Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20160419Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning April 19, 2016 1 Both Mr. Goode, Chair, and Mr. Mesirow, Vice-Chair were not in attendance so Ms. Tygre chaired the meeting. Ms. Tygre called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Ryan Walterscheid, Jason Elliott, Brian McNellis and Jasmine Tygre. Keith Goode, Skippy Mesirow, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jesse Morris, and Spencer McNight were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jessica Garrow and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES – March 15, 2016 Mr. Elliott motioned to table the review of the draft minutes to the next meeting and was seconded by Mr. McNellis. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. OTHER BUSINESS AACP/Land Use Code Revisions Update Ms. Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director, and Mr. Justin Barker, Senior Planner, were present to provide an update to P&Z regarding recent code revision activity. Staff met with Council last week for an initial check in and wanted to do the same with P&Z as they prepare to start work on a number of code amendments related to the moratorium and Council’s top ten goal to integrate the AACP with the land use code. Staff would like to review code amendment topics, areas covered by the moratorium, overviews and key points as well as the specifics of free market residential uses and parking. Ms. Garrow proceeded with an overall description of code amendment topics. She noted a consultant will be assisting with the overall coordination of all the code amendments as well as assisting with housing mitigation. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning April 19, 2016 2 Council has raised the question if an older building built prior to housing mitigation (Example: 1880) came in for a redevelopment, can the City require mitigation for the commercial space at the time it was built. The City Attorney has been examining this question and Staff is looking for additional expertise. Depending the results of the examination, there may be code amendments related to growth management. In regards to commercial mix, Staff is looking into the uses allowed in the downtown areas and how the City could encourage vitality, particularly in the commercial sector. Another topic is to determine where free market residential should be allowed and under what circumstances should they be allowed with commercial. And finally, Staff also wants to look at off street parking and mobility and commercial design standards including public amenity spaces and view planes as they interact with zoning and commercial design standards. Ms. Garrow then displayed a map depicting the moratorium area (p 26 of the agenda packet) and noted it includes property zoned as Commercial (C-1), Commercial Core (CC), Mixed Use (MU), Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI). There is a pocket of SCI out by the ABC which is the City owned BMC West parcel. The building previously known as Poppies by the entrance of the city is zoned MU as well. Ms. Garrow then discussed the overall schedule as included in the packet. The goal is to have code amendments adopted by the end of the 2016. The moratorium lasts until the end of January 2017, but Council wants to move forward as quickly as possible. Staff is hoping to do a lot of public outreach with the City’s boards and commissions and the community this spring and summer and then initiating code amendments in the fall. Ms. Garrow stated a schedule has been set to meet with Council fairly often with the initial meeting that occurred last week. Staff provided a general overview and requested direction on the free market residential uses. Ms. Garrow added that Staff had met with Council on the previous day to begin discussions on off street parking. In May, Staff plans to initiate discussions on commercial mix and commercial design standards. Ms. Garrow noted P&Z had previously requested to use regular meetings for checking in on progress which Staff will do to the extent possible to allow for P&Z to be able to provide timely input for all the code amendments. She warned the agenda schedule is getting pretty packed and they may have some requests moving forward for special meetings or small group meetings with other community members. Ms. Garrow noted they have a draft online content plan and it goes hand in hand with the public outreach in terms of intercept interviews, small and large group meetings. She added there will be engagement opportunities both online and in person. She then demonstrated how feedback can be collected on topics via Open City Hall accessed via cityofaspen.com. The topic currently available is on use mix which she demonstrated how responses can be collected. She noted the survey includes some questions asked in the past so Staff can see how the current feedback tracks to feedback previously collected through the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) process as well as some of the down-zonings that have occurred in the core. She encouraged P&Z to take the survey and let others know it is available. Ms. Garrow then asked P&Z if they have any questions about the draft schedule and initial public outreach being conducted. Specific to the commercial design standards, Ms. Garrow also asked if any of the P&Z members would be interested in participating in dedicated small groups meeting throughout the process. The groups will Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning April 19, 2016 3 be comprised of participants from