Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20160510 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 10, 2016 4:30 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Site visit - 4:00 - 540 E. Main St. 4:30 - Land Use Code Revisions P1 5.10.16 Council Work Session Moratorium Discussion Page 1 of 5 Memorandum To: Mayor Skadron and City Council From: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Justin Barker, Senior Planner Reilly Thimons, Planner Tech Meeting Date: May 10, 2016 RE: Land Use Code Revisions – Free-Market Residential Uses REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council is asked to provide initial feedback on potential changes related to free-market residential uses in the Commercial zone districts. Staff has also included a discussion in the memo regarding the work completed to date and the current community engagement timeline. Specific questions for council are listed in bold throughout the memo. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: City Council has a top ten goal to update the Land Use Code to better reflect that Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). A copy of the 2012 AACP is available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Comdev/Long%20Range%20Planning/FINAL%20AA CP%202.27.2012_reduced.pdf. As the AACP itself says, “The purpose of the Aspen Area Community Plan is to serve as a guide for the future. It is a vision, a map and a plan of action for achieving community goals.” (Page 7) The contains nine (9) different Chapters ranging from Transportation and Environmental Sustainability to the Aspen Idea and the Lifelong Aspenite to Managing Growth and Historic Preservation, each with a Vision, Philosophy, and set of Policies. The AACP is “not intended to react to short-term conditions. Instead, it is intended to root the community in its underlying values, and keep a steady course.” (Page 7) There are many themes in the AACP that reflect the diverse community values and opinions that went in to draft it. If there is a main theme is it “to preserve and improve the elements of the Aspen Area that make it such an attractive place to live and a compelling place to visit.” Council has identified seven policy areas that should be part of the effort to better align the Land Use Code with the AACP. These are listed below along with some of the relevant sections of the AACP that would be implemented through this work: • Review of Zoning History – Understanding the history of planning and zoning in aspen helps to ground the effort and provides an opportunity to learn the lessons from the past. As the AACP states, “It is important to briefly touch upon the historica; context and underlying values that define our community.” (Page 6) P2 I. 5.10.16 Council Work Session Moratorium Discussion Page 2 of 5 • Commercial Design Standards & Public Amenity - Updates to the guidelines will implement AACP Managing Growth Policy V.3, which calls for development that “…reflects our architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and diversity of heights…” • View Planes - Updates to the viewplane regulations will implement AACP Managing Growth Policies IV.4 and V.3, which call for zoning and land use processes to result in commercial and lodging development that is “compatible and appropriate within the context of the neighborhood” and that “reflects our architectural heritage, as well as AACP Managing Growth Policy VIII.2 which call for “Creat(ing) certainty in zoning and the land use process.” • Land Uses and Commercial Mix - Work on this would implement AACP Managing Growth Policies I.4 and V.1 which state, “Identify opportunities to reduce the ‘boom-bust’ nature of the economy,” and “Encourage a commercial mix that is balanced, diverse and vital and meets the needs of year-round residents and visitors.” • Off-Street Parking and Mobility - Updates to these regulations will implement AACP Transportation Policies 1, 2, III.1, and V.1 which call for “us(ing) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) tools to accommodate additional person trips in the Aspen Area” and to “develop a strategic plan that manages the supply of parking and reduces the adverse impacts of the automobile.” • Employee Housing Mitigation for existing commercial spaces – Examination of potential amendments will implement AACP Managing Growth Policy VII which states, “Ensure that new development and redevelopment mitigates all reasonable, directly-related impacts.” On March 15, City Council adopted a temporary moratorium on new land use applications to enable open discussion about the potential code changes, including the items previously identified as well as newer concerns related to free-market residential uses. A number of consultants have been hired to assist in updating the Land Use Code. All consultants should be in place by mid-May. The topics above will all be discussed over the course of the summer, with a goal of bringing all code amendments to City Council for review in the Fall/Winter of 2016. A number of work sessions will be held with City Council to provide periodic updates and to request feedback on the work. In addition, a number of community engagement efforts will take place over the summer to enable broad community input related to aligning the Land Use Code with the AACP. Because there are a variety of topics as well as consultants assisting with the efforts, there will be some alternation between topics over the course of the summer. Staff is currently working with the consultants to coordinate efforts where possible. To date, Council has provided initial direction on free-market residential uses, begun initial discussions around off-street parking, and has seen a History of Zoning Presentation from Alan Richman with additional comments from former Aspen Community Development Directors. The May 10th work session is intended to dive a bit deeper into the discussion regarding free-market residential regulations. P3 I. 5.10.16 Council Work Session Moratorium Discussion Page 3 of 5 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Initial community engagement opportunities have begun, with the anticipation that they will ramp up in June and throughout the summer. The overarching goal is