. Garrow stated his question leads to the her next question to P&Z regarding identifying the top one
or two incentives so Staff can communicate this to City Council to discuss budgeting for them over a five
to ten year period. Ms. Garrow then asked the commission to prioritize the incentives as discussed.
Overall, the commissioners felt permit fee reductions should have the top priority.
Ms. McNicholas asked if the incentive program has a sunset. Ms. Garrow replied Staff had proposed five
to ten years. She then asked if the commissioners had a suggestion on the sunset time period. Mr.
Erspamer stated he would like it to be at least ten, maybe 20 years. Mr. Walterscheid and Ms. Tygre felt
seven to ten years would be sufficient, especially for interior projects.
Regarding the fee benefits, Ms. Garrow stated that Staff is proposing a sliding scale where smaller
projects would receive a larger fee benefit (75% reduction) and the full redevelopment project would
receive a lower fee benefit (25% reduction). She asked if P&Z agreed with this suggestion in concept.
Ms. Tygre and Mr. Walterscheid agreed. Mr. Walterscheid asked for a definition of small and large
projects at which Ms. Garrow pointed out the definitions in items 1 and 2 on p. 19.
Ms. Garrow then stated in regards to the completion of infrastructure improvements, the City would
absorb the cost of improvements in the right of way with larger benefits to the smaller projects and
smaller benefits for the larger project. Money potentially available to the lodges for infrastructure
projects would be in the form of grants and loans. Staff is proposing the grants be used for basic types of
infrastructure upgrades. Examples of grants would be carpet, energy efficient appliances, and windows.
Loans would be used for the bigger projects including new siding or a significant remodel.
Parking passes was the number one item the small lodges wanted as an incentive. They are three dollars
each and valid for seven days. The Parking Department has reported not many of the smaller lodges use
them. Staff is proposing they be offered for half the current cost.
Mr. Walterscheid, Mr. Erspamer, Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Goode stated they agreed with all except the
parking passes. Most felt the cost could be passed on to the customer for a parking pass.
Mr. Erspamer asked Staff to consider suggesting an increase in the bed tax to pay for the incentives. Mr.
Walterscheid felt there may be issues because the larger hotels who are charging more will pay more to
benefit competition.
Mr. Erspamer did state he is concerned loans will be granted by the lone discretion of Council. Mr.
Walterscheid responded there needs to be a baseline. Mr. Erspamer suggested Staff outline specifics on
the loans. Mr. True acknowledged there would be a number of issues to address. Mr. Gibbs felt there
need to be defined limits on the loans and grants. Ms. Garrow thought one way would be to base it off
the sf affected and the estimated valuation. She added use tax currently uses a similar type of formula.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
10
Mr. Walterscheid added the project would be audited and adjustments are paid when necessary at
which she agreed.
Other Business – Code Amendment Limitations on Variations to Land
Use Code Requirements
Ms. Garrow referred to the petition to add a question on the May ballot that would limit the ability to
request variation of increased height, increased floor area, decrease in parking or a decrease in
affordable housing requirements. Council asked Staff to look into a code amendment to potentially
replace the petition with the idea of adopting the code amendment prior to the election.
Ms. Garrow stated P&Z has discussed this concept before and have been generally in support of some
threshold. The idea outlined in the agenda packet outlines thresholds to vary dimensions through
planned development and then either the applicant triggers a public vote or there can’t be any more
variation beyond the established threshold. The other alternative would have variations up to ten
percent and anything over would trigger a public vote. She asked for feedback from P&Z.
Ms. Tygre feels if a set percentage is established, then everyone will come in at that number. Mr.
Walterscheid agreed with her statement. Ms. Tygre added that planned development should follow the
code and the underlying dimensions of the underlying zone district should be the baseline. As long as
the overall dimensions are within the underlying zone district, it should not be a problem. She doesn’t
feel a set percentage will work because planned developments are site specific. She stated this was how
planned unit developments were initially proposed to P&Z. This would allow for variation on the overall
design within the overall dimensions. She feels the code is in place and just needs to be enforced.
Mr. Walterscheid stated every PD application that comes before P&Z is a variance request. Ms. Tygre
added that people are not liking the results.
Ms. Tygre feels P&Z has discretion within the PD to vary the dimensions and designs within the overall
zone districts. Mr. Walterscheid asked why the underlying zone districts can’t then just dictate what is
and what is not allowed. Ms. Tygre responded the PD allows for the variation so you just don’t end up
with a box. Ms. Garrow stated there may be site specific items to consider including slope, trees and
neighbors. Ms. Garrow added on the floor area side there is an overall cap and individual caps.
Ms. Gibbs feels we could end up with very tall buildings for some of the larger projects. Ms. Tygre
responded that it would still be discretionary. Mr. Gibbs doesn’t feel he could apply that criteria and
feels set criteria should be defined and variations should not be allowed. He feels the public should
provide input to the code amendments and not to specific applications. Mr. Erspamer and Mr.
Walterscheid agreed.
Ms. Nicholas doesn’t feel there would be public support for Ms. Tygre’s option. Mr. Walterscheid
agreed.
Ms. Tygre also agreed with Mr. Gibbs but would like to see a way the PD could be what is was originally
proposed. Mr. Gibbs stated the variations in use may be more acceptable to meet the needs of the
community, but variations in height are very noticeable.
Ms. Garrow brought up the recent Aspen Club application. They requested an additional eight inches to
reroof the building above the allowed 28 ft. P&Z recommended approval to Council and under Mr.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
11
Gibb’s scenario, they would not be able to do the reroof. Mr. Gibbs stated the applicant could come to
P&Z and Council and ask for a code amendment. Ms. Garrow replied that every time one project needs a
unique item for their site, it would be processed as a code amendment. Mr. Gibbs feels there are many
times when there is more creativity in the design than what is presented in applications but he also
acknowledged applicant driven code amendments could get out of hand.
Ms. Garrow state the variations proposal is going in front of Council on the 23rd and it would be helpful
to wrap it up at this meeting.
Mr. Erspamer motioned to continue the meeting until 7:15pm and seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor,
motion carried.
Ms. Garrow asked if reduction in parking requirements should be subject to the same parameters as
height and floor area. Currently it is allowed through special review. Mr. Walterscheid feels this may be
a reaction to the petition and feels there should be further study as to what the parking numbers should
be and address it accordingly. He is not in favor of it going to a public vote. He would prefer the public
voice their opinion to Council and recommends the City execute a PR project to educate the public. Mr.
Erspamer feels there should be a comprehensive parking plan. Ms. Tygre agrees this is a reactive
approach and should allow time to be examined in the appropriate scope and detail. Ms. McNicholas
added you don’t get good planning with the threat of a vote.
Ms. Garrow stated the final item to add to the code amendment was to designate P&Z as the board that
hears hardship variance hearings. The City does not get a lot of these types of requests but Staff feels
the P&Z is well equipped to handle them instead of the Board of Appeals which current meets
infrequently. There were no concerns voiced by P&Z on this item.
Other Business – Code Amendment Public Projects
Mr. True stated there a number of cases from the Supreme Court that state one governmental entity
cannot control the application of another governmental entity when their project is on their own land to
a great extent. The statute defines the location and extent of the review and must be done in 60 days
and if the governing body puts forth conditions or denies the approval, then the owning body can do
what they want anyway. The Home Rule Charter does not change this and the City does not have a
location and extent process currently. Staff feels the best approach is through co-op chapter including
an administrative review for governmental or quasi-governmental or City-owned projects. Staff is
recommending an administrative review for minor matters and larger proposals would go through an
advisory body that would then present to City Council. The review should take place within 60 days as
mandated by the State Supreme Court.
Ms. Garrow pointed out the review authority outlined on p 30 identifies the first tier as administrative,
second tier would go to the advisory group and the third tier would go through the full process.
Mr. True reiterated Staff is proposing the changes to align the code with state statute.
Mr. Erspamer asked if these type of projects could first go through the normal process and then the 60
day limit would then start after approval or denial. Mr. True stated the application has 60 days total to
be reviewed, not in addition to the normal review process.
Mr. Walterscheid asked if an expedited process including administrative, P&Z and then Council could be
developed. He is concerned that forming a co-op could take 60 days.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 3, 2015
12
Ms. Garrow noted the recommendations.
Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager