Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19960116PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUAR Y 16 1996 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Chairperson Sara Garton opened the meeting at 4:40 p.m. Present were: Sara Garton, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney and Steve Buettow. Excused were: Marta Chaikovska and Robert Blaich. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Tygre requested commissioners have access to City Hall after regular business hours during the week and on weekends to pick up mail and check boxes for packets. Dave Michaelson, staff, responded something would be done. Hunt commented CDOT was doing a survey and he was very displeased with it. Hunt was in search of a hard copy of the survey and Michaelson stated he had a copy and would get one to Hunt. Garton asked regarding the status of the ADU Survey. Michaelson responsed the ADU Survey had been done and George Krazoff had the results on white paper of general results and will do a correlation analysis. Michaelson stated Krazoff had determined that no more than 20 percent of ADUs are being used to house anyone; the rest of the ADUs are empty or being used as guestrooms. Michaelson said the survey response rate was 70 percent and Krazoff will submit his findings to the commissions and City Council. Garton inquired regarding Smuggler and 4th, whether the residence addition had HPC approval or was reduced enough to waive a review. Amy Amidon, staff, stated the project did not have HPC review because the building permit was pulled before HPC got the review authority over the properties that are on the enventory. Amidon stated the property had never become a landmark and the project did go through the correct channels. Garton asked regarding the Marolt Cafeteria, and if it was a change in use or a conditional use. Michaelson replied he did not know the specifics, but Drueding of staff had red - tagged the project and there was to be discussion on what kind of processes the project had to go through. Garton inquired regarding the 610 W. Hallam project and Amidon responded there was going to be an executive session of City Council on January 22, 1996. Hunt asked if City Council would be given the Planning & Zoning Commission's input into the project and Amidon stated she planned on giving HPC's and P&Z's comments. Garton stated on the meeting of February 6, 1996 she would not be initially present and Tygre would need to chair the meeting. Garton stated she hoped to attend in time for the public hearing worksession on training with the city attorneys. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16 1999 STAFF COMMENTS Amidon requested the first two items on the agenda be tabled. Amidon stated she had shown on the agenda the second item, 820 E. Cooper, being tabled because of a last- minute problem with the open space of the parcel and issues needed to be resolved before coming before the Commission. The property owner of the first item on the agenda, 616 W. Main Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and Landmark Designation, was on a photography assignment and was concerned about the application being presented to the Commission before HPC. Amidon requested the two items be tabled to February 20th. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. MINUTES MOTION Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of 19 December, 1995; Tygre seconded. Uannmous in favor, motion carried. 616 W. MAIN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND LANDMARK DESIGNATION Garton opened the public hearing. MOTION Hunt moved to table and continue the public hearing to 20 February, 1996 at the request of the developer in consult with the Planning Office; Tygre seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. 820 E. COOPER CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Garton opened the public hearing. MOTION Hunt moved to continue the public hearing and table action on 820 E. Cooper to 20 February, 1996 at the request of the Planning Office; Tygre seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. 2 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUAR Y 16 1996 - - SMALL LODGE TEXT AMENDMENTS Staff was represented by Stan Clauson, Amy Amidon and Dave Michaelson. Michaelson stated he had taken the Planning & Zoning Commission meetings of November 21, 1995 and December 19, 1995, at the direction of Planning Department Director Stan Clauson, regarding the lodge preservation zone district and prepared some code changes focused on the issues he felt staff and the Commission had some concensus on. Michaelson stated first was the definition of lodge only in the LP Zone District that has been changed to allow for both kitchens and long and short-term rentals. Michaelson stated the minutes indicated there was a vote the Commission felt comfortable with and that was an accessory use consistent with lodges. Accessory uses can occupy up to 30 percent of gross floor area as a use by right. The third issue the Commission came to a resolution on was a conversion of up to 20 percent of gross floor area to a use by right in the most contiguous adjacent zone district. Michaelson stated that conversion would be a use by right, exempt from growth management, would require no mitigation, but would be deducted from the pool. Michaelson stated the fourth issue dealt with a total conversion of a use by right in a contiguous zone district. The language staff included in code changes would allow 21 to 100 percent of gross floor area of a use by right in the most contiguous zone district as a conditional use in a public hearing and would require mitigation. The conversion would require an exemption from City Council, and will be deducted from the pool. Total conversion would require full mitigation, less the 20 percent bonus. The fifth issue resolved in the code language is the conversion of a use to a conditional use in the most contiguous zone district as opposed to a use by right; it cannot exceed 20 percent of the gross floor area without mitigation, no competition is required, but an exemption from City Council and the use would be deducted from the pool. Michaelson stated there were some outstanding issues and what staff suggested was since concensus had been reached with the Commission on as many of the issues as possible, the large issues be presented to City Council. Michaelson said one of the large issues was the GMQS exemptions in terms of long-term rentals and staff had met with Cindy Houben of the Planning Department. Houben's perspective was if a unit goes to long- term rental pool, from the GMQS perspective, it would be a free market unit and subject to two ceilings a year. Michaelson stated one of the other issues that had some discussion was the condominiumization issue. Would the City be able to restrict condominiumization to retain a certain percent of short-term rental pools? Michaelson stated it was the opinion of assistant city attorney, David Hoefer, that was allowed as long as it is a consistent 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUAR Y 16 1996 policy. Staff felt it could be done and it was one avenue to get around the free market issue raised by Houben. Michaelson concluded stating staff recommended the resolved issues be brought forward to City Council in a worksession and make Council aware of some of some of the alternatives that have been presented in terms of GMQS implications. Garton requested both sets of Commission minutes be available to City Council on the small lodge text amendment discussions and agreed with staff that a worksession was in order with City Council. Hunt commented on Exhibit A and in the past there have been problems with peoples'concept of uses that are permitted and uses that are permitted as conditional. Hunt stated the wording under conditional uses, "the following uses are permitted as conditional uses", are subject to review criteria. Hunt requested using the following terminology so as to not confuse the word permitted: "the following uses may be allowed as conditional uses", as opposed to are permitted as conditional uses. Michaelson concurred with Hunt. Clauson informed the Commission staff was looking at a complete revision of the zoning code from the standpoint of construction. Mooney stated he was interested in understanding what was going to be the mechanism that triggers the definition of a short-term use to a long-term use. Clauson responded he had tried to get a handle on long-term, short-term and felt it simple, but Cindy Houben brought up a number of issues about long-term rental being effectively free market rentals. Clauson said there really was no enforcement mechanism at this time. Michaelson stated there was a definition of long-term in the code that said the occupancy of a dwelling unit for residential purposes for a period of not less than six consecutive months; short-term would be less than that. Michaelson stated there is no definition of short-term. Gideon Kaufman, representing the small lodge owners, commented it was time to get the proposed code language document to City Council for review. Kaufman commented to make clear the small lodge owners' position. Kaufman stated his intention was to say that he spoke for the LP lodges, not that he was not concerned about the other lodges, but he did not have the ability to speak for them. Kaufman commented on the concept of a use by right, as well as requiring an exemption. Kaufman commented on the issues raised by Cindy Houben regarding long-term versus short-term. Kaufman stated the whole purpose of what the small lodge owners were trying to do was get the ability for the small lodges to be able to get appropriate time to rent long-term or short-term, and need the ability to have flexibility from long-term to 4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16 199b short-term. He did not believe it was appropriate or fair to say it is something that is against the Aspen Area Community Plan. Kaufman stated in terms of the permitted use section of the code, Exhibit A, Number 7, Conversion of Use - A lodge can convert up to 20 percent of gross floor area to a non- residential use of right. Kaufman stated the small lodge owners felt it should read non- residential or residential use. Kaufman stated his philosophy had always come from there is a need for some of the small lodges to go out of business, and it was a mechanism that needs to be incorporated in the text amendment document, as the useful life of some of the older buildings has passed. Kaufman stated there needed to be a 50 percent exemption versus a 20 percent exemption and unless some of the small lodge owners are able to get a serious and significant exemption, they will not be in the position of being able to go out of business. Kaufman concluded stating it is not just the lodge building, it is getting into the business of a new generation of people who are willing to be lodge owners. Kaufman stated it was strongly felt by the small lodge owners that it was needed to go further than what staff was recommending. Michaelson responded to Kaufman stating the non-residential was originally in all the conversions of use but was deleted. The point of uses by right and requiring exemption, Michaelson stated that was not unusual. The only staff exemption allowed under GMQS seals at 500 square feet, so if expanding beyond that, one would require an exemption now, even though it is a use by right. Bill Benner, public, asked if a lodge owner bought a TDR, could he avoid some of the GMQS and increase the size and number of his rooms? Clauson responded a lodge choosing to go out of business would transfer its "life" to another lodge wishing to make a commitment to staying in business. Clauson stated he saw problems with that because there was an issue of equivalence; when is one lodge equal to another and the issue of perpetuity is one that is difficult to resolve. Clauson stated staff thought the proposed text was a reasonable, but conservative approach to the issue of growth management; the lodge owner would need to receive an exemption from City Council, otherwise, the growth management ordinance would have to be amended. Staff felt it was a better way than attempting a complex transfer of development rights from lodge to lodge. Kaufman responded since Section 8204-C doesn't exist, it was hard for the small lodge owners to understand what Clauson said was accurate because until one knows what the criteria are, how does one really know if it is an easy mechanism to implement or a difficult implement. Michaelson responded 8204-C does exist, but it was just exemptions by City Council and staff would have to build another exemption in the section specific to lodges. Michaelson stated Kaufman was correct, staff had not done it and would have to do so before going before City Council. 5 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY16 1996 Hunt asked when a lodge goes out of business, then does not that number of rooms go a; into the GMQS pool? Michaelson responded the number of rooms would go into tourist accommodations and Houben had suggested the potential of creating another pool specific to lodge preservation units. Hunt stated that could create a transfer of density through that mechanism for the small lodges. Kaufman stated the problem was there was too many rooms now and it did not help the situation if relocating from one lodge to another lodge. Bob Tobias, small lodge owner, stated he felt like there was no progress for over a year and a half with the language requiring special exemptions. He felt the language in the proposed ordinance should be very specific as to what is going to be required, rather than having to be subjected to a special review. Tobias stated the small lodge owners have been following the instructions of the City to gather as a group so they could be dealt with as a group and the way the language is being developed, was putting the small lodge owners back to a case by case basis. Mooney replied it has always been his contention that it should a conditional use and special review because he wanted to know what was going to happen to a space. Garton stated she agreed with Tobias and felt it was staggering for each lodge owner to come in case by case. Garton said the Commission and City Council had become more uncomfortable because each lodge is in such a different area of the City and were not sure what would happen to the neighborhood. Garton stated she felt it was time for a good worksession and she preferred to see the attrition just happen. Garton stated she agreed that 20 percent was too small. Melinda (public), lodge owner, stated she was frustrated to be going in circles from two years ago and waiting in good faith and holding off because she felt the process was moving along. Melinda stated it appeared the process was back -tracking instead of being able to move forward. Michaelson responded he looked at Kaufman's letter of January 9, 1996 and Kaufman asked for three things, two of which were. included in the code; long and short term rentals and kitchens. Michaelson said from his perspective, the last issue which dealt with total rollover made sense to take to City Council. Curtis, Innsbruck Inn owner, stated when the Aspen Area Community Plan was written there were no small lodge owners represented. Erma (public), small lodge owner, stated times have changed and the City could not recreate 1960s, 1970s and 1980s when the small lodges were prominent; it is no longer SO. Garton stated the Commission's concern was the rate of growth and the rate of conversion and was one of the reasons it wanted things deducted from the pool. ON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16 199� Mooney stated he thought progress had been made and it was needed to define what was going to happen to individual circumstances so the Commission could judge whether or not the neighborhoods could handle it and the issues moved forward. Hans, public, stated when the issue of expanding the Grand Aspen came up, the small lodge owners were told by the planning staff there was no problem and when they objected they were told to sit down and be quiet and it would be dealt with later. Hans stated it was getting old sitting on the sideline waiting for something good and right to happen. Tygre stated a planning commission tries to figure out what the best balance of opposing interests is and when there is a situation like the LP Zone, which is not really a contiguous zone, there is nothing like it in the rest of the planning decisions the Commission makes. The LP Zone embraces so many different types of properties in so many different areas, it has its own unique problems. Tygre stated impacts relate to the community plan and the Commission had to try to consider each situation on the basis of what was the overall best thing. Tygre stated the Commission had a responsibility to the community overall, as well as to the small lodge owners, and she was very sympathetic to the small lodge owners and their situation. Tygre stated there was not an easy answer, and felt every member of the Commission was sympathetic to the small lodge owners' situation but the Commission's job was to consider what affects this had, not only on the lodge owner, but other members of the community, particularly in the various neighborhoods. Melinda (public) stated not only was it difficult to keep a business on -going if there was no demand for it, but the lodge owner has to put endless money into the business to keep it at a certain level. Harry McNamara, Bell Mountain Lodge, stated he felt the exemption should be stated and it should not be on a case to case basis. Kaufman stated it was obvious there were different philosophies in terms of what was or was not appropriate and suggested to move onto City Council and not debate back and forth for hours and not get any where. Kaufman stated he felt the end had been reached on the useful life of the Commission's particular process and everyone had had an opportunity to speak and give suggestions; he felt it time to move on. Clauson agreed with Kaufman and stated staff was prepared to put together a resolution for Garton's signature as chairperson. Clauson requested the Commission go through the text to see if there were any desired modifications to be put into the resolution. Garton stated the resolution would first of all address the definition of lodge in the LP Zone District. Clauson stated he had a question regarding the definition and staff had proposed that the definition presented would reside exclusively within the lodge preservation provisions and it could go with some general definitions. He recommended it go under 7 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16 199� general definition of lodge. Tygre stated -the LP Zone, even though a diffused zone geographically, represents a very certain type of ownership and type of problem and she did not see any reason for going outside the LP Zone and make it more universally applicable. Garton took a straw poll of the Commission asking if any member had a problem with the definition of lodge being applied to lodges in all zones. Vote was 4 -1 with problems. In terms of accessory uses under Permitted Uses permitted as of right in the LP Zone District cannot exceed 30 percent of the gross floor area of the existing lodge; the Commission was in agreement. Regarding the conversion of use under Permitted Uses staff showed that up to 20 percent of gross floor area exempt from growth management's competition and had Kaufman's letter requesting 50 percent. Hunt stated he could live with a higher number if residential but felt 20 percent sufficient for non-residential. Hunt stated 50 percent as a number for residential. Tygre stated Section 8-204(c) concerned the mitigation and deduction. Michaelson stated Tygre was correct. It was the concensus of the Commission the issue needed to be discussed further and no decision could be made. It was decided that the gross floor area ratios would be 20 percent for non-residential and 50 percent for residential by the Commission. Under Conditional Uses, Number 4 - Conversion of Use, Garton stated she had problems with the sentence "a use of right in a contiguous zone district". Garton asked if it was not a conditional use by right. Clauson responded the conversion was conditional but the use of right is the use that is identified in that zone district. Hunt clarified use of right was the new term for permitted use as used in the past. There was discussion of the 20 percent exemption number and Tygre stated she felt there was no magic number and 20 percent was as good a starting point as any. Kaufman stated the larger the number the more viable it would be. Garton suggested a minimum of 30 percent instead of 20 percent, as 20 percent would not be sufficient. Tygre stated she felt more comfortable with the 20 percent number. Garton concluded the resolution to City Council should reflect the numbers were something the Commission was debating and there was no firm idea. Garton asked if there was a date set for a worksession with City Council. Clauson asked if it would be a first reading with Council or a worksession and it was discussed and agreed a worksession would be more efficient. Clauson stated he would consult with the City Manager and report back to the Commission regarding a date. Michaelson stated the resolution would be accompanied by a staff report that would summarize the process. Kaufman requested the worksession and first and second reading be scheduled before April, 1996. The public portion of the meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. �191 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 16 1996 VICTORIANS AT BLEEKER WORKSESSION A worksession followed the public hearings and was taped for any future reference. Minutes were not taken. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 9