Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20220517Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2022 Page 1 of 7 Chairperson McGovern called the regular Planning and Zoning (P&Z) meeting for May 17th, 2022 to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, Christine Benedetti, Sam Rose, Spencer McKnight, and Teraissa McGovern. New member Mr. Jason Suazo joined the meeting as of 6:41 pm. He did not participate in the hearing or discussion. Staff in Attendance: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director Haley Hart, Long Range Planner Kevin Rayes, Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. McGovern wanted to welcome the new members but will wait until the next meeting. STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Supino introduced himself and said he was sitting in for Ms. Simon. PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. McKnight motioned to approve the minutes for April 5, 2022. Mr. Rose seconded the motion. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of five (5) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Ms. Benedetti stated she was a member of ACES. Ms. Johnson asked if she was on the board or just a regular member. Ms. Benedetti replied she is a general member. Ms. Johnson then asked her if she was associated with ACES in any way that she may benefit financially, and Ms. Benedetti’s response was no. Ms. Johnson then asked the other commission if they were members. Ms. McGovern stated she is a member and does not benefit financially from her membership. Ms. Johnson did not see being a member a conflict for this hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES): Minor Amendment to a Planned Development – Detailed Review and Final Commercial Design Review to make site improvement for vehicular and pedestrian access and to expand the Visitor Center and Bird of Prey Buildings Ms. McGovern asked if notice had been provided. Ms. Johnson responded legal notice had been sufficiently provided within the code requirements for both items on the agenda. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2022 Page 2 of 7 Ms. Johnson noted she will need to step away from the meeting at 5:30. She described the options for the board should a legal issue arise. Ms. McGovern then opened the hearing and turned to floor over to staff. Mr. Kevin Rayes provided an overview of the application. He stated this is the second step of a two-step application. The applicant wants to reroute the road to the entrance to create a turnaround space and expand Bird of Prey building and the Visitor Center. The conceptual design was reviewed and approved by P&Z in 2021. Ms. McGovern then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Ryan Walterscheid, Forum Phi, introduced himself along with Chris Lane, CEO of ACES, and Jim Kravitz, Naturalist Programs Director of ACES. He also introduced Lori Gerety and Libby Hartmann of Forum Phi who are on the applicant’s team. Mr. Walterscheid displayed an aerial view of Aspen and pointed out the location of the ACES property. He then displayed a site plan and described the location of the entrance. He then displayed a tree restoration plan and stated there will be a considerable amount of tree restoration in relation to the project. He stated Mr. Kravitz has been working with the City’s Parks Department. He pointed out an area highlighted in red and stated this is the area near the entrance on Puppy St. that will be most impacted. He displayed a picture of the entrance as it exists currently. He stated there is some overlap with a City Project on the Jennie Adair Wetlands which was constructed by the City but resides on ACES property. He displayed a site plan of the existing entrance and pointed out the location of the entrance and the wetlands. He stated the applicant proposes to provide a turnaround and impacting the area just to the north of the city right-of-way (ROW). He then displayed a site plan of the proposed entrance with the turnaround which was designed to accommodate the turning radius of a school bus with the smallest impact possible. He stated the center of the turnaround will maintain a transformer, other utilities, and a large cottonwood tree. He then pointed out where the largest portion of the tree mitigation will occur. Some trees will be removed due to their health and others will be removed because they will be impacted by the turnaround. Next, he displayed a diagram showing the turning radius for a school bus in the turnaround as requested by P&Z during the conceptual review. Several options were discussed with the engineering department and this plan was the one staff felt impacted the area the least. He then pointed out the new sidewalk and stated an easement will be platted and recorded. Mr. Walterscheid then displayed a picture of the existing visitor’s center. He said the office spaces near the presentation hall will be expanded. He pointed out the location of the space and noted the accessibility to the space will be enhanced. He said the materials will match what currently exists on the structure. He displayed a rendering of the new proposed addition. He also stated the application includes a renovation of the deck area off the back of the building. He displayed a picture of the existing back of the building and a rendering of the renovated deck which will include accessibility improvements. Mr. Walterscheid next displayed a picture of the existing Bird of Prey building and a rendering of the proposed dormers on the building. He added the dormers would maintain the metal roof as well as the horizontal siding. Ms. McGovern asked if anyone had questions of the applicant. Ms. McGovern asked if the existing parking would remain with the new design of the entrance. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2022 Page 3 of 7 Mr. Walterscheid stated the design focused on the turnaround space. He stated there is still room for parallel parking on Puppy Smith St and overflow parking exists further down the road. Mr. Kravitz stated they know when the buses are arriving so they can utilize the space as needed. Ms. McGovern then turned it over to staff. Mr. Kevin Rayes then provided a definition of the reviews for this hearing. He stated the minor amendment to a planned development for detail review and final commercial design review. The conceptual plan development, growth management review, stream margin review, and conceptual commercial design review were approved last year. Mr. Rayes displayed a map showing the location of the property and then described the property. He then displayed a site plan of the existing site and pointed out the locations to be modified by the application. Mr. Rayes then displayed a photo of the existing entrance. He stated it is quite confusing entrance and can be dangerous when it becomes congested with vehicles. He displayed a site plan showing both the existing entrance and the proposed entrance with the new roundabout. He then reviewed the recent history in the design options for the roundabout and the final design. He pointed out the location of a new sidewalk. He also noted the proximity of the new roundabout and that it will not be located in the wetlands. The city has stormwater infrastructure in the wetlands. Mr. Rayes stated staff has included a condition to the approval in the resolution which requires a public access easement to be recorded. A deadline has also been identified to be completed by September 1, 2022. Mr. Rayes next discussed the expansion to the other buildings. He explained the enhancements and expansions to the Birds of Prey and Visitor Center buildings. He displayed pictures of the existing conditions. Mr. Rayes then discusses the review criteria as included in the agenda packet. He discussed the planned development of the Detailed Review regarding the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. He stated staff has found this criteria have been met. It will be an improvement to the existing conditions by clarifying the space to be used by pedestrians and vehicles to avoid conflicts. He next discussed the criteria related to the Final Commercial Design Review. He noted the bulk of the materials had been reviewed during the Conceptual Commercial Design Review. The applicant indicated they will be using materials and patterns on the building enhancements and expansions similar to what is on the existing structures. He then discussed the landscape and lighting plans and stated the application meets the requirements. He noted the applicant will exceed the mitigation requirement for the tree removal and have a very robust plan. He closed stating staff recommends approval of the Planned Development – Detailed Review and the Final Commercial Design Review subject to the conditions in the resolution. Ms. McGovern then asked if there any questions for staff. There were none so she then opened for public comment. There was no comment from the public, so she closed that portion of the hearing. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2022 Page 4 of 7 She then opened for commissioner deliberation. Ms. Benedetti stated she was not involved with the conceptual review of the application, but she feels everything looks good to her. She feels it’s a well thought out application. Ms. Rockhill agreed with Ms. Benedetti. Mr. Rose is set to approve the application with staff’s conditions. Mr. McKnight agreed with the others. He thinks it’s in line with the conceptual review. Ms. McGovern feels based on the staff presentation; the review criteria has been met for the reviews. She only remembered the tree mitigation being of some concern in the conceptual review and the applicant is now proposing to exceed the mitigation requirements, so she thinks it is fine. Mr. Walterscheid asked Mr. Rayes about the condition regarding the easement to be completed by a specific date. He does not recall a specific date. They have been working with Ms. April Long of the City and will work with the city to complete the easement by the date specified. He asked what the repercussions if the easement is not completed by then and feels it is more on the city to complete it instead of the client. Mr. Rayes responded Council decided this date was reasonable and he feels there is room to work on good faith to meet the date without going back to City Council to ask for another date. He would want to confirm this with the City Attorney. Mr. Supino stated as long as there is progress being made, there should not be any issue. Mr. Walterscheid stated they have been working with Ms. Long and ACES wants to move forward with the project. Mr. Supino stated his department will help coordinate the activities to ensure everything is completed on time. Mr. Lane asked if the language could be changed in the resolution to memorialize what staff has said regarding working in good faith. Mr. Rayes stated they can’t modify the language in the resolution because it was approved by Council. He stated he would agree to remove it. He stated even if it is not done, ACES should be able to continue to move forward and apply for a building permit. Mr. Rose motioned to approve Resolution #9, Series 2022 with the conditions listed by staff. Mr. Rose amended his motion to include the minor amendment to the planned development, detailed review, and final commercial design review to make various changes to the property including site improvements, reconfiguring vehicle and pedestrian access and the expansion of the visitor center and birds of prey building. Ms. Rockhill seconded the motion. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of five (5) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Ms. McGovern thanked the applicant and closed the hearing. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2022 Page 5 of 7 OTHER BUSINESS Discussion of and Recommendation to Council on Short-Term Rental Regulations Ordinance #009, Series 2022 Ms. McGovern proceeded to the next agenda item and turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Rose noted he will need to leave the meeting in approximately ten minutes. Mr. Supino introduced himself and Ms. Haley Hart, Long Range Planner. He stated staff wants to review the proposed ordinance to amend the short-term rental regulations. Mr. Supino reviewed the 11 year history of the Short-Term Rental (STR) program and the direction from City Council to amend the code section since the moratorium took effect on December 8, 2021. He noted the proposed code amendments are being presented to P&Z for their review and comment. Mr. Supino then reviewed the moratorium timeline, noting it is scheduled to terminate on August 8, 2022. He displayed the six STR best practice related topics reviewed with Council including zoning, permitting, life safety, financials, operational standards, and enforcement. Staff analyzed the City’s program with those of other communities. He stated Council’s primary objectives were to support the existing bed base with some STR activity, to protect and enhance local neighborhood character, and to mitigate the costs of STRs on the community. He further described the types of costs. Ms. Rockhill stated she has a hard time understanding the statement that STRs bringing more people and creating more emissions when if the homes were occupied by homeowners, they would be creating emissions as well. She feels the trips taken by the STR people are in lieu of those that would be taken by homeowners. Mr. Supino stated from an emissions standpoint, the building is there in both instances. He added if it’s vacant, there are lower emissions and in terms of visitors, they have a carbon profile which have emissions associated with their activities during their visit. He stated their analysis shows approximately 3,000 bedrooms have been added to the lodging inventory over the last decade through STRs and those bedrooms are occupied approximately 37% of the time. He stated the presence of these additional bedrooms has added to the emissions profile of the community. Ms. Rockhill stated she doesn’t necessarily agree. She added STRs have always existed in Aspen, not just the past decade and have only been studied in past couple of years. She asked about the impacts to local employment and local businesses. Mr. Supino stated they do not have the analysis breaking out STRs from the larger lodging sector. He added having regulations will allow for the collection of data to future analysis. He stated proposed modifications would not reduce the number of STRs initially. It would freeze the number and allow for a 25% reduction over time recognizing the economic importance of STRs. Ms. Rockhill stated then any new economic activity will be in the hotels and driving more to the commercial direction and not spreading it across different platforms in town. She feels in regards to reducing emissions, there is a lax regulations for hotels in her experience. She noted lights, TVs and fireplaces are on all day and she feels it would be easier for the city to address this. Mr. Supino then discussed how they have proceeded with the process of identifying potential changes to the code including a technical advisory committee including 12 individuals from the STR and lodging industry, tourist economy and interested residents. Staff and the committee developed a case study by analyzing 10 destination communities in the intermountain west to see how they have addressed STRs in the past 5-7 years. He stated they also worked with industry consulting experts as well to engaged with the public. He then reviewed the code sections outlining the standards P&Z should follow with their review and recommendation to Council regarding the proposed changes Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2022 Page 6 of 7 Ms. Hart then walked through some of the details of proposed ordinance based on the review of best practices from other communities. She stated the ordinances includes regulations regarding greater accountability, impact mitigation, lodging support, neighborhood character and data collection. Next, she reviewed the types of permits included in the proposed ordinance. Ms. Benedetti asked if staff had an estimate of how many owner-occupied STRs currently exist. Ms. Hart responded the city doesn’t currently have the numbers, but they estimated to be 60% lodge- 40% individual units. They hope to gather data over the next year. Mr. McKnight asked the difference between the Owner-Occupied permit type and the STR Classic permit type is that the STR Classic is capped. Ms. Hart confirmed this. Ms. Rockhill asked if there will continue to be 1,300 permits, but there will actually be more because the owner-occupied permits will no be included in the 1,300 cap. Ms. Hart replied this was a possibility. Mr. Supino clarified if you are a current permit holder, you