P&Z, HPC, City Council, design community and the general community. Staff is hoping three to four P&Z members will commit to participating in this part of the process. She added this part will be a bit more in depth work and will be occurring throughout the summer and anticipates coordinating schedules once they have a list of those who are interested in participating. The small group meetings will be in addition to the sessions to be held with P&Z and HPC throughout the process. Mr. Walterscheid, Ms. Tygre, Mr. McNellis and Mr. Elliott stated they would be interested in participating. Ms. Garrow asked if there were any questions regarding the overall schedule. Ms. Tygre asked if by putting parking ahead of the other solutions to traffic and circulation seems to be backward. Ms. Garrow responded at the end of the day, all the code amendments in process including any changes to use mix, floor area, height, commercial design and parking will happen simultaneously. This is part of the reason why a consultant will be hired to assist with the overall effort to ensure the amendments between each other are consistent. Staff is aware amendments in one area may impact other areas. Staff is also coordinating the off street parking effort with the transportation, engineering and parking departments to ensure the changes contemplated for off street parking work with the contemplated on street parking program. All the programmatic changes being considered this summer by the parking department need to feed into the work the consultant will be doing. Ms. Garrow feels it is timely to begin looking at the off street parking requirements because of all the changes the parking department has been considering and testing this summer. Next, Staff wanted to look at free market residential uses and then parking. Mr. Barker stated Staff met with Council the previous week to discuss the free market residential uses located within commercial zone districts. Historically, the 2004 infill regulations allowed free market residential uses within the commercial zone districts as a way to reinvigorate a deteriorating commercial base. It worked for bit, but Staff has noticed issues over time related to potential conflicts with affordable housing units as well as some very obvious situations of vacant commercial space in the same building as the free market residential units. There is concern this situation will happen in more locations throughout the city. In 2012, the free market residential use was banned within the CC and C-1 zone districts. In 2015, the ban was amended to legalize the existing free market units allowing them to make modifications without triggering a nonconforming situation. As it stands today, the free market use remains available in the NC, SCI, and MU zones. Ms. Tygre asked if the use is allowed by right or conditional uses. Mr. Barker responded it was a conditional use within the SCI zone and allowed by right in the other zones. Ms. Garrow thought the SCI allowable use requires a certain percentage of other uses in order to be able to have the free market uses. After the use was banned in the CC and C-1, several free market projects were submitted within the other zone districts, causing Staff to be concerned the same situations may occur in those zones. Staff has begun to look into options to address this potential issue. There are five options Staff has identified so far: 1) Prohibit the use in all commercial zones 2) Allow the use some of the zoned districts, but not all – mixed use may allow for it since it is in line with the historic pattern of the live/work building concept 3) Allow the use on same property, but not in same building and require a physical separation Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning April 19, 2016 4 4) Allow for micro units typically around 200-300 sf 5) Require occupancy restrictions on units similar to the resident occupied (RO) deed restriction on the affordable housing properties Staff’s suggestion to Council was to look at a blend of options one, two and three. Banning the free market residential use in the NC and SCI zone districts clearly prioritizes these districts for commercial uses but then allows the use in the MU zone district with clear physical separation. Council supported the idea of banning free market residential use in the NC and SCI districts as well as looking into some options for the physical requirements the minimum dimensions required. The third option supported by Council was to explore identifying size limitations for micro units including caps and occupancy requirements only within the MU zone district. Mr. Barker asked P&Z if they wanted Staff to pursue any of the original five options and does P&Z have any additional ideas about how to limit free market residential units within the three described zone districts. Mr. Elliott asked what purpose the physical partition plays associated with option three. Ms. Garrow stated the concern has been when there is one or two residential units and the owner is wealthy enough to say they don’t want any loud business below and choose to leave the commercial space vacant. The thought was if there was a physical separation, it is not as likely the same person would purchase both buildings. She added there was skepticism from Council that it would actually play out to have two owners, one for the residence and one for the commercial. Council feels it is so appealing to buy any residential unit in Aspen no matter the zoning constraints, someone will still buy the property and leave the commercial space empty. The P&Z members agreed with Council’s thoughts. Mr. McNellis asked for additional specific examples where commercial space has been left empty. Ms. Garrow identified the following:  Mother Lode Building – Until the Aspen Times went into the building, it was vacant for a really long time. Ms. Quinn noted the basement space in the building is still only used by the owners.  Aspen Core Building – The commercial space is currently vacant and they are trying to finish the residential spaces. There has not been a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) issued yet and there is some potential concern going forward.  Muse Building next to the Art Museum – The commercial space only serves as a pop up gallery for now. It is not a completed finished commercial space with a permitted tenant. Mr. Walterscheid noted the three examples are all owned by Garfield and Hecht and they are about to relocate their office so he sees a bit of playing out in that situation. But in other locations in town, once the shell is done, then the space is typically advertised and he feels it is a situation when the building is about to receive a CO and he assumes the owner would want to lease the space. However, he agrees there are billionaires who will do what Staff is concerned about happening. He noted in the La Cocina building there was a Home Owners Association (HOA) and an ownership group who sold something they should not have sold. Mr. Walterscheid is curious if it is possible to look at different egress path options. The community plan discusses mixing and mingling locals with visitors whether it is deed restricted locals vs. billionaire locals. The idea of having two buildings physically separated may be challenging to meet the code on some lots in town. Perhaps the building code could be looked into to see if there are alternatives to physical separation. Ms. Garrow responded Staff was looking at more detached buildings instead of the larger ones. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning April 19, 2016 5 Mr. Walterscheid would be hesitant to push the micro units because he feels 200-300 sf is smaller than a typical hotel room and creates a condominiumization feel. In some of the MU lots where there may be two to three historic lots combined, Mr. Walterscheid could see where there could be a split of buildings. Ms. Garrow acknowledged it would be difficult to get separate structures on a 3,000 sf lot. Mr. Walterscheid believes it would probably end up with a front and back building and then there would access concerns with the rear building. Mr. McNellis asked what would prevent a billionaire from sweeping up a bunch of micro units. Ms. Garrow noted that as an issue discussed with Council who asked for pros and cons. She noted one potential problem is one person creates 10 different LLCs and buys 10 micro units and then uses them as one unit. If this concept is pursued, she feels it need to be in conjunction with a discussion with the City Attorney regarding ownership restrictions to be put in place. Ms. Tygre feels there is the potential of having the same problem with micro unit owners that the City has with other Free Market owners and once they form an HOA, the City may have a lot of problems. She is not certain micro units would be beneficial because she does not feel they are livable. Ms. Garrow noted if you look at other places they have been developed micro units such as Seattle and New York, they were pursued as a way to encourage affordability, but a 200 sf unit is selling for $400,000. Mr. Walterscheid would rather see option five further investigated and is not sure why it’s not being pushed. If there could be a series of RO’s available through the affordable housing office. To that point, he noted you could have a billionaire buy a building and claim he lives and works in Aspen. Ms. Garrow asked if there was interest in exploring the RO deed restriction or similar option. Ms. Tygre has interest and feels there is a way to amend the regulations to include a billionaire asset cap. Mr. Walterscheid asked what position the Aspen / Pitkin County Affordable Housing Authority (APCHA) has on this subject. Ms. Garrow answered they are in conversations with them about it. Ms. Garrow noted APCHA is seeing an interesting issue she feels P&Z will start seeing as well in the upcoming cases. There are policies within the AACP which stating there should be affordable housing downtown, an integrated community, and limits on Burlingame-type developments. Then there is a very real lending issue where lenders do not want to lend to single affordable housing unit in a MU building downtown. APCHA is starting to struggle with the ideal of having people live downtown and resolving the issues to make it happen. Mr. Elliott asked why the lenders are reluctant to lend in these situations. Mr. Walterscheid replied he personally experiences one of these situations where he lives in the Ritz Carleton building including commercial and condo units. There are timeshares and because more than 80% of the building is fractional ownership, he is lumped in with the fractional owners and he is unable to get a traditional loan. He stated there are similar circumstances when lumped in with commercial. Ms. Garrow stated it is not as much of an issue if it is a rental unit because in theory, the commercial entity is the owner. Ms. Tygre asked how APCHA feels about deed restricted rental housing as part of MU projects. Ms. Garrow replied P&Z will start seeing this and APCHA’s recommendation will be to use credits or if on site, the unit should be a rental. Mr. McNellis feels this comes from