to provide extensive opportunities to engage the community online, on the street, and in traditional meetings. Engagement needs to be diverse to gain a broad spectrum of feedback, and staff is working with the consultant team to create a robust engagement platform. Currently, staff is working to transform Alan Richman’s History of Planning presentation into a short video that will be available online. This is intended to provide some general background for anyone interested in participating in the land use code updates, or anyone generally interested in Aspen’s Planning History, and should be completed by the end of May. The History of Zoning Report is attached as Exhibit A. A series of focus group sessions will begin in June, focused primarily on the built environment. Staff anticipates the kick-off for the Commercial Design work will begin at the June 20/21 work session with a series of videos about each “Character Area” currently in the Commercial Design Guidelines as well as a presentation on the background of design in Aspen and across the country. Staff is looking at opportunities to hold this meeting at an off-site location to enable more community members to be in attendance. In addition, opportunities for community members, workers, and visitors to nominate their favorite view in town, favorite building or public space, or favorite thing about Aspen will be available through social media. The Off-Street Parking consultants will be in town in late June to gather parking utilization counts and conduct intercept surveys to better understand the parking habits for different types of land uses. To kick off the discussion on use mix, online outreach has begun on Open City Hall at http://cityofaspen.com/Departments/Community-Relations/Open-City-Hall/. The discussion topic requests feedback on land use types – commercial, residential, and lodging – in the commercial zone districts. Staff will continue to add topics specific to each of the policy areas throughout the spring and summer. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 1. Does Council have any questions about community engagement at this time? FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL USES: One of the main reasons the moratorium was established was to address the impact free-market residential uses have on commercial uses in the same building. Part of the thought process behind the 2004 infill regulations was to allow free-market residential uses in the downtown area and other commercial zones in an effort to enable reinvestment in a deteriorating commercial base. In the time since infill, redevelopment projects have resulted in mixed-use buildings that include commercial space and free-market residential units in the same building. Many buildings also include affordable housing units. In some of these buildings, the owners of the free-market residential component have also been able to purchase the commercial component and sometimes have chosen to leave commercial spaces vacant or change condominium documents to not allow certain commercial uses such as restaurants, bars, or night clubs. P4 I. 5.10.16 Council Work Session Moratorium Discussion Page 4 of 5 Land use codes have changed since infill, and new free-market residential units are no longer allowed in the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) zone districts. While the issue was partially resolved in the CC and C-1 zone districts through the code changes, the demand for free-market residential units near the downtown has not gone away. Staff has become concerned that the impacts of free-market residential uses previously seen in the CC and C-1 zones will spread to the other commercial zone districts. At the April 12th work session, Council discussed this topic and gave staff the following direction: 1. Research more information regarding what “micro units” are and how they have been used in other communities. 2. Explore required physical separation of free-market / Resident-Occupied (RO) residential units from commercial spaces within the Mixed Use zone district. 3. Work with APCHA regarding deed-restricted free-market units as RO and how they might be used. 4. In general, Council supported eliminating free-market residential uses from the Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone districts, but wanted more discussion regarding the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district. P&Z FEEDBACK: Staff requested feedback on this topic from P&Z at their April 19th regular meeting. P&Z strongly supported exploring occupancy restrictions as a way to invest in the local workforce and ensure vibrancy. P&Z felt that required physical separation could be difficult to achieve on many lots and might not be a practical requirement. P&Z also expressed hesitation regarding micro units. There was a concern that these type of units could have the same issues as traditional free-market, where an owner purchases several of the units to create one larger unit. The meeting minutes from P&Z are attached as Exhibit B. COMMUNITY FEEDBACK: The topic of what uses should be allowed downtown and how those should be regulated is part of the initial questions posted on Open City Hall. The Open City Hall survey includes questions that are the same as were asked in 2012 when new Free-Market Residential Uses were initially banned in the CC and C-1 zone districts, as well as questions asked during the community outreach on the Aspen Area Community Plan. This enables tracking of how opinions have changed over the last 5- or-so years. Much of the current feedback focuses on the importance of including affordable housing in commercial zone districts, and focusing on vibrant commercial uses with the downtown area. There also appears to be a desire to provide additional regulation on free-market residential uses. Staff will have a more detailed presentation of the feedback, including how it has changed over time, at the work session. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Regarding the three items from the April 12th Council work session, staff has the following recommendations: 1. Micro Units: Given the concerns from both Council and P&Z about micro units, staff recommends not pursuing these types of units any further. Staff agrees with the concerns that a P5 I. 5.10.16 Council Work Session Moratorium Discussion Page 5 of 5 single person or entity could purchase all of the micro units in a building and illegally convert it into one larger unit. 2. Physical Separation: If free-market residential units are allowed in any of the Commercial zone districts, staff believes a physical separation requirement for free-market residential units is important. This is particularly important along Main Street where the historic development pattern includes a mix of commercial and residential uses as well as smaller more separate. Staff continues to search for case studies from other communities that may have similar regulations, and is working with the Building Department to understand potential difficulties/limitations with a separation requirements in terms of building codes. 3. Occupancy Restriction: Staff recommends moving forward with options to require an occupancy restriction for any “free-market” residential use allowed in the Commercial zone districts. From initial conversations with APCHA this could take the form of the current RO deed restriction, or may need to be a different type of deed restriction. Staff will continue to work with APCHA to refine potential options for Council. If this option is pursued, staff recommends the allowed floor area for these occupancy restricted units be different than more traditional affordable housing units. 4. Free-Market Bans: Staff recommends moving forward with code amendments that would ban free-market residential uses from the Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) and Neighborhood Commercial (NC). If Council desires to move forward with these code amendments, staff can schedule a Policy Resolution Hearing for May 23rd, followed by 1st and 2nd Readings on an Ordinance in June. Staff believes the elimination of free-market residential units is the primary issue that needs to be addressed in the NC and SCI zone districts, and that other potential code amendments regarding design standards, parking, and use mix do not necessarily require the protection of the moratorium. Additionally, lifting the moratorium in these areas enables greater focus on the downtown core and Main Street, which were the areas Council initially wanted to focus the code amendment efforts. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 2. Does Council support staff’s recommendation to not pursue micro units at this time? 3. Would Council like to move forward with code amendments to ban free-market residential uses in SCI and NC? If so, does Council wish to lift the moratorium in these areas? CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ______ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – History of Zoning Report Exhibit B – P&Z Meeting Minute, April 19, 2016 P6 I. Aspen Planning & Zoning History 1February 2016 Aspen Planning & Zoning History The Aspen Area has a long history of planning for the future – from the first growth management codes in the 1970s to the first Aspen Area Community Plan in 1993. Throughout the years the City’s land use codes have attempted to reflect and address the issues of the day. This document is not intended to list every code change and comprehensive planning effort in Aspen over the years. Instead, it provides a snapshot of community issues and sentiments through the decades, and explains how the community and elected and appointed leaders attempted to continue to move the city forward and maintain its small mountain-town character. If there is one common theme over the years, it is the commitment to preserving Aspen’s heritage and unique character. This document tracks changes through the decades: City of Aspen Community Development Department • 1960s: The Advent of Zoning - pg 2 • 1970s: Managing Growth and Development- pg 3 • 1980s: Comprehensive Planning and Refined Regulations - pg 4 • 1990s: The First Aspen Area Community Plan - pg 5 • 2000 - 2006: Infill Development - pg 6 • 2006 - Today: Downzoning and Refining Regulations - pg 8 • Appendix A: Commercial Zone Districts Dimensional History - 11 P7 I. 2 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016 1960s: The Advent of Zoning Copy of the 1966 General Plan; the first plan for the Aspen Area. The history of zoning and land use planning in Aspen dates back sixty years to 1956 when the first zoning ordinance was adopted. The ordinance, approved on July 2, 1956, established several zone districts with permitted uses and area and bulk limitations. It also adopted procedures for nonconforming uses, a method for building review, and established a Board of Adjustment and a Building Inspector. Planning during this time in Aspen, and across the country, was primarily focused on separating industrial and residential uses and addressing nuisances. Increasing growth pressures throughout the 1960s led the community to begin its first comprehensive planning efforts. In 1966, the Aspen Area General Plan was adopted. The plan was designed to accommodate growth, focusing commercial and lodging development in the downtown area as well as the base of Aspen Mountain and along Shadow Mountain, and recognizing the growth of Aspen Highlands, Buttermilk, and Little Annie as lodging and recreation centers. The General Plan was seen as “the only method by which a framework to accommodate future urban growth can be established to direct the expansion in such a manner as to retain the fine balance between man and his environment, the essence of Aspen’s character.” The General Plan included a number of policy recommendations, including: • Focus commercial and lodging growth in the Aspen townsite. • Implement transportation improvements throughout the upper valley, including updating Highway-82 with a median from Aspen to Basalt, creation of a transit system serving all ski areas, and improvements to Owl Creek and Brush Creek roads. • Create a trail system along the Roaring Fork River to connect parks and open spaces. • Build a Civic Center for the City and County on the Courthouse block. • Build a transportation center in the Wheeler Opera House, with parking garages under Wagner Park, City Hall, and near the Little Nell Lift. Following adoption of the General Plan, new land use codes were introduced to provide basic development regulation, including the first subdivision and Planned Unit Development regulations, and the creation of additional residential and commercial zone districts. P8 I. Aspen Planning & Zoning History 3February 2016 1970s: Managing Growth and Development As the 1960s came to a close, community sentiment around growth began to change from accommodating growth to managing growth. In 1970 a joint City-County Planning Office was formed, and a 1972 Task Force began examining the role development played in the community with particular concern over the public facilities needed to serve the current level of growth. The goals of the Task Force formed the basis of the 1973 Land Use Plan which was “not a zoning map which details rigid guidelines…but constitutes a general design for future land use and is a continuing step in effectively responding to the challenge of building a quality environment in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley.” The Regional Transportation Plan and the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan were also adopted in 1973. The goals of these plans included: • Maintain a growth rate substantially below that of 1960. • Focus on preserving environmental assets including historic buildings, aesthetic design, scenic views, and air and water quality. • Provide a balanced community with housing for permanent employees, neighborhood oriented development, and diverse recreational and cultural offerings. • Provide a mass transit system that prioritized pedestrian and transit over the automobile. • Develop a downtown pedestrian mall. Together, these three plans set the stage for dramatic Land Use Code changes in the 1970s that resulted in a code similar to what is in place today, including adoption of: • Environmental standards, including Stream Margin, 8040 Greenline, and Mountain View Planes. • Main Street and Commercial Core Historic Districts. • The Historic designation of 9 individual properties, including the original Lift 1 chairlift. • New review procedures, including Specially Planned Areas and Special Review. • A Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). • Open Space requirements to provide some open areas on all commercial developments. • Affordable housing mitigation requirements. During the 1970s other zoning changes were made in an effort to consolidate growth to the downtown area. New commercial and lodging zone districts were created, and lodging properties located throughout the City’s neighborhoods were downzoned. This decade also resulted in planning for and implementation of the pedestrian malls. A Growth Management System was introduced in the 1970s with the Growth Management Policy Plan (1976) and the Growth Management Quota System (1977) The Hyman Ave Pedestrian Mall, built in 1976. View of Aspen, looking west, from the 1973 Land Use Plan. P9 I. 4 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016 1980s: Comprehensive Planning and Refined Regulations The Hotel Lenado was redeveloped in the mid-1980s under the City’s first Lodge Preservation Program. The 1980s included expansions and refinements to the Land Use Code provisions that were first implemented the decade prior, as well as the advent of Comprehensive Planning. Throughout the 1980s, Land Use Plans for neighborhoods including Smuggler and Roaring Fork East were adopted, as well as Comprehensive Plan Elements ranging from Open Space to Transportation and Housing to Historic Preservation. These efforts formed the basis for many of the decade’s Land Use Code changes. The City’s first Lodge Preservation Program was implemented in 1982 to address concerns about the loss of Aspen’s bed base. This included the City’s first timeshare regulations, an effort to improve the quality of lodging accommodations, and the addition of a new Lodging zone district and rezoning of nearly 30 small lodges located throughout Aspen’s neighborhoods to reverse the downzonings that occurred in the 1970s. A number of substantive changes were made throughout the 1980s to the City’s Growth Management Quota System. This included expanding the applicability of the City’s Growth Management Quota System to all commercial zone districts, increasing lodging allotments, revising the GMQS scoring requirements, adding a cash-in-lieu mitigation option, and increasing employee housing mitigation requirements. In 1988, the City adopted the Multi- Family Replacement Program, which required affordable housing mitigation for any free-market multi-family housing unit that was demolished, redeveloped, or combined. This program is still in place and serves to provide continued housing options when existing residential units are demolished, combined, or converted. Following the adoption of the Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan Element in 1986, the City made significant updates to the City’s historic preservation regulations. Stricter demolition and relocation standards and the first Historic District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines were adopted to ensure greater purview over Historic Landmarks and properties within the Historic Districts. New incentives for designations on residential properties were adopted, including allowed variations to setback and floor area requirements, a grant program, allowing bed and breakfasts and boarding houses as a conditional use on historic properties, and allowing a duplex or two detached single-family homes on a historic lot where only one single-family home was previously allowed. In terms of dimensional regulations, the first residential floor area regulations were adopted in 1982, and then reduced for the R-6 zone district in 1987. Given the many policy changes in the 1980s, the City adopted a reorganization and recodification of the Land Use Code in 1988. Multiple Comprehensive Plan Elements were adopted in the 1980s, including the Parks / Recreation / Open Space / Trails Element P10 I. Aspen Planning & Zoning History 5February 2016 1990s: The First Aspen Area Community Plan Building on the comprehensive planning efforts of the 1980s, the 1990s began with the creation of the first Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Adopted in 1993, the plan