will be able to continue to get a permit until you decide to stop. Ms. Rockhill feels the STR Classic is more common than the owner-occupied STR permit and asked how each type would pay fees. Mr. Supino stated the proposed fee structure includes a base fee plus an affordable housing fee based on the number of bedrooms. Ms. Hart next reviewed how zoning will impact the STR caps. There will be a cap on STRs in residential zones. There will not be caps on owner-occupied STRs, and commercial and lodge zones zoned properties. She reiterated if a residential zone currently has 100 permits it will be reduced to 75% through non-transferability and other enforcement actions resulting in a revocation of the license. Once the limit has been reached, a wait list will be managed. Ms. Rockhill asked if there would be a requirement for applicants to work with a local realtor or management service. Ms. Hart replied the owner may designate someone as a qualified owner’s representative. Mr. Hart then reviewed the occupancy and operations requirements. Ms. Benedetti noted those travelling with children may need the +2 instead of the +1. Ms. Hart next reviewed the good neighbor policies possibly including a guide in every unit and added that ACRA has drafted a guideline. Ms. Benedetti feels an email sent out when a short-term rental has been reserved are very helpful to provide information. Mr. Supino asked Ms. Rockhill if there was an opportunity on the broker side to provide this type of information. She responded they provide a welcome letter, meet the people at check-in to go over essential information. They also have books with recommendations for food and activity. She noted she has heard of some management companies renting out Aspen properties and the company has never been to Aspen. She feels having a local representative is important to success. Ms. Hart then discussed the proposed active enforcement process including a 3 strike rule, inspections, complaint process and a use it or loose it policy. Mr. McKnight asked what counts as a strike. Mr. Supino stated there not be any anonymous complaints allowed and a staff member will be assigned to monitor the situation to determine if it is a civil complaint or a violation of the STR regulations. Ms. Hart added there will also be an appeal process. Mr. McKnight doesn’t’ want to see the city primarily using the 3 strike rule to reduce the number of permits. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 17, 2022 Page 7 of 7 Mr. Supino then reviewed taxes and fees noting Council was very interested in having fees and tax question to the electorate. He then discussed the regulatory and a per bedroom affordable housing fees and the excise and sales tax which would happen as a property is purchased. Ms. Rockhill feels tying affordable housing to STRs is a bit of a mismatch and more appropriate for a climate fee which would be creating a greater impact. Mr. Supino believes the tax question may help address the climate, transit and pedestrian, policing, and affordable housing impacts. Ms. Hart stated it will take more employees to travel and service individual STRs versus a traditional hotel. As the number of STRs increase in the residential district, it may be taking away long-term rentals, so it decreases supply as the demand increases. She noted Breckenridge has an interesting report supporting their affordable housing fee and the city will produce a similar report. Ms. Rockhill asked if it would be possible to pull in climate policies for the larger exempt STR permits. She provided examples of restricting plastic bottles and encourage composting. Mr. McKnight would like to see a big effort from the city regarding the education part of it. Ms. Hart stated APCHA suggested if they show they agreed to the policies they could receive a free water bottle from a participating organization. Ms. Rockhill asked if the definition of a STR being less than 30 days. Mr. Supino confirmed this based on local, state and federal statutes. Ms. Rockhill asked staff which city was found to execute their 3 strike policy the best. Mr. Supino replied every community has different needs based on the local conditions. Ms. Hart felt Durango, Crested Butte and Glenwood Springs are doing a really great job of implementing their STR policy. She feels Aspen is similar to Breckenridge base on the sheer number of units to be reduced. Ms. McGovern asked what staff wanted from the commission at this point. Mr. Supino stated P&Z could make a motion to support or not support the ordinance. P&Z could add conditions to the recommendation. He stated the commission could also decide to not make a recommendation. They will include a summary of this discussion in their upcoming presentation to Council. Ms. Benedetti motioned to support the approval of Ordinance No. 9; Series 2022 as presented. Ms. Rockhill asked to amend the ordinance to include some accountability regarding the climate for Lodge Exempt STR permitees. After discussion between Ms. McGovern and Ms. Rockhill, Ms. Benedetti amended her motion to include adding something to draw attention to the good neighbor education campaign and including accountability regarding the climate. Mr. McKnight seconded the motion. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call for Resolution #10, Series 2022: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of four (4) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. ADJOURN Mr. McKnight motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. Benedetti. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned. Cindy Klob, Records Manager