in-fill policy to create vitality and believes investing in the local workforce is the way to go. Ms. Tygre noted historically the Brand building, although never deed restricted, provided employee housing on the second floor. Sardy’s and the old Cantina also provided rental units at one time and were never deed restricted. Ms. Garrow stated this is how Aspen came to Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning April 19, 2016 6 have its multi-family replacement requirements. In the late 80’s those units were converted to commercial uses or to true free market residential units no local could ever afford. Mr. Walterscheid stated he would be supportive to RO restrictions. Mr. Walterscheid is curious if there are other legal ways to address noise. Ms. Garrow thought perhaps there is something to be done through the building code requiring constructions methods to address noise. Mr. Walterscheid stated developers are also required to build to a sound transmission rating. Mr. McNellis thought limiting the type of commercial uses may help. Mr. Walterscheid added there are loopholes for businesses to conduct businesses that may not be desirable. Ms. Garrow asked Mr. McNellis if he wanted to see free market in the MU? Mr. McNellis has always been on board with it and feels there should be expectations if you purchase downtown. He also feels vitality is important. Mr. Walterscheid noted Obermeyer is SCI and a significant portion was deed restricted. Ms. Tygre stated residential use is not the same as free market residential use. She is hearing restricted residential use and Mr. Walterscheid feels as you head out on Main St, he is not opposed to have free market housing even if it pushes out the commercial. Ms. Garrow asked the others if they would they be acceptable of this use pattern to allow free market residential along Main St and losing commercial businesses. Ms. Tygre would hate to see the Main St offices disappear and she doesn’t feel living on Main St is all that desirable. Mr. McNellis agreed. Mr. Elliott asked if this was trending now or just a concern. Ms. Garrow stated it is a concern for now, but there is one development in progress at the old orthopedics’ office where residential is being added. There is a concern as it goes through permitting if the commercial spaces will really be used. This is the first project along Main St where residential is being added. Mr. Elliott asked if there was a way to address it in the tax codes for commercial space that is not being rented. Ms. Quinn responded it is governed by State and any changes would be under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR). Mr. McNellis noted he would desire housing be made available that did not require transportation systems to be built to support them, such as Burlingame. Mr. Walterscheid pointed out there are still a few residences along Main St. A lot of what you see are older historic homes that have been converted to commercial space. He asked if something has been used commercially for the past years, should it be required to maintain at least a portion of the use. In regards to affordable housing, Mr. Walterscheid stated he has been approached by people with credits asking how it works and feels there are multiple projects on Main St. looking at their opportunities. Mr. Barker noted the code does distinguish between affordable housing and free market as two different uses. The idea is that affordable housing would still be a continued allowed use throughout these zone districts. This may be an opportunity with the occupancy restrictions to evaluate how it works and if there is a middle ground option. Mr. Walterscheid agreed with Mr. McNellis regarding pushing affordable housing out to the ABC by the City or other owners. He doesn’t feel it helps the long term goals for the community. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning April 19, 2016 7 Ms. Tygre stated just as residential uses have pushed commercial uses out from the downtown core, this could also happen along Main St. Where will the businesses along Main St. go if they already can’t afford to be in the core? She thinks this will also add to the sprawl. Ms. Garrow stated Staff needs to continue their work with APCHA to look at the RO restriction idea including what it is and how it could work. She also feels they should have a follow-up conversation with Council regarding the micro units to gauge their interest. Part of the study is looking at aligning the parking code with the AACP in terms of decreasing reliance on the automobile with alternate modes and incorporating it with the TIA. The consultants have identified three ideas related to shared parking: 1) Regulate Private Parking – The Parking Department manages the on street parking in regards to the supply and what is charged for the spaces. This option would handle the requirements a little different than how it is currently handled including lowering the minimum parking requirements and creating maximum parking requirements. For example, based on the current code, the Sky Hotel’s requirement was approximately 45 spaces, but they built almost 70 spaces as part of their negotiation with the neighbors. 2) Private Shared Parking - Between businesses and lots by working with private property owners to share their parking. Mr. Elliott asked how the shared parking would work. Ms. Garrow explained it would utilize individual development agreements and would be a lot of work to get private property owners on board. For instance, the St. Regis has 100 parking spaces and they have indicated most of the time they are 70-75% vacant, but their development agreement requires it to be used for lodge guests. So it would be discussion for the City to allow share the parking with a new lodge possibly to rent from the St. Regis. 