pulled all of the comprehensive planning elements into one document. It focused on the need to maintain a “critical mass” of local residents, defined in the plan as 60% of the workforce, to sustain a sense of place and community. The plan identified a peak population of 30,000 residents and visitors and called for a 2% limit on annual growth. The 1993 AACP recognized the importance of Aspen’s “messy vitality” and strove to “avoid an environment that is too structured, too perfect, and that eliminated the funkiness that once characterized this town.” Following adoption of the 1993 AACP, a number of major code amendments were adopted related to design and growth management. The GMQS scoring system was amended to reflect goals in the AACP, the allowed growth quotas were reduced to reflect the prescribed 2% growth rate, and new growth ceilings were adopted. During this time, the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit program was created, and new regulations requiring 60% of new residential developments be developed as affordable housing were adopted. In terms of design review, the City adopted the first Residential Design Guidelines, and adopted the Downtown Enhancement and Pedestrian Plan (DEPP) which resulted in street and sidewalk improvements throughout downtown. During this time, changes to the historic preservation rules required design review of all structures on the City’s inventory. During the 1980s and 1990s there was a comprehensive approach to protecting historically significant buildings and sites, with more than 200 individual properties historically designated. On the environmental side, the City updated the Stream Margin standards and added a review for all properties along Hallam Lake. These new regulations were intended to provide greater protections for critical riparian areas and habitats. A major goal of the 1993 AACP was to limit trips over the Castle Creek Bridge to 1993 levels. The City has continued to meet this goal every year since 1993. The cover of the first Aspen Area Community Plan, adopted in 1993. P11 I. 6 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016 2000 - 2006: Infill Development As the 1990s came to a close, the community began an update to the Aspen Area Community Plan. Adopted in 2000, the updated AACP called for a renewed focus on a healthy, vibrant, and diverse economy that supports the community. The Plan also called for managing growth in a way that provided a “critical mass” of people living and working in Aspen. It called for encouraging more density in the City and for preserving important open spaces in the County. The Plan included 100 Action Items, many of which related to “infill development.” In general terms, “infill” refers to focusing growth and development into existing downtown areas that can take advantage of existing infrastructure, while discouraging suburban-style sprawling development. One of the top implementation Action Items was to establish an Infill Advisory Group to examine the trend of decreasing vibrancy and vitality in the downtown. Established by City Council in June 2000, the group met for 18 months crafting a “comprehensive strategy that aims to restore a sense of vitality to city neighborhoods.” The group’s work coincided with the economic downturn of 2001 and culminated in the Infill Report, which built on the 2000 AACP and outlined the goals and strategies of an Infill Program. The group reviewed the history of planning in Aspen, and found that at the time “the City requires more from a developer than can physically be provided on most properties.” There was also a trend of converting commercial spaces, lodges, and multi- family homes in the downtown area to large second homes. The group was concerned about these trends and the resulting decrease in pedestrian vitality, and proposed a set of Land Use Code Amendments intended to combat them. A set of “infill code amendments” were approved between 2003 – 2005. These codes amended allowable floor area, height, setbacks, and uses in many of the city’s zone districts, as well as amended parking requirements, affordable housing requirements, and on-site open space requirements. Specifically, they: • Eliminated the ability to build a single-family or duplex home in the Commercial Core and C-1 Zone Districts (unless the C-1 property was a historic landmark), and focused instead on building commercial, lodging, and multi-family residential uses. • Reduced the allowed multi-family residential floor area to approximately a third of what was previously allowed. • Increased the required affordable housing mitigation. • Created the City’s first Commercial Design Standards. The criteria included basic design principles, including building relationship to the street, street-level building elements, parking, and pedestrian improvements. • Updated “open space” requirements to “pedestrian amenity” standards that required at-grade pedestrian amenity spaces and eliminated the ability to build a sunken moat-like space along the sidewalk. The second AACP, approved in 2000, focused on reducing sprawl and encouraging infill development. The building at 517 E Hopkins, originally built in 1983, features a sunken “open space” that was no longer allowed following the infill code changes. P12 I. Aspen Planning & Zoning History 7February 2016 • Overhauled parking requirements to meet AACP goals of reducing traffic in town, reducing trips over the Castle Creek Bridge, and encouraging alternative modes of transportation. The changes allowed cash-in-lieu by right for all properties located south of the Roaring Fork River and east of Castle Creek (referred to as the Infill Area). The changes also allowed cash-in-lieu monies to be used for mobility enhancements such as car-to-go and in-town transit, rather than just parking. All commercial and lodging parking requirements were reduced by between .5 and 3 spaces depending on location and use, while parking requirements for lodging and multi-family residential uses in the CC and C-1 zones were eliminated. • Changed the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) to increase the number of available growth allotments for commercial, lodging, and free-market residential uses, and replace a scoring system to objective criteria. • Increased the allowable heights and floor area in commercial and lodging zone districts. Appendix A to this report includes a table of all dimensional changes from the pre “infill codes” through today. • Adoption of a maximum residential unit size cap in the downtown. The Historic TDR Program was established in 2003. The program allowed a property that is designated Historic to sever development rights through the creation of a Transferable Development Right (TDR) and send those development rights to another non-historic property in the city. The code amendment specified that each TDR is worth 250 square feet of floor area, and could be landed in most residential zone districts. One TDR is permitted per dwelling unit. Other code changes during this period included an update to the timeshare regulations to ensure new timeshare developments are available for short-term accommodations, and the creation of the COWOP process to provide for greater community involvements in major development projects. COWOP reviews were conducted for the Obermeyer redevelopment, the Fire Station, and the Lift One area. Following the economic downturn of 2001, Aspen’s economy significantly rebounded and the community began seeing more development in the downtown than had existed in many years. These new development pressures prompted the City Council to adopt a Land Use Moratorium in April 2006, which lasted through the summer of 2007. An illustration from the Obermeyer Place COWOP process, one of the first redevelopment projects to be reviewed under the regulations. The property at 430 W Main is historically designated and has severed development rights through the City’s TDR Program. P13 I. 8 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016 A number of major code changes were adopted during the first half of 2007, rolling back many of the dimensional changes of the “infill codes.” These changes were made during the 2006 - 2007 moratorium and included: • Reduction of allowed heights and floor areas in all commercial and lodging zone districts. Appendix A to this report includes a table of all dimensional changes from the pre “infill codes” through today. • Adoption of the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. This document, coupled with changes to the Commercial Design Standards provided significantly more regulatory oversight of building design and site planning. The document divides the City into character areas, each with a specific set of Conceptual and Final Design Guidelines. • Expansion of the Historic TDR program, allowing a TDR to be used to increase a free-market residential unit by no more than 500 square feet above the set zone district cap. During this period City Council approved a number of historic preservation related Ordinances in an effort to preserve buildings and interiors that were important to Aspen’s history. In December 2006 an emergency moratorium was approved which halted all building permits in the Commercial Core and was intended to preserve the character-defining interior spaces of Aspen’s historic buildings. No interior preservation program was ultimately adopted, but the moratorium did result in the interior preservation of the Red Onion. Until this time, the primary focus of the City’s historic preservation program was on Victorian-era buildings. By the mid-2000s, however, it became clear that important parts of Aspen’s post- war history were being lost through demolition. In July 2007, City Council placed temporary protections on post-war properties that might be worthy of preservation. A Historic Preservation Task Force was convened in 2008 and met for 18-months crafting recommendations on changes to the City’s historic preservation program. In 2010 the City reorganized and updated the historic preservation regulations. The program was divided into Aspen Victorian, focused on Aspen’s 19th century Victorian and mining-era history, and AspenModern, focused on Aspen’s 20th century post-war era history. Both programs include a set of benefits and incentives for designated properties. Aspen Victorian allows for involuntary designations, while AspenModern requires owner consent for a designation. Following the Task Force recommendations, the AspenModern designation process allows for a negotiation between the City and property owner to ensure appropriate incentives and requirements are placed on the property. To date, there are 254 Victorian era landmarks and 36 AspenModern era landmarks. 2006 - Today: Downzoning and Refining Regulations Commonly known as the Crandall Building, the building at 630 E Hyman is an AspenModern designated building built in 1969 and designed by local architect Tom Benton. The cover of the City’s Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines, adopted in 2007. P14 I. Aspen Planning & Zoning History 9February 2016 During this period, in 2010, the City adopted what is believed to be the country’s first Affordable Housing Credit Program. Functioning much like the Historic TDR Program, the Housing Credits program allows developers of affordable housing to get a “Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit” equal to the number of employees housed by their development, which they can sell to other developers to satisfy housing mitigation requirements. To date, nearly 50 full-time equivalent employees have been housed through this program. The second half of 2007 was the beginning of the “Great Recession” which lasted through June 2009 and significantly decreased the amount of development occurring throughout Aspen and the country as a whole. This laid the backdrop for the latest update to the Aspen Area Community Plan. Adopted in 2012, the current AACP seeks “to guide future development so that it contributes to the long-term sustainability of a vibrant and diverse tourism economy and a strong year-round community.” The plan reaffirms many of the community’s long-held beliefs – protect natural ecosystems and scenic settings, provide for a critical mass of year- round residents, improve and link alternative transportation modes, maintain Aspen’s small-town community character – and recognizes that these beliefs “root the community in its underlying values, and keep a steady course” regardless of economic or environmental fluctuations. Following the adoption of the 2012 AACP, the City embarked on a number of significant code changes, including: • Amendments to the downtown zone districts (CC and C-1 zones) to reduce the scale of development. This included reducing building heights on the south side of the street from 40 feet to 28 feet, and reducing building heights on the north side of the street from 40 feet to 28 feet unless it was a lodge project. In an effort to protect Aspen’s vibrant commercial mix, the amendments also eliminated the ability to build any new free-market residential units downtown. • An update to the employee mitigation figures for all commercial and lodging development and eliminated the “double dip” provision of the code that allowed a developer to only mitigate for one of their requirements. Now a developer must mitigate for every portion of their new development, not just the largest requirement. • Adoption of completely new Planned Development and Subdivision Chapters that provide a “yes” or a “no” on a development proposal sooner in the process, thereby creating more certainty in the review process which was a major goal of the AACP. • Elimination of the ability to build double depth basements in single-family and duplex homes. This change was in an effort to maintain Aspen’s small town character and reduce the environmental and construction impacts created by double basements. The first Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit were established for the affordable housing project at 301 W Hyman. The cover of the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan. P15 I. 10 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016 • Adoption of a transportation mitigation system that requires new development to mitigate ALL of their car trips, thereby helping to ensure traffic levels remain at 1993 levels and that development is paying its own way on the transportation front. This program has won a state planning award for its innovation and ability to meaningfully mitigate the transportation impacts of development. • Changes to the COWOP process, including renaming the chapter Public Projects, and updating the review process to comply with state law. • Adoption of a Small Lodge Preservation Program in an effort to help Aspen’s existing small lodges remain in operation. • A re-write and update of the Residential Design Standards to ensure more predictability in the process and to ensure new development matches Aspen’s small town character. While the City has done a great deal to implement the 2012 AACP, that work is not yet complete, as the AACP is a long-term guide for the future, not a static set of code requirements. Moving forward, City Council adopted a 2015-2017 Top Ten Goal to “Reconcile the land use code to the Aspen Area Community Plan so the land use code delivers what the AACP promises.” Proposed work over the next year includes: • Updating the ten-year old Commercial Design Standards to address recent changes in the commercial zone districts and to ensure new development matches Aspen’s small town character, particularly in the Commercial Core and around the Pedestrian Malls. • Examining the City’s Pedestrian Amenity requirements to ensure they enable community-shared places that promote interaction and sense of place. • Examining Off-Street Parking requirements to ensure they support AACP goals around improving mobility, reducing automobile trips, and encouraging alternative transportation modes. • Examining potential changes to use regulations in an effort to retain and support Aspen’s unique and vibrant business mix. • Reviewing the City’s 30-year old View Plane regulations to ensure they remain effective at protecting important views of the mountains. Counting automobile trips for the City’s transportation mitigation program. The program, known as the TIA, requires programmatic and infrastructure improvements to offset automobile trips generated by development. The St. Moritz Lodge is one of four small lodges who have participated in the most recent Small Lodge Preservation Program. The lodge received grant money to upgrade their boiler. P16 I. Aspen Planning & Zoning History 11February 2016 Appendix A: Commercial Zone Districts Dimensional History This map illustrates the location of Aspen’s Commercial Zone Districts. These Districts include: Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1), Service, Commercial, Industrial (S/C/I), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and Mixed-Use (MU). The pages that follow list the dimensional changes in these zone districts since 2000. The following abbreviations are used: • FAR = Floor Area Ratio. This is the ratio of what can be built relative to a parcel’s size. • SR = Special Review. This review is conducted by the Planning & Zoning Commission. • AH = Affordable Housing • FM - Free-market residential housing • Res = residential; both affordable housing and free-market residential • Sm. Units = Small Units. Refers to individual lodge unit size of 500 sq ft or less • TDR = Transferable Development Right P 1 7 I . 12 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016 Where The immediate downtown. Main to Durant, from Monarch to Hunter Streets. pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium Changes Current Code Height (Feet)40, not to exceed 4 stories 42, 46 for areas setback 15 feet 28 for 2-story buildings; 3 stories 38, which may be increased to 42 by Commercial Design Review 28 for 2-story buildings; 3 stories up to 40 allowed on n side of street if for lodging Public Amenity 25%25%25%25% Setbacks: Front, Rear, Sides (Feet)0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 Commercial Parking 2/1000 1/1,000. 0 for res.1/1,000. 0 for res.1/1,000. 0 for res. Maximum Total FAR 1.5, may be increased to 2:1 by S.R. & 60% AH 3:1 2.75:1 2.75:1 Commercial FAR Governed by Maximum Total FAR 1.5:1, may be increased to 2:1 if 60% additional FAR is AH 2:1 2:1 Arts/Civic FAR 3:1 2.75:1 2.75:1 Lodging FAR 3:1 0.5:1; 1.5:1 w/ sm. units 0.5:1; 2.5:1 w/ sm. units AH Res. FAR No limitation No limitation No limitation FM Res. FAR 1:1 0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH Limited to existing FAR Commercial to Residential ratio -1:1 1:1 1:1 Single Family FAR Same as R-6 Use removed -- Duplex FAR Same as R-6 Use removed -- Max. Residential unit size (Sq Ft)No limitation 2,000 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR Commercial Core (CC) Zone District P 1 8 I . Aspen Planning & Zoning History 13February 2016 Where A one-block strip east of the Commercial Core. Main to Cooper, from Hunter to Spring streets. pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium Changes Current Code Height (Feet)40, not to exceed 4 stories 38 - pitched, 42 - flat 28 for 2-story buildings; 3 stories 36, which may be increased to 40 by Commercial Design Review 28 for 2-story buildings; 3 stories up to 38 allowed on n side of street if for lodging Public Amenity 25%25%25%25% Setbacks: Front, Rear, Sides (Feet)0 0 0 0 Commercial Parking 1.5/1000 1/1000, 0 for res.1/1000, 0 for res.1/1000, 0 for res. Maximum Total FAR 1.1, may be increased to 1.5:1 by S.R. & 60% AH 3:1 2.5:1 2.5:1 Commercial FAR Governed by Maximum Total FAR 1.5:1, may be increased to 2:1 if 60% additional FAR is AH 1.5:1 1.5:1 Arts/Civic FAR 3:1 2.5:1 2.5:1 Lodging FAR 3:1 0.5:1; 1.5:1 w/ sm. units 0.5:1; 2:1 w/ sm. units AH Res. FAR No limitation No limitation No limitation FM Res. FAR 1:1 0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH Limited to existing FAR Commercial to Residential ratio -1:1 1:1 1:1 Single Family FAR Same as R-6 80% of R-6 80% of R-6 Use removed Duplex FAR Same as R-6 80% of R-6 80% of R-6 Use removed Max. Residential unit size (Sq Ft)No limitation No limitation 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR Commercial (C-1) Zone District P 1 9 I . 14 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016 Where Obermeyer Place, North Mill and Puppy Smith area, and the US Post Office. pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium Changes Current Code Height (Feet)35 35, may be increased to 40 through S.R.35 35 Public Amenity No requirement No requirement 25%25% Setbacks: Front, Rear, Sides (Feet)0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 Commercial Parking 1.5/1000 1/1000 1/1000 1/1000 Maximum Total FAR 1:1, may be increased to 2:1 if minimum of 1:1 is AH 2:1 2.25:1 2.25:1 Commercial FAR Governed by Maximum Total FAR 1.5:1 1.5:1; 0.25:1 for primary care offices if 0.75:1 of other commercial uses on same parcel 1.5:1; 0.25:1 for primary care offices if 0.75:1 of other commercial uses on same parcel Arts/Civic FAR ---- Lodging FAR ---- AH Res. FAR -0.5:1 0.5:1 0.5:1 FM Res. FAR - 0.5:1 only if a min. of 0.75:1 commercial uses on parcel 0.25:1 - 0.5:1 if 0.75:1 - 1:1 of other commercial uses on same parcel 0.25:1 - 0.5:1 if 0.75:1 - 1:1 of other commercial uses on same parcel Commercial to Residential ratio ---- Single Family FAR ---- Duplex FAR ---- Max. Residential unit size (Sq Ft)-No limitation 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR Service, Commercial, Industrial (S/C/I) P 2 0 I . Aspen Planning & Zoning History 15February 2016 Mixed-Use (MU) Where Main Street, a one-block strip west of the CC between Main and Hyman, and one-block strip east of the C1 between Main and Cooper. pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium Changes Current Code Height (Feet)25 25 to 32 28, may be increased to 32 by Commercial Design Review 28, may be increased to 32 by Commercial Design Review Public Amenity No requirement 25%25%25% Setbacks: Front, Rear, Sides (Feet)10, 15, 5 10 (5 w/ S.R.), 5, 5 10 (5 w/ S.R.), 5, 5 10 (5 w/ S.R.), 5, 5 Commercial Parking 3/1000 1.5/1000 1.5/1000 1.5/1000 Maximum Total FAR 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. & 60% AH Historic Dist.: 1:1 Non-Historic: 2:1 Historic Dist.: 1:1, may be increased to 1.25:1 by S.R. Non-Historic: 2:1 Historic Dist.: 1:1, may be increased to 1.25:1 by S.R. Non-Historic: 2:1 Commercial FAR Governed by Maximum Total FAR 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. Arts/Civic FAR 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. Lodging FAR 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. 0.75:1, may be increased to 1:1 by S.R. AH Res. FAR No limitation No limitation No limitation FM Res. FAR 0.75:1; 1:1 w/ S.R.0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH 0.5:1; 0.75:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH Commercial to Residential ratio N/A 1:1 1.5:1 1.5:1 Single Family FAR Same as R-6 80%of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 Duplex FAR Same as R-6 80% of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 100% - 80% of R-6 Max. Residential unit size (Sq Ft)No limitation 2,000 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR 2,000, 2,500 w/ TDR P 2 1 I . 16 Aspen Planning & Zoning History February 2016 Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Where The City Market block and the Clark's Market area. pre-infill code Infill Code 06-07 Moratorium Changes Current Code Height (Feet)28, may be increased to 32 by S.R.32 28, may be increased to 32 by Commercial Design Review 28, may be increased to 32 by Commercial Design Review Public Amenity 25%25%25%25% Setbacks: Front, Rear, Sides (Feet)10, 5, 5 5, 5, 5 5, 5, 5 5, 5, 5 Commercial Parking 4/1000 1/1000 1/1000 1/1000 Maximum Total FAR 1:1 1.5:1 1.5:1 1.5:1 Commercial FAR Governed by Maximum Total FAR 1:1 1:1 1:1 Arts/Civic FAR 1:1 1:1 1:1 Lodging FAR 1:1 1:1 1:1 AH Res. FAR 0.5:1 0.5:1 0.5:1 FM Res. FAR 0.5:1 0.25:1; 0.5:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH 0.25:1; 0.5:1 w/ equal amounts FM & AH Commercial to Residential ratio N/A 1:1 1:1 1:1 Single Family FAR ---- Duplex FAR ---- Max. Residential unit size (Sq Ft)No limitation 2,000 1,500, 2,000 w/ TDR 1,500, 2,000 w/ TDR P 2 2 I . Regular 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. P23 I. 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 P24 I. 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 P25 I. 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. P26 I. 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 P27 I. 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. P28 I. 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 P29 I. 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. P30 I. 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 P31 I.