Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20170620 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING June 20, 2017 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. April 4th Meeting Minutes - DRAFT V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Mandated Reed-Compliant Sign Code Update B. 2017 ComDev Work Program Check-In VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 10, Series 2017 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order for April 4th, 2017 at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, Spencer McKnight, and Skippy Mesirow. Mr. Mesirow noted Rally Dupps would be arriving a bit late to the meeting. Rally Dupps arrived at 4:34pm. Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jesse Morris and Ryan Walterscheid Rally Dupps were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; James R True, Jennifer Phelan, Justin Barker and Reilly Thimons. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Goode noted the Parks and Recreation Department did an amazing job with the park after the World Cup events. STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Barker noted there are new hard copies of the land use code available for each board member if they wish to have one. He stated it is also online. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES There were no draft minutes. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing – 54 Shady Ln – Stream Margin Review and Dimensional Variance Request Mr. Mesirow asked if there were any conflicts of interest to be noted to which there were none. Mr. Mesirow asked if the affidavits of notice had been reviewed. Mr. True replied he reviewed the notices and found them sufficient. Mr. Mesirow opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Reilly Thimons, Planner Technician, displayed a vicinity map and noted the project is located along Red Mountain Rd and Shady Ln. She also pointed out the location of Hunter Creek, the existing structure P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 2 and the property boundary. She stated the property is zoned Low Density Residential (R-30) and is AspenModern eligible. The existing structure was built in 1971 along the Hunter Creek Stream Margin. A carport currently exists along Red Mountain Rd which is the impetus for the dimensional variance request. The applicant originally requested a stream margin review residential design variation and a setback variance. Upon review of the application by staff, it was discovered the residential design variation was not applicable so the hearing will only cover the stream margin review and dimensional variance requests. She then reviewed the purpose of stream margins and the variance standards. Ms. Thimons then displayed photographs of the existing conditions of the current structure describing the current residential building consisting of three separate buildings connected by a patio and area ways. Another picture was provided of the existing structure and another displayed a view of the property from Red Mountain Rd. She listed a few items unique to the site: 1. The tree inventory is quite dense consisting of both deciduous and coniferous trees. 2. The grading of the site is steep in some areas of the lot. She noted because the adjacent property owner owns the portion along the southern end of the lot before it meets the road, the property currently does not have access to Shady Ln. Ms. Thimons stated the existing structure infringes upon the top of bank. She pointed this out on a site map as the orange line as shown on page three (3) of the packet. The top of slope setback was shown in blue on the same map. She noted these were agreed upon in June of 2016 after meeting with the Engineering Department. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and build a new single-family residence. The new residence will be moved outside the top of slope and setback areas. Several trees will be removed and significant landscaping will be done as a result of the new residence. Ms. Thimons then discussed the stream margin review. She noted the applicant has met all the review standards. They are not proposing to change the grade or damage any vegetation along the Hunter Creek stream margin area or interfere or pollute the natural water course. She added any notices or guarantees necessary will be addressed during the building permit process. She stated the proposal also meets the progressive height requirement. In regards to the dimensional variance request, Ms. Thimons stated the applicant has shown staff three different renderings in the application, of which two alternatives have been discussed with the Engineering Department. The alternatives are described below. Alternative A · Sloped drive entering from existing carport location which would infringe on the stream margin and top of slope as it ‘S’ curves down to the southern set back line where a garage would be built. · This option would require the most amount of landscaping and removing of approximately 60 trees. P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 3 · Engineering and Parks could not support this alternative due to the most significant impact of the three options in terms of landscaping and encroaching towards the stream margin. Alternative B · Elevated tiered driveway and auto-court accessed from Red Mountain Rd and leads into the second story of the residence with the garage (approximately 76 ft wide). This would require a dimensional variance along the driveway to exceed 24 in within the setback and would also require the removal of approximately 60 trees. · Engineering and Parks do not feel this alternative is not appropriate for this site because it would also require extensive landscaping and regrading. · This option infringes toward the stream margin as well. · Applicant has proposed new trees and additional plantings to partially remedy the removal of mature trees. Preferred Alternative · Elevated bridge and auto-court accessed from Red Mountain Rd and crosses to the second story of the residence. · A dimensional variance would still be required to allow the driveway to exceed 24 in within the setback. · This option would require the least amount of tree removal and landscaping. Staff estimates about 20 trees would be removed for the driveway. · Engineering and Parks support this option in that it shifts of the house away from the stream margin and has the least impact on the riparian area along the stream margin. She noted Mr. Ben Carlson, City of Aspen Forester, was present if anyone had additional questions. She provided a view of the site plan for the preferred option and photos of the proposed elevated driveway. The applicant has requested the dimensional variance specifically for the driveway to project higher than 24 in into the setback. The underlying zoning has a 25 ft setback from the front yard or street facing façade. Staff was not able to agree with the variance causing a hardship on the applicant due to the existing carport which has been in use since the late 1980’s. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the dimensional variance. She pointed out the packet includes two draft resolutions. The first recommends approval of the stream margin and denial of the dimensional variance request. The second draft recommends approval of both the stream margin and the dimensional variance request. Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of staff. Mr. Dupps asked by how much would the driveway exceed the 24 in limit. Ms. Thimons asked Mr. Johnston to respond, who stated it is about 15 ft from the road to the bottom of the site so it would exceed it by 13 ft on average. Mr. McKnight asked Mr. Ben Carlson to expand on the notes in the packet. Mr. Carlson described the trees regulated by their type and size. Specifically, he is concerned for the mature cottonwood trees along the right of way, along the stream margin and the perimeter of the property. In regards to the P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 4 code, every deciduous tree over 6 in in diameter and evergreen tree over 4 in in diameter on the site are regulated by ordinance. In order to remove them, you need a permit from the City Forester and Parks Department. There are a couple of cottonwood trees that are 30 plus inches in diameter which the City would prefer they be preserved as they provide stability to the slope as well as enhance environmental and aesthetic needs of the property. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Carlson for the bridge option, how many trees were of concern as compared to the other alternatives. Mr. Carlson believed there were fewer in this option as compared to the other two alternatives. Mr. Mesirow asked given the third option does not meet the criteria according to staff, what was their suggestion for an egress to the house. Ms. Thimons replied staff suggested keeping the existing carport. Ms. Phelan added this would be reasonable use of the property and the noted the commission might determine there is some unnecessary hardship by removing all the trees and unique conditions to the parcel. Mr. Mesirow asked if the existing carport would be left, how would they get from the carport to the structure. Ms. Thimons replied there is an existing path that may be used, but would need to slightly reconfigured to access the new house. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services, introduced himself and then introduced the applicant’s representatives including Mr. David Johnston, David Johnston Architects and Mr. Rick Neiley, Neiley & Alder. Mr. Richman stated they are comfortable with the conditions of approval listed by staff in the draft resolutions. He stated they wanted to focus on the front yard setback issue and believe the application meets the standards of the land use code for a variance to be granted by the planning commission. He then discussed the stream margin noting there are three factors: 1) Stream margin – The mapped the floodplain and top of bank to ensure they were outside these environmental features. 2) Driveway – They wanted to see if they could appropriately provide vehicular access to the property. 3) Dense tree canopy on the property – The applicant also wants to preserve it as well. He noted the property had previously received stream margin approval from P&Z in 2004 for some additions. He stated as they worked with the Engineering department on the map of the floodplain and top of bank, it was determined a portion of the house is within the stream margin on two aspects. It falls within the 15 ft margin and the 45-degree angle. The proposed site plan fully complies with the stream margin review standards. Many applicants would look for ways to retain this footprint in order to remain close to the stream. The applicant proposes shifting the footprint towards the center of the property. Once they decided where to place the new house, they looked at how to access the house and the unusual challenges. The first issue is there is only one way to get in to the property. He pointed out on a P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 5 map the location of Shady Ln in relation to the applicant’s property noting the applicant does not own the land next to Shady Ln. He stated there is no ability to bring the driveway across Hunter Creek and no ability to bring a driveway in from the Rio Grande Trail side. The only option is from Red Mountain Rd. He stated the second challenge for access is the approximately 15 ft drop between Red Mountain Rd and the location of the proposed house. He pointed on a map where the existing carport exists and stated currently you need to drive head-in to the carport and to leave you need to back out onto Red Mountain Rd which he believes is not a safe situation. He stated both they and the Engineering department feels it should be corrected. He added the current carport directly conflicts with the City’s Residential Design Standards (RDS) which stated the garage should not be prominent from the street. In 1987, Pitkin County was looking to widen and elevate Red Mountain Rd. The prior owners of this property conveyed to the County an area of land measuring about 4,000 sf of land at no cost and the County built the carport platform and a set of stairs down towards the house. The applicant team has determined the least impact to the property to resolve the safety issues and provide access to the home is an elevated driveway which requires a variance from P&Z to be allowed. Mr. Richman then reviewed how the application meets the standards outlined by staff earlier in the hearing: · Provides the least environmentally impactful solution to access the property. · Promotes public safety by eliminating the backing out configuration and providing access for an ambulance or other emergency vehicles. · Provides access with persons with disabilities – a picture was shown of the existing stairs and path. · Provides a new design is consistent with RDS as the garage will point away from the street. Mr. Richman believes the application complies with the hardship criteria and discussed the three tests to be met. 1. Not self-imposed 2. Result of the unique physical circumstances on the property 3. Must deny something commonly enjoyed by others in the neighborhood He continued stating the hardship is caused by the 15ft topographic change between the road and the bottom of the property and the fact the other three sides of the property cannot be used for access. Mr. David Johnston spoke to the location of the proposed home. The driveway is slated to be 16 ft wide. They’ve studied minimum radiuses to get in and out of the garage to ensure vehicles can pull forward into the garage and back out before pulling forward on to Red Mountain Rd. He then discussed the home structure noting they are trying to leave as many trees as possible on the south side. He provided concept drawings of the structure and described the elements of the elevated driveway. He discussed how the design of the driveway and small footprint for the house will aid the drainage on the property. P5 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 6 He noted because they pushed the house back for the stream margin, an additional 25 to 30 ft of distance between the existing carport and the home making it more challenging to connect to the proposed home and improve the existing pathway. Mr. McKnight asked if there were any pictures or renderings of what the new entrance would look like with the existing path. Mr. Johnston responded he did not, only those of the proposed elevated option. He noted some of the trees were purposefully left off the rendering to allow the structure to be visible. He pointed out where some of the larger trees are located on the lot. He stated Engineering wanted the access to be located a minimum of 25 ft from Shady Ln and the current design places the access closer to 40 ft away to allow the elevated access to be placed away from trees and in a safe place. Ms. Tygre asked if the carport would go away if the other access was built and Mr. Johnston replied it would be removed. Mr. Rick Neiley feels they have come up with an innovative design. He feels they are at odds with City Staff regarding the elevated driveway. He feels the design is innovative and is the least impactful of the site and trees. He is troubled by staff’s conclusion in their memo stating it is an inconvenience rather than a condition precluding their ability to successfully develop the site with the existing carport. He does not feel it is a question there could be some successful development based on a design scheme, but a question if there is a hardship associated with the site not caused by the applicant’s conduct and it deprives the applicant of an amenity commonly enjoyed. He feels the hardship of the property is more than an inconvenience. Mr. Dupps asked staff to respond to the three hardships identified by Mr. Richman. Ms. Phelan replied P&Z may determine there are special circumstances exist. She noted comments from other departments have been made available. She feels there is an existing condition that provides reasonable use of the property currently for parking and not necessarily convenient access to the house. She also noted the Parks department is concerned about the tree canopy which is important to the city overall. She stated the board has the latitude to determine those are strong enough to create special conditions on the property. Mr. McKnight asked how many trees would be removed. Mr. Richman replied the application speaks to about two dozen trees for the preferred option vs. about five dozen trees for options A or B. He added the landscape plan also replaces the trees to be removed. Mr. Mesirow then opened for public comment. Mr. Chris Bryan, attorney for Garfield & Hecht, stated he is in attendance representing the homeowners to the south at 17 Shady Ln. He stated the homeowners feel they will be the most impacted by whatever the commission decides. They have concerns about the redevelopment itself. It will cause large scale, multi-year construction activity right off Red Mountain Rd. The applicant has not asked homeowner for access from Shady Ln which is a private road. The feel it is interesting they have an address of 54 Shady Ln when they don’t have access from Shady Ln which they feel was a mistake made in the past. They also have had issues preserving the tree canopy. About two years ago, the LLC owner of the applicant’s property entered the homeowner’s property unauthorized and cut trees down using Aspen Tree Service. It is his understanding the LLC membership has since changed. Therefore, his clients are reluctant to sign off on a large-scale tree removal and building an elevated driveway to the home. Mr. Bryan believes P&Z should look at what is really necessary and feels the existing carport is a self-imposed aspect of the property. In regards to the safety issues, he is not aware of accidents or public safety concerns. He feels they could simply back into the carport. He would like the board to consider another alternative not P6 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 7 included in the application which is to keep it status quo with the existing house and carport, creating an ADA ramp from the carport. He hears the applicant would prefer not to have to walk an additional 25 ft to their home, but does not feel it is a hardship. His client feels staff’s opinion is correct. He pointed out on p. 5 of staff’s memo stating the proposed design would infringe on the southern property setback. His client feels the property can be enjoyed as is without the proposed structures. Ms. Thimons wanted to clarify in regards to the infringement on the southern property’s setback, it was only for the sloped, curved driveway access alternative (Alternative B). She added staff, Engineering and Parks do not support this alternative. She reiterated the preferred alternative does not infringe on the setback. Mr. Johnston asked if he could respond to Mr. Bryan’s statements. He stated their goal was to not have access off Shady Ln as to not disturb the neighbor. Mr. Mesirow then closed the public comment portion of the hearing and opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. McKnight feels the stream margin review is straight forward. He is not sure the access could be defined as a hardship but feels they have a right to have a driveway with the property. He does not feel safety is an issue. The biggest issue for him is the removal of two dozen trees and is not sure what that means but will listen to staff and the Parks department. Mr. Mesirow assumed the board is okay with the stream margin review. He feels the site constraint is unique to the property and asked the others for their thoughts. Ms. Tygre stated her concern is with the hardship issue because the applicant bought the property as is. The access has not changed since they purchased the property. To state the access is not acceptable and therefore a hardship does not seem to follow the code precisely to her. She feels in some way the proposed solution is much better, especially if the Engineering department has stated it is better. She cannot find the justification in the code itself to allow the variation for the construction of the elevated driveway. She would love to see the applicant come up with a better solution. Mr. Goode agreed with her comments. Mr. McKnight stated he thought the same thing, but just because they purchased the property as is, they would not necessarily obtain the variance prior to purchasing it. Ms. Tygre feels she is stuck on the definition of hardship. Mr. Mesirow believes the access could cause a hardship as it relates to other homes and their access. Mr. Richman read the code language regarding variances. Mr. Dupps stated he feels it is a threshold issue and not clear. He noted the house as it currently exists, is in the wrong location and believes Red Mountain Rd is very busy causing a hazardous situation. If he considers this, he is in favor of granting the variance. Mr. Neiley asked to respond to Ms. Tygre’s comments regarding purchasing the property with hardships. He stated the case law in Colorado is clear noting if you buy a piece of property with a hardship, it does not preclude you from being able to seek a variance. The hardship is incidental to the nature of the property itself and not a basis for denying a request for a variance. Mr. True responded Mr. Neiley’s statement was correct in that you may purchase something knowing there was a hardship but the question is have you done something to create the hardship. He feels this is set forth in the code and the P7 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 4, 2017 04/04/2017 Page 8 board can still make the determination if this is in fact a hardship vs an inconvenience and is factual determination for the board. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Tygre if this changes her decision to which she replied yes, but she would still like to see a different solution. Mr. Richman asked them to consider the situation when an ambulance needs to access the home, not just personal vehicles. Mr. Goode asked about a fire truck accessing the property. Mr. Johnston replied the structure is within 150 ft of the road. They are designing the bridge such that it could handle a firetruck pulling into the driveway. Mr. Goode moved to approve Resolution 8, Series 2017 to approve the stream margin review and the variance request. The motion was seconded by Mr. McKnight. Mr. Mesirow then requested the roll call vote. Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; and Mr. Mesirow, yes for a total of five Yes votes to zero No votes (5-0), motion carried. Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. Mr. Mesirow then closed the meeting at 5:41 pm. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P8 IV.A. Reed Compliant Sign Code Update – P&Z Discussion June 20, 2017 Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Phillip Supino, Long Range Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director MEETING DATE: June 20, 2017 RE: Mandatory Reed Compliant Sign Code Update REQUEST OF P&Z: The purpose of this discussion is to provide information to the Commission on required update to the City’s Sign Code. No formal direction or action is requested at this time, but the Commission is asked to comment on specific aspects of the sign code revisions. SUMMARY: Based on a 2015 Supreme Court case, staff has concluded that certain provisions within the sign code should be revised to be make certain that it complies with the standards set forth in that Supreme Court case. In early 2016, staff presented information about the need for the update to City Council as part of the AACP-LUC coordination process. The sign code update process was initiated following a preliminary City Council work session on April 22nd. The work session introduced Council to the requirements under the law, the process proposed for bringing the sign code into compliance and solicit input from Council. Staff seeks P&Z comments on the revision process, specific aspects of the current sign code and possible outcomes from the revision process. BACKGROUND: In June, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona (Reed) that municipal sign code regulations must be “content neutral,” meaning that regulations on signage must be focused on the size, type, location and appearance of signs, not the content of or entity displaying the signage. Simply stated, the Supreme Court ruled that if one must read the sign to determine if it complies with a regulation then it is not content neutral. This ruling rendered aspects of municipal sign codes around the country non-compliant, requiring revision to ensure that references to the content of signs were removed from the regulations. In the Reed case, the sign in question was a temporary sign, which was placed and removed weekly, advertising the location of a church service. These signs were classified by the Town as political or ideological signage, which were limited to being displayed only within specified hours. The Town cited Reed for exceeding the time limit allotted for the display of such signs. Reed sued for infringement of freedom of speech, because the sign regulations were based on the political or ideological content of the sign. The Supreme Court sided with Reed, in part, because the Gilbert sign code made a distinction between various forms of temporary signage and imposed different regulations based on their content. This simple distinction had implications for municipal governments around the country, who have been P9 VII.A. Reed Compliant Sign Code Update – P&Z Discussion June 20, 2017 Page 2 of 3 forced to amend sign regulations to be content neutral. Like these other municipalities, the City of Aspen is required to make changes to comply with the Reed ruling. SUMMARY: The scope of this code revision is relatively narrow, focused on revising language to be Reed compliant. In general, that means removing distinctions in the code between various sign types based on their content, as opposed to their size, type, location and appearance. For example, the code currently allows restaurants to display a small, lighted menu box outside of the business. This sign type is not permitted for other uses. To be Reed compliant, that allowance only for restaurants will either be eliminated for restaurants or expanded to other business types. One of the primary goals of this process is to bring the current sign code into Reed compliance without changing the intent and underlying policies of the sign code. A complete overhaul of the sign code is not the intent of this code amendment process. Such an overhaul is a more significant undertaking, and staff and the consultants do not believe that such an overhaul is necessary given the effectiveness of the current sign regulations. Attached as exhibit A is a memorandum from Mark White outlining the requirements under the Reed decision, those aspects of the sign code which may require revision, and discussion of the process to identify and make those changes. Staff is conducting a public outreach process to gather input from residents, ACRA, CCLC, local business owners and residents. The public outreach efforts included three public meetings in May to inform the public and gather feedback, as well as an ongoing survey on AspenCommunityVoice.com, and a survey distributed directly to the Board of Realtors, CCLC and the business community. The Downtown Services Director has also gone door-to-door in the Commercial Core to distribute surveys and speak to businesses. P&Z can provide valuable perspective and guidance to the sign code amendment process by commenting on the following specific possible outcomes from the process. a. How should restaurant menu boxes be treated? One option to address menu boxes is to reclassify them as “small directory signs,” combine them with directory signs for multi-tenant buildings, and allow a specific number per building. They could also be eliminated or included in a window sign allotment and be required to be displayed in a window. b. How should sandwich board signs be treated? The current regulations allow sandwich board signs for retail and restaurant uses only. That distinction is not permitted under Reed. Sandwich boards could be eliminated as a permitted sign type, expanded to be permitted for any use within specific zone districts, or limited on a per building basis. Should sandwich board signs be retained? If so, how should they be regulated? c. How should yard signs be treated? The current code makes distinctions between how various yard signs can be displayed: political signs can be up for three months prior to an election, real estate for sale signs can be displayed for the duration of the listing, yard sale signs can be up for three days, and construction signs can be displayed throughout a building project. Under Reed, these are all temporary yard signs and ought to be treated equally. Given that, should yard sign regulations be relatively liberal (e.g. one or more signs per property displayed as needed throughout the year), or more restrictive (e.g. no yard signs at all)? P10 VII.A. Reed Compliant Sign Code Update – P&Z Discussion June 20, 2017 Page 3 of 3 d. Presently, the event banners at Main and 4th Street are open only to non-profit organizations. This distinction is not permitted under Reed. Should the City make the banners available for any entity to display their message? Should the City develop alternative criteria for what messages can be displayed (e.g. the banners can be used for the display of events only by any entity with an event to advertise). Or should the banners be eliminated? e. Are there other questions or ideas from the Commission about specific sign types? NEXT STEPS: Staff will include P&Z’s comments and ideas in the discussion with Council in the Policy Resolution, to be considered at the July 10th Council meeting, as well as in the draft code amendment language. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Mark White Sign Code Update Memo P11 VII.A. Memo To: Phillip Supino From: Mark White Date: April 11, 2017 Re: Summary of Need to Change Sign Regulations You requested a conceptual summary of why we are revising the sign regulations. This memo provides a brief overview of why we are revising the sign regulations, along with some thoughts about our approach to the sign revisions. The United States Supreme Court decided a key First Amendment case involving signs the summer of 2015 (Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015)). As recognized in a concurring opinion, this case will require significant revisions to most sign regulations throughout the nation. The Reed decision requires that, if sign regulations make distinctions based on content (i.e., what the signs say), they: (1) must have a compelling interest, and (2) are subject to strict scrutiny. In response, most communities are revising their sign regulations to remove content restrictions from their sign regulations, and limiting sign regulations to their physical characteristics and typologies. Therefore, the regulations will address the following characteristics recognized as permitted, “content neutral” sign regulations in the Reed opinion: · Size · Materials · Lighting · Moving parts · Portability · Banning signs on public property, or regulating them differently · Locations · Freestanding v. Attached sign distinctions · Lighting · Fixed v. changeable electronic signs · Commercial v. residential distinctions · On-premises v. Off-premises distinctions · Total number of signs allowed per frontage or area · Time restrictions on advertising a one-time event · Governmental sign exemptions Kansas City | Charleston 200 NE Missouri Road, Suite 200 | Lee’s Summit, MO, 64086 816.221.8700 p www.planningandlaw.com P12 VII.A. Phillip Supino | April 11, 2017 Summary of Need to Change Sign Regulations White & Smith, LLC | www.planningandlaw.com 2 The new sign regulations will – · Address the key regulatory issues relating to signs - such as size, location, design, illumination, and timing, as discussed above. · Make improvements needed to improve readability and ease of understanding, · Incorporate best practices in sign regulations. · Ensures that the regulations anticipate all sign categories and types appropriate to Aspen. · Ensure that the regulations allow all persons and businesses freedom of expression and the ability to advertise while respecting Aspen’s land use, neighborhood protection and aesthetic values. · Address traffic safety, aesthetics, clutter, and blighting issues. · Ensure that the regulations are consistent with the AACP comprehensive planning policies. At an initial staff meeting, it was noted that the City receives few complaints about the quality or design of signs. The signs typically by businesses and on residential property are usually considered acceptable by the community in terms of their design, scale and intensity. Therefore, in addition to ensuring that the regulations remain compliant with state and federal free speech law, it is an important goal that the revised regulations continue the scale and intensity currently permitted. In addition, the City often allows signs in the public right-of-way, or as part of public events on parks or other public spaces. The regulations will continue to allow the City to control signs in those locations so that they do not create clutter, and do not create dangers to traffic or pedestrian safety. P13 VII.A. Com Dev Work Program Memo Page 1 of 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Phillip Supino, Long Range Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director MEETING DATE: June 20, 2017 RE: Community Development Department Work Program SUMMARY: Staff meets with City Council periodically to review the Community Development work program. In advance of that, staff is meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission to get feedback on their priorities. Staff requests comments from P&Z on the work program items listed below, as well as any other ideas the board would like to discuss. Given staffing levels, not al of the items listed can be accomplished in a single year. P&Z is asked to identify the two to three top priority items to recommend Council add to the Community Development work program. CURRENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM ITEMS: Beyond the general planning services the city provides (processing land use applications, providing walk-in services, etc.), community development staff is working on the following items. 1. Electronic Permitting System Implementation. The Community Development Department has worked with Vertiba, a contractor for the software system BasicGov, for the last six months to develop a new permitting and data management system. That system is in the construction phase, and staff expects that, following beta tests and revisions, that system will be implemented beginning in 2018. Staff: All. 2. Mandated Sign Code Update. Following a 2015 Supreme Court Case, the Planning staff is conducting a public outreach and code amendment process to update the sign code. The case, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, AZ, requires government sign regulations to be content neutral. The specific nature of the court case and new legal requirements dictate that the amendments to the sign code will be narrow in scope. A complete overhaul of the sign code is not within the scope of this project. Staff: Phillip Supino. 3. Miscellaneous Code Amendments. Throughout the year, staff keeps a “redline” version of the code that identifies areas of the code that are confusing, contradictory, or do not address emerging issues. These primarily focus on the calculations and measurement section of the code – that is, how buildings, fences, etc. are measured for height, floor area, net leasable and net livable, and setbacks. Staff continues compiling a list of potential changes and anticipates bringing a code amendment forward later in 2017. Staff: Phillip Supino. P14 VII.B. Com Dev Work Program Memo Page 2 of 8 4. Lift 1A Location Study. The City and property owners adjacent to Lift 1A are engaged in a study to determine the optimal future location of Lift One relative to approved and proposed developments in the area. Depending on the result of the study, there may be staff and HPC review related to how the new lift will interact with the historic lift and historic buildings on the Lift One Lodge site. Staff: Jennifer Phelan. ITEMS FROM THE AACP-LUC COORDINATION PROCESS: Much of 2016 and early 2017 were consumed by the extensive code overhaul to coordinate the Land Use Code with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Throughout the coordination process, Council, Boards and Commissions, staff and the public presented ideas for programs, regulations and policies which were noteworthy but did not make it into the final ordinances adopted by Council. Those ideas were recorded, vetted, and are presented below as potential work program ideas for 2017 and beyond. 1. Use Mix Items – The following work program items are intended to achieve AACP policies, including: I.4. Identify opportunities to reduce the “boom-bust” nature of the economy. (Managing Growth p. 24) V.1. Encourage a commercial use mix that is balanced, diverse and vital and meets the needs of the year-round residents and visitors. (Managing Growth p. 26) V.2. Facilitate the sustainability of essential businesses that provide basic community needs. (Managing Growth p. 26) Of the items listed below, staff believes items B and E can be accomplished in the next year, and would most directly support the policies adopted during the AACP-LUC coordination process. A. Legacy Business Program. The Legacy Business Program was a concept put forward in the fall of 2016 to support essential and locally serving businesses. The idea is to provide government assistance to legacy businesses to assist in their sustainability throughout changing commercial market. In other communities with such a program, including San Francisco, CA, legacy businesses are defined by metric such as years of operation, years in a specific location, the age of the building, and importance to the commercial and community fabric of the surrounding neighborhood. Incentives, such as tax breaks, rent assistance and permit fee waivers are offered in exchange for commitments to continue to operate for a specified period of time. This is similar to aspects of the Small Lodge Preservation Program, adopted by Council in 2015. The development of the program may require consultant assistance over 6 to 9 months. Staff: Phillip Supino B. Essential Business Overlay Zone Standards. The Essential Business Overlay Zone (EBO) was adopted as part of Ordinance 30 to address Council’s use mix objectives. It was created to provide greater flexibility for redevelopment projects to deliver desired use mix in the SCI and NC zones without being as robust as a formal PD process. In its current form, the EBO provides incentives related to setbacks and FAR between uses within a development. There are other tools that could be added to make the EBO more effective. Council expressed an interest in having additional discussions about additional features of the EBO as part of the Work Program. Staff could conduct the code amendment and public outreach process over 6 to 9 months. Staff: Phillip Supino C. Existing Business Inventory. The use mix discussions during the coordination process brought to light the lack of information about the current mix of commercial uses in Aspen. While it is challenging to maintain a comprehensive and accurate list of all the commercial uses throughout P15 VII.B. Com Dev Work Program Memo Page 3 of 8 town (business frequently open, close and move), an inventory could provide an informative “moment in time” from which policy might be developed. The inventory may also be useful for other departments and organizations in town, such as ACRA and Downtown Services. It may be an opportunity to collaborate with partners to conduct the inventory. The process would require extensive public outreach, door-to-door counts and staff support over 4 to 6 months. Staff: Phillip Supino D. Affordable Commercial. The concept of affordable commercial space was a frequent topic during use mix and chain store discussion in early 2017. The goals of such a program would be to acquire and make available commercial space to tenants meeting certain criteria to help achieve Council’s use mix and economic sustainability goals. There is not currently a model for such a program, and it has been discussed only theoretically. Should council choose to explore this concept further, staff recommends first conducting a study to find examples from other communities, or ownership and management models that might inform the development of a program. That study could then be used to inform Council’s discussion as to the effectiveness and viability of such a program. Following that analysis, staff would propose next steps to Council in 2018 or beyond to design and implement a program. The initial study would require the assistance of a consultant and take 6 to 9 months. Staff: Phillip Supino E. Live-Work Residential Standards: Live-work residential units were a focus of some discussion regarding the EBO, SCI zone, use mix and affordable housing priorities. The City does not currently allow live-work units, as there is fear about the ability to control either the residential or commercial nature and occupancy of such units. However, there could be positives from allowing such units including: lowering the combined costs of living and working in Aspen, providing additional resident-occupied (RO) housing, and increasing the diversity of residential and commercial options in town. These standards could be included in various zone districts, including the EBO, SCI, NC and MU. The standards could be developed in-house, and the process would require public outreach and the standard code amendment process over approximately 6 to 9 months. Staff: Phillip Supino 2. Parking & Mobility Items – The following work program items are intended to achieve AACP Policies, including: 1. Use Transportation Demand Management tools to accommodate additional person trips in the Aspen Area. (Transportation, p. 35) I.4. Maintain the reliability and improve the convenience of City of Aspen transit services. (Transportation, p. 35) II.2. Expand and improve bicycle parking and storage in the Urban Growth Boundary. (Transportation, p. 35) II.3. Improve the convenience, safety, and quality of experience for bicyclists and pedestrians on streets and trails. (Transportation, p. 35) III.3. Require development to mitigate for its transportation impacts. (Transportation, p. 36) V.1. Develop a strategic parking plan that manages the supply of parking and reduces the adverse impacts of the automobile. (Transportation, p. 36) Of the items listed below, staff believes items B and C can be accomplished in the next year, and would most directly support the policies adopted during the AACP-LUC coordination process. P16 VII.B. Com Dev Work Program Memo Page 4 of 8 A. Parking Cash-in-Lieu Rate. One outcome of the update to the parking section of the Land Use Code during the AACP-LUC process was the determination by the consultant team that the cash-in- lieu of parking fee structure may require revision. The new parking regulations provide greater flexibility to developers and property owners to mitigate for their mobility demand. With that flexibility comes a greater reliance on fee-in-lieu to off-set demand and fund for the City’s multi- modal programs. As such, having an appropriately scaled fee is important. Changes to an impact fee such as this require a formal fee study conducted by a consultant. Preliminary discussion with consultants specializing in this work indicate that the over-all project cost may be between $25,000 and $30,000. Such a study would be conducted over 4 to 6 months. Staff: Phillip Supino. B. Parking and Mobility Code Clean-up. The parking ordinance adopted under the AACP-LUC coordination process addressed only those zones included in the commercial development moratorium. There are elements of the new parking standards related to residential and other non- moratorium zones which could be better coordinated to ensure optimal outcomes for parking and mobility throughout the community. These include looking at parking impact requirements for multi-family housing and lodge uses. These amendments could be combined with the parking cash- in-lieu rate study (see previous item) to leverage consultant time and dollars and ensure coordinated regulations. The combined project may take 6 to 9 months with the help of a consultant. The more focused code amendments without the rate study could be conducted by staff over 4 to 6 months. Staff: Phillip Supino, Transportation, Engineering. C. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Update. The TIA requires developers to off-set a portion of their traffic generation through multi-modal and alternative transportation measures. Given the reliance of new parking regulations on multi-modal and alternative transportation measures to meet parking impact demand, an update to the TIA would ensure that the two programs work together to maximize efficiency of the over-all system. Updating the TIA would ensure greater coordination between the parking regulations and TIA program, and it would help ensure that the TIA program helps the City achieve its desired transportation outcomes. Staff: Community Development, Transportation and Engineering. 3. Affordable Housing Items – The following work program items are intended to achieve AACP Policies, including: II.1. The housing inventory should bolster our socioeconomic diversity. (Housing, p. 41) IV.2. All affordable housing must be located within the urban growth boundary. (Housing, p. 42) IV.3. On-site housing mitigation is preferred. (Housing, p. 42) IV.5. The design of new affordable housing should optimize density while demonstrating compatibility with the massing, scale and character of the neighborhood. (Housing, p. 42) Of the items listed below, staff believes item B can be accomplished in the next year, and would most directly support the policies adopted during the AACP-LUC coordination process. A. Affordable Housing “Transfer” Amendment. During the AACP-LUC discussions, there were a number of items discussed related to affordable housing mitigation. Council discussed the potential of a program to allow development in the CC and C-1 zones to ‘transfer’ their affordable housing requirement between sites in the zones. This would allow affordable housing to concentrate on certain sites, reducing potential conflicts with commercial uses in mixed-use buildings. Developing P17 VII.B. Com Dev Work Program Memo Page 5 of 8 this program may take 4 to 6 months, including public outreach and collaboration with APCHA. Staff: Phillip Supino. B. Resident-Occupied Housing “2.0”. A corollary to the discussions on affordable housing mitigation and live-work housing was the concept of “RO 2.0” standards. The idea was that new standards for RO housing, which is traditionally housing with a local residency requirement and no price cap. This housing model provides an option for housing that typically sells below market rate, is available to residents who have assets in excess of the categories provided by APCHA, but who cannot afford in-town, market-rate housing. This housing type is attractive to developers, as the sale price is higher than traditional affordable housing. There is no data on demand for the market segment that would be served by this housing type. The policy and regulatory development process would require consultant assistance, collaboration with APCHA and 9 to 12 months, depending on the scope of the project. Staff: Phillip Supino C. Essential Public Facility Mitigation Rate. The Land Sue Code establishes an FTE generation rate and a mitigation rate of 65% for new lodge or commercial development. Essential Public Facilities, such as non-profits, religious institutions and government buildings are subject to a different review which enables APCHA and P&Z to review and determine the number of FTEs generated from the proposed use. Then Council determines the mitigation percentage required between 0 and 100% of the FTEs generated. Council has expressed interest in examining this policy and process. This policy review and subsequent code amendment process may take 4 to 6 months, including public outreach and coordination with APCHA. Staff: Phillip Supino. 4. Commercial and Residential Design Items – The following work program items are intended to achieve AACP Policies, including: V.3. Ensure that the City Land Use Code results in development that reflects our architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and a diversity of heights, in order to: · Create certainty in land development. · Prioritize maintaining our mountain views. · Protect our small-town community character and historical heritage. · Limit consumption of energy and building materials. · Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs. · Reduce short and long-term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion and demand for affordable housing. (Managing Growth, p. 26) II.1. Ensure that City codes support the historic integrity of designated structures and ensure compatibility with the surrounding context in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, height and form. (Historic Preservation p. 56) Of the items listed below, staff believes item B and C can be accomplished in the next year, and would most directly support the policies adopted during the AACP-LUC coordination process. A. Commercial Building Calculations & Measures. One focus of the commercial design standard and view planes regulations discussions was commercial building height. Council expressed an interest in looking at the methodology for measuring building height relative to building features such as mechanical equipment and elevator overruns. The methodology for these measurements is in section 26.575, along with the calculations and measurements for other built environment metrics. Staff discussion over the previous year also identified issues related to the calculation of vehicle P18 VII.B. Com Dev Work Program Memo Page 6 of 8 circulation areas, garage FAR exemptions and car lifts as being potentially useful amendments to explore. Amendments to this section may also include clean-up items such as those mentioned in the Miscellaneous Code Amendments discussion on page one. These amendments can be managed by staff and may take 6 to 9 months depending on the scope of the amendments. Staff: Justin Barker. B. Definition of Demolition. There are a several regulations in the Land Use Code that depend on the definition of demolition of a structure to trigger compliance or not. Some examples include affordable housing requirements, second tier commercial space requirements and pedestrian amenity compliance. The current definition is 40% of the surface of a structure. Frequently, staff sees examples of that definition being stretched to its limit, where projects may not technically trigger demolition to avoid compliance with other regulations, but in the aggregate, the project is a significant renovation bordering on demolition. Staff suggested exploring ways to change the definition of demolition to ease administration and enforcement of the standard, reduce the instances of projects designing around the 40% standard, and ensure compliance with the City’s other demolition-dependent requirements. This would be a staff-level amendment process requiring 6 to 9 months. Staff: Justin Barker. C. Insubstantial Remodels for Commercial Design Review. There are several non-historic buildings in town that were constructed prior to Commercial Design Review, which was adopted city-wide in 2007. Owners of these buildings often like to make minor changes and improvements, such as replace a window with a door or add an awning. The current Commercial Design administrative review process for non-historic properties requires a previous Commercial Design approval from P&Z. Without a previous commercial design approval, the Code requires these to go to P&Z, which can be a lengthy and expensive process for such a small change. Staff is interested in adding a process similar to the Certificate of No Negative Effect used for historic properties. This is an administrative process that includes several detailed parameters for what qualifies for this review. This would be a staff-level amendment process requiring 3 to 4 months. Staff: Justin Barker. ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: In addition to the AACP items listed above, Community Development staff suggests the following work program items be discussed as potential additions to the department’s work program. 1. Uphill Economic Development Plan Implementation. The Uphill plan is nearing completion, and there are a number of short- and medium-term goals and objectives from the plan that may be implemented. In June, staff applied for a Blueprint 2.0 Economic Development Grant from the State Office of Economic Development and International Trade. The grant would provide funding and technical assistance for the implementation of the Uphill plan. Should the City be awarded the grant, it may be subject to the implementation schedule and requirements of the state per the grant award conditions. Staff: Phillip Supino, Hillary Seminick. 2. Commercial Building Demolition Standards. Presently, the code does not require a bond or redevelopment guarantee for the demolition of commercial buildings in town. Applicants must have only an approved redevelopment plan to gain approval for demolition. This opens the City up to a scenario where a building may be demolished but not replaced. The Planning staff is interested in discussing with Council whether it would be appropriate to require a bond or guarantee of P19 VII.B. Com Dev Work Program Memo Page 7 of 8 redevelopment with specified standards. These regulations would strengthen and protect the architectural character and availability of commercial space in commercial zones. Development of the standards could be combined with the general demolition discussion from page 5. This would be a staff-level code amendment requiring 4 to 6 months. Staff: Phillip Supino 3. Future Land Use Map. In the last few years, the city has received annexation requests for county parcels located adjacent to the city boundary. Additionally, the Water Department receives service requests from properties outside of the city boundary, where the city does not have planning jurisdiction or annexation policies. While the Aspen Area Community Plan provides general policy guidance it is not a future land use map. Staff recommends a future land use map be created to assist in the evaluation of future annexation and service requests. This effort would require consultant assistance and community outreach. Staff anticipates that this effort would cost $50,000 and would take 10 to 12 months to complete. Staff: Phillip Supino. 4. Definition and Standards for Lodge Use. There has been increased interest in Lodge uses since the code amendments adopted during the AACP-LUC coordination process. The discussions of these proposals revealed some gaps in the definition and standards for Lodge uses. The current code required that Lodge uses be listed with a booking agency and are subject to period audits at the discretion of the Community Development Director. These standards are insufficient for staff to ensure that future Lodge uses function as lodges and add to the City’s bed base. Staff suggests adding standards and strengthening the definition of Lodge uses. This would be a staff level project requiring 4 to 6 months to complete. Staff recommends this as a priority work program item. Staff: Phillip Supino 5. Expedited Tenant Finish Permitting Process. The Community Development Department is interested in piloting a program to assist minor tenant finish permits through the process. Tenant finishes typically include the construction of improvements such as non-load bearing walls, lighting and mechanical systems and floor and wall finishes. The review time associated with these types of permits is relatively short. However, they are processed in the order they are received, which can increase the time required for the application to make its way through the department. Staff: Building and Zoning. An expedited review process would ensure that low-level tenant finish applications are not placed in the queue behind large permits that require more significant review time. This will provide a significant benefit to business owners, because it will shorten the time required to start or reopen a business in the City. It will be important to develop clear standards for what constitutes a small-scale tenant finish versus a more impactful finish project. Staff: Building Staff, Zoning Staff. 6. Expedited Energy Efficiency Permit Process. The Community Development Department is considering the development of an expedited review process for energy efficiency permits. It would support the City’s energy efficiency and sustainability policies, as well as assist property owners in complying with energy code requirements. This expedited process would apply only to permits required for energy efficiency improvements like solar panel installation or mechanical system upgrades. Like the tenant finish process described above, it will be essential to clearly define the types of activities eligible for the expedite process. Staff: Stephen Kanipe, Mike Metheny. P20 VII.B. Com Dev Work Program Memo Page 8 of 8 7. Renewable Energy Systems. The Aspen Area Community Plan focuses on encouraging renewable energy sources to decrease the city's carbon footprint. The policies and goals in the AACP are also supported by the City's Canary Initiative. To date, the City has not focused on making individual alternative energy sources easier to construct (i.e. individual solar panels on a home). The Land Use Code allows for alternative energy production equipment, but often requires a review process with the Planning & Zoning Commission, which can be a deterrent for homeowners. Staff proposes implementing the AACP Action Items that focus on removing barriers to individual renewable energy development, such as solar panels in a back yard or on retaining walls. Staff anticipates this work would require some consultant assistance and budget for community outreach (estimated at $10,000) and would take approximately six months to complete, including public outreach. This item could be included as an aspect of the successful implementation of item 2 above. Staff: Justin Barker. 8. Local Food Production. The Lifelong Aspenite Chapter of the AACP includes a goal to "promote and provide access to organic and sustainable and regional food production." Staff suggests that the Land Use code be examined for potential barriers to local food production. For instance, certain rooftop or backyard garden structures are not allowed under floor area or height requirements. Exemptions for the production of local food could be added. Staff anticipates this work would take 8-10 months, including public outreach and could be completed in house. Additional funding may be needed if consultant work were required. Staff: Phillip Supino. Historic Preservation Commission Items. The Community Development staff checked-in with HPC at the June 14th meeting to gauge their support for HPC-related work program items, as well as discuss any additional items they proposed for the work program. They supported all of the HPC-related work program items, including the following: 1. Historic Preservation Submittal Requirement Standards. The Planning Department intends the use the funds generated from the penalty assessed on 232 E. Bleecker to fund the development of more specific standards for the submittal of applications to preserve historic buildings. Staff intends to hire a consultant to assist the Historic Preservation Officer in developing a standardized preservation submittal sheet, to be included in Historic Preservation Land Use Applications. This sheet will include standardized exhibits and descriptions of preservation techniques to help ensure that future preservation projects have clearly defined preservation processes and techniques. Staff: Amy Simon. 9. Historic Property Inventorying. The City is required to periodically update the official inventory of historic properties with updates pictures and technical analysis. No changes to which properties are designated is part of this effort. This update is a requirement to maintain the city’s Certified Local Government (CLG) status with the state. Staff: Amy Simon. Additional Questions for the Commission 1. Are there items on the proposed lists on which the Commission would like additional information? 2. Are there any additional items the Commission would like staff to consider and present to Council? 3. Which two to three of the items listed does P&Z support to be added to the Community Development work program. P21 VII.B.