3) Public Shared Parking - Between businesses and lots between businesses and the City’s parking garage. Council indicated they are very interested in looking into this option further. Instead of development providing all of its parking onsite, some may be provided and then a fee-in-lieu given to the City who in turn builds a garage or uses it for programs to manage existing parking. Ms. Tygre asked if the City doesn’t already have something like this option. Ms. Garrow stated yes and no. Right now if you pay cash-in-lieu payment, it goes into a parking fund in the amount of $35,000 per space. Most likely, the per space amount is very low. A higher fee to truly reflect the impact parking has on the community and ensure the City could pay for some of its alternative transportation programs as well as maintenance on the existing garage or a new garage. Mr. Walterscheid asked if a new garage has been discussed at which Ms. Garrow answered no and reiterated they currently in the conceptual stage. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the City has asked the St. Regis about taking their available spaces. Ms. Garrow stated the City can’t do that because of the development agreement but there has been interest by the Parking Department to look at under-utilization, primarily at the hotels. The consultants hired are working closely with the Parking Department to identify some of the locations where the City could work with the owners to enable shared parking. Mr. Elliott asked if agreements were to be made with the private shared parking, would need to be permanent from an economic sense. Ms. Garrow agreed it would have to be built in going forward. Mr. Walterscheid asked if built into the development order going forward, then it would essentially be a condominiumized parking plan. Ms. Garrow answered it would be unbundling it from the development Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning April 19, 2016 8 to say it was available under certain circumstances to be tied to another specific downtown development. Mr. McNellis sees parking as a crux issue for the City going forward. He mentioned an application he worked on years ago for a proposed high tech parking garage in town. He wondered if providing parking perpetuates the reliance on the automobile. He asked if the City would consider this type of project and Ms. Garrow replied perhaps. Mr. Walterscheid feels there are two very different types of people in town; those who don’t want any cars in town and those who recognize there is some portion of the population does not live close enough. He feels the City should accommodate convenient parking solutions. There are times when you need a car and he does not feel Aspen is a European village built in a condensed fashion to support the pedestrian experience. Aspen’s gridded streets are based on cars. The business owners who are experiencing the parking challenges and also contributing to the tax base should have a vocal voice how this interacts and he sees a need for a balance. Ms. Tygre is bothered that Council’s answer is to eliminate parking. Mr. Walterscheid feels it comes down to convenience. He thinks the electric vehicle option recently discussed along with the We-Cycle program and other methods are promising. The other members agreed the alternatives must be convenient. Mr. Elliott remarked he has been here for 16 years and is still unable to identify the town shuttles and where they stop. The options must be obvious and convenient. Others agreed with his statement. Ms. Garrow asked if P&Z has any specific desired outcomes in changes to off street parking. Ms. Tygre feels it is premature at this time. Mr. Elliott stated he does like the idea of several hotels using one space for their parking. This is a type of business that will always need parking. Mr. Walterscheid noted nothing is required downtown so far and it needs to be ironed out. The needs to be more consistency with the requirements. Ms. Garrow stated the parking consultants will be back in June and Staff will let P&Z know what community outreach opportunities will be available. Staff has another follow-up with Council next week to discuss the free market residential piece and to convey P&Z’s thoughts. They will also get into the history of zoning which she mentioned it is in the packet and asked if there was any interest in a formal presentation at which they feel is interesting, but no one express interest in a presentation. Ms. Garrow added Staff will be in touch regarding the design standards. Mr. Elliott asked if it makes sense to allow employees in the City to park free in the Rio Grande Garage and leave the core parking for consumers. Mr. Walterscheid feels a lot of employees still park in the two-hour parking and feels employees will continue to park in the core because of the convenience factor. Ms. Tygre is excited to see Staff working on and moving forward planning items P&Z has wanted addressed. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning April 19, 2016 9 Mr. Walterscheid feels all sides of the table want to understand the rules and remove the gray areas. As an architect, he feels the concerns of the community and what a customer wants rarely aligns with what the code currently allows. Ms. Garrow hopes to make the code more streamlined and user friendly. ADJOURN Ms. Tygre then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager