Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20170221Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2017 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order for February 21, 2017 at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Rally Dupps and Skippy Mesirow. Ryan Walterscheid, Brian McNellis, Keith Goode, Spencer McKnight and Jesse Morris were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Andrea Bryan, Jennifer Phelan, Justin Barker and Phillip Supino. Mr. Jim True was present for the second discussion item of the meeting. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. Tygre stated she is very disappointed only four members were present for the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan wanted to follow up on the comment made at the previous meeting regarding the lakes of water forming on the street corners after weather events. She spoke with the Engineering Department and they are currently inventorying locations with problems and she asked the board to email any information to her so she can share it with Engineering. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ms. Phyllis Bronson want to comment on the Gorsuch Haus. She takes decisions made by citizen’s boards very seriously and felt P&Z was misrepresented at the Council meeting regarding the Gorsuch Haus. She does not support the application as currently presented. She believed it was represented to Council the reason for P&Z’s recommendation of denial was due to the chair lift and she knows this is not true. She invited one or all of the six members who voted on the application to show up at the next Council meeting to voice their concerns. Ms. Phelan stated the Gorsuch Haus hearing will be continued on March 6th to March 27th. Mr. Mesirow asked Staff if the P&Z minutes for all related hearings had been included in the materials provided to Council and Ms. Phelan replied all were included. Ms. Bryan noted she spoke with Ms. Bronson prior to tonight’s meeting to let her know the minutes had been provided to Council and the P&Z members are welcome to appear before Council as citizens, but not as representatives of the board. MINUTES February 2nd draft minutes. Ms. Tygre motioned to approve the minutes and was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. All in favor, motion approved. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no hearings. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2017 2 OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Mesirow turned the floor over to staff. Code Amendment Check-In: Double Basements Mr. Barker, Senior Planner, stated he will be reviewing a code amendment request submitted by Bowden Properties who is represented by Mr. Chris Bendon of BendonAdams. He stated the request is in relationship to the existing double basement code language which was adopted at the end of 2014 to address recent projects that were digging two and three stories up to 40 ft below grade. Council approved an amendment to the code which defined a 15 ft depth limit and a one-story limit on the space below grade and exemptions for additional crawl space for mechanical. He added this only applied to single and duplex developments. One of the challenges discussed during this time was how to handle sloped properties. It was decided to keep it simple at the time, realizing there may be some details to address at a later date. Mr. Barker stated they have been using the adopted code language for two years and they have learned the 15 ft depth limit is clear, easy to understand and to develop around. The portion stating it shall contain no more than one floor level below finished grade has been challenging to properties with a steep slope. It has been a problem when a portion of the finished floor goes below the finish grade on the slope side. To get around this challenge, people have been creating a trenching system around the building in order to drop the finished grade below the upper floor on the uphill side of the building. This has created some negative impacts including additional excavation and a less desirable aesthetic in regards to the development. He stated the applicant is proposing to eliminate the piece of the language which encourages the trenching and maintain the remainder of the code. He stated the new language would state for single family and duplex structures, the interior finished floor level shall be no more than 15 ft below the exterior finished grade. The language for stepped floors and crawlspaces would remain as it currently exists. Mr. Barker states this will eliminate the trenching and the buildings will still be capped by height. It still limits excavation to 15’ and minimizes the excavation. However, Staff is concerned how the interior may be impacted. If the limitation is removed on one floor, there may be attempts to place more floors below grade by reducing the ceiling heights. The benefit of having more floor area below grade is that it doesn’t count towards the development, lessening the affordable housing mitigation related to the development. Staff has asked the applicant to reach out to other architects and designers to see how many floors could be feasibly placed below grade. Mr. Barker asked P&Z for their thoughts regarding the proposed code amendment. Ms. Tygre asked if this change will eliminate the trenching around buildings. Mr. Barker replied the trenching was a result of the initial code amendment. He stated applicants would prefer to not have to the trench but instead have the grade come up to the side of the building. Ms. Tygre asked staff to describe the dimensional limitations of the crawl space. Mr. Barker stated generally there is a 5 ft 6 in height limit. Mr. Barker added it can be as long and wide as the applicant wants it to be. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2017 3 Mr. Dupps believes this is an elegant solution to the trenching issue. Mr. Dupps asked Staff to identify the proposed changes to the statements of the code and Mr. Barker replied noting Staff is proposing to eliminate one clause which states it shall contain no more than one floor level below finished grade. Mr. Bendon wanted to clarify the reason for trenching was to allow for the entire floor to be considered above grade all the way around the structure. He stated it also impacts sites where there is only 10 ft slope. He added Pitkin County went thru the same thing and they ended up with a 20 ft max depth. He added their proposal is to keep it as clean as possible to the original intent. Mr. Mesirow asked for the maximum building height and Mr. Barker replied it is generally 25 ft, but depends on the zone district. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked the how many properties would be impacted by this amendment. Mr. Barker noted nearly all the single family and duplex properties have a slope, even if it is a foot. He stated this has generally impacted more of the outlying properties except for the west end lots. Mr. Bendon noted the town lots are on a plane, but not necessarily flat. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Bendon if the applicant wanted to add anything to the discussion. Mr. Bendon stated he is aware other architects experiencing the same issue. Mr. Barker wanted to add Staff asked for feedback in their newsletter on this issue which went out the earlier in the day. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if this will eliminate trenching and further development below to which Mr. Barker replied it is not as likely as the result of the proposed change with the 15 ft limit. Mr. Dupps feels it will be a good solution by reducing excavation and development. Ms. Tygre understands what Staff is proposing and believes it will be fine. Ms. McNicholas Kury agreed with the other commissioners. Mr. Barker asked if the board shares Staff’s similar concerns. Mr. Mesirow feels with the height and depth restrictions, he is not concerned. Ms. McNicholas Kury believes it is possible for Staff’s concerns to be a reality but feels it is an acceptable trade-off. She asked if Staff is considering other changes to address their concerns. Mr. Barker stated not at this time. Mr. Bob Bowden, the applicant, stated there is no gain, but it cleans up unintended consequences. Mr. Bendon added the practicality of getting two floors in 15 ft is physically impossible based on the code. Mr. Dupps agreed. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2017 4 Code Amendment Check-In: Formula Business Regulations Mr. Mesirow noted he has been in discussions for a while with the group participating in this effort so he is recusing himself from the discussion. Mr. Mesirow and Ms. Bryan then left the meeting. Mr. Jim True, City Attorney then joined the meeting. Mr. Phillip Supino, Principal Long Range Planner, introduced the group working with the City to formulate the proposed formula business regulations.  Mr. Jeff Conklin, Karp Neu Hanlon PC, representing Mr. Murdock  Mr. Jerry Murdock  Mr. Bill Stirling Mr. Supino then noted to the distributed letter (Exhibit A-2/21 meeting) is a copy of a letter emailed earlier in the day to P&Z received from Mr. Brooke Peterson, Ajax Holdings. Mr. True noted the content had been previously provided to Council. Mr. Supino then provided background for the proposed regulations stating the City was approached by a citizen committee looking to regulate formula businesses in the community. The group has worked with Staff and Council as well as conducted public meetings over the past few months in an attempt to draft the regulations. Council has discussed this in work sessions and approved a policy resolution at the February 13th meeting which is the first step in a code amendment process. He added the policy resolution was included in the agenda packet. Mr. Supino concluded stating P&Z’s role at this time is to review and provide input to Council. Mr. Murdock then provided background on the group’s progress to date. He stated after researching some ideas, he discovered 29 other cities including McCall, Idaho; Sonoma and Nantucket have passed formula retail restrictions. He met with Mr. Paul Taddune who recommended Mr. Conklin who is the chair of Pitkin County P&Z to assist with reviewing the community plan as it relates to the proposed regulations. Former Aspen Mayors, Mr. John Bennett and Mr. Bill Stirling, joined the group as well. Mr. Conklin stated the group started their research by looking at how other communities regulate formula businesses. He noted there are a few different approaches taken ranging from outright bans of formula businesses or chain stores to a conditional use review process. Based on their research and the City’s code and plans, they identified the conditional use review model. In looking at the legislative intent behind the regulations for other communities, it was largely to preserve community character, ensure economic diversity and ensure the long-term economic vitality of the community. With these in mind, he confirmed the same principles are identified in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). He stated another intent of their efforts is to maintain the uniqueness of Aspen. Mr. Conklin then reviewed the conditional use process allowing for permitted and prohibited uses within zone districts based on P&Z’s reviews. They took a similar approach used in other jurisdictions defining formula use as a business having 11 or more establishments within the United States and meets two or more of the defined standardized definitions. This defined use is then categorized within the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C1) and the Main Street Historic zone districts. After receiving feedback, it seemed a better approach would be to take a snapshot of what currently exists in town, draw a line and apply this moving forward as a ‘No additional harm philosophy’. As drafted, what is exempted can continue by right for all existing buildings, all buildings under construction and all approvals and applications in before the effective date of the ordinance. The exemption would be lost Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2017 5 and then treated as a conditional use in the event of a few different triggers as listed below. Any new formula retail would need to go through a conditional use review with P&Z. a) Tear down and rebuild a building b) Activity that constitutes demolition c) Expand the net leasable area of a building over a defined threshold d) Remodel the interior of the building which would be considered a gut and remodel Mr. Conklin then reviewed the group’s proposed four conditional use standards as included in the ordinance. Mr. Supino stated Staff’s memo identifies two options for developing the conditional use criteria noting both relate to the AACP. 1) Four criteria identified by Mr. Conklin from the redlined ordinance included in the packet. 2) Exhibit D which includes a more extensive list of use criteria Mr. Supino stated the difference in the two would be the approach in Exhibit D would be for any given project where the regulation applies, the applicant would have to meet three of the four categories and within that, five of the total 13 criteria. The intent is to provide P&Z flexibility with Approach 2) or more simplicity with Approach 1). Ms. McNicholas Kury asked the group to articulate how the chain stores are prohibiting the AACP goals. Mr. Stirling noted if you think of the core as defined by historic buildings, the malls, and a mix of ski style construction from the 1960’s and 1970’s; many shops and buildings are still owned by the locals including some buildings with formula retail. There is a variety of products offered by the retail businesses, but he does not feel enough of them are products locals need, particularly in the formula retail. They believe the formula retail is a symbol of the homogenization of what is happening to downtowns all over the world and the mix of businesses is part of Aspen’s unique brand. He noted about 30% of the first floor downtown commercial spaces are formula retail based on their definition. He feels Galena St is the Rodeo Dr of Aspen and the group does not want Aspen to become an annex of the Cherry Creek Mall. He believes this effort will protect a traditional vision of Aspen and it fits with Council’s efforts to create opportunities for locally owned and locally sold products in nooks and crannies on second floors and basements. He added this will not have an immediate effect, but will over time and sends a salvo across the bow that Aspen is concerned with protecting its heritage. Mr. Murdock stated in addition to the 30% retail, about 60% of the clothing stores are formula retail. He was told there are 21 buildings approved for demolition or complete remodel. One of the developers who owns 16 of these buildings states he requires formula retail to be his anchor tenant because they can pay dramatically higher prices and justify a speculation from investor funds from out-of-state. Mr. Murdock’s group is concerned others will want to copy this business model and Aspen will begin to look like other ski resorts, such as Vail. At the speed at which these transactions are happening, one would have to assume every building approved for demolition and remodel will be displacing local businesses while this occurs and it is likely they will not be able to afford to move back in the building. Mr. Murdock stated as part of their research, they spoke with many of the larger landlords and some of the larger ones said the town can’t afford this much retail and the smaller retail stores will be impacted as more and more chain stores move in. He stated if you look at this from an economic diversity view, the town begins to lose some of its vitality. When they conducted the public outreach in January at the Aspen Institute, a study was mentioned stating a local business provides three times as much to a local economy as a chain store. As a business person, you care about your brand as viewed by our visitors. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2017 6 Aspen has a great brand, but it can be lost quickly. He stated the proposed ordinance grandfathers in all existing space and added a lot of the landlords they met with are not objecting this because it’s not going to alter any existing opportunities of the established landlords. It will provide the City Council an additional tool to evaluate if it is locally serving when additional buildings are proposed to be knocked down and formula retail included. He hopes this will have a long term impact to prevent a loss of balance. The fear is that formula retail is the core to speculation. He hopes this ordinance will protect our brand, economic diversity and sense of place. Mr. Supino noted this speaks to the two questions asked of P&Z included in Staff’s memo on page 21 of the packet. 1. Is P&Z supportive of the proposed formula business amendment? 2. Does P&Z have a preference regarding the specific Conditional Review Criteria for formula businesses? a. Four criteria listed in the proposed ordinance b. Thirteen criteria listed in Exhibit D Mr. Supino noted one concern with item 2.b. is that the second category as written, would generally never allow chain stores. The standard would require three out of four categories and five out of thirteen total criteria. This approach is favored by the consultants who have worked on this with Staff. Mr. Conklin added the group is supportive of either approach. Mr. Dupps stated he is most disturbed by the empty spaces and asked Mr. Murdock and Mr. Stirling if their proposal will lead to occupied spaces. Mr. Dupps feels they are vacant because they jack up their rents. Mr. Stirling responded this is one factor. Mr. Murdock added when you have out-of-town money, you can be very patient in waiting for the rents you want. When the money was taken from the investors, a certain return was promised and requires a specified rent amount to support the business model. He hopes this regulation will take a lot of speculation out of the market. Mr. Stirling noted currently rent is $250-$300 per sf. Mr. Dupps asked if this regulation is put in place, would it impact these empty spaces. Ms. Phelan and Mr. Supino noted a statement on item 2.a.iv. declaring remodel or construction of greater than 50% of the net leasable area of the existing building or structure would trigger a loss of exemption. Mr. Supino added there will be additional burden on tenants, applicants and staff to calculate for each building where this is applicable and what constitutes the net leasable area. He stated this is a significant departure to how calculations are currently completed. Mr. Conklin doesn’t think this will change how net leasable area is calculated. The group’s intention was to not trigger a loss of exemption for tenant improvements reasonably necessary for occupying the space. Ms. Phelan feels this threshold should be clarified. Mr. Stirling noted of the buildings with empty spaces at the street level, many have penthouses so they have already made the major part of their investment back giving them time to wait for rents. Mr. Murdock noted the game plan utilizing out-of-town investing is to lease at very high prices, flip it to an insurance company and then move on. He believes long-time locals do not play this game. The new game for the past seven to eight years utilizes a hedge fund to finance projects and then wait for the highest possible lease rate so they can flip it and speculate on the next project. Ms. Tygre believes conditional use criteria are always a bit vague and challenges the board to make a decision on broadly based criteria. She foresees P&Z struggling with site specific situations if not clearly defined. However, she has no problems with the concept of what is being considered. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2017 7 Ms. McNicholas Kury stated the standards outlined on page 34 lend to more vagueness than the standards proposed in Exhibit D. She noted the board’s recent efforts in reviewing code amendments and trying to be very specific with the details of the criteria. She favors Exhibit D more at this time. Mr. Stirling asked Ms. Tygre and Ms. McNicholas Kury if it would take the board time to become adjusted to the standards and criteria. Ms. Tygre responded it is a nightmare. Mr. Stirling stated in Sonoma they have had four applications for conditional use and all four have been approved. In San Francisco, about 50% of the applications have been approved for their historic district. He added these decisions are standing up under court challenges as well. Mr. Supino stated Staff’s position is in part in favor of the larger list because the objectives identified are tied directly to the AACP and he feels would stand up better in court. Ms. Tygre stated she would be more comfortable with this approach as a commissioner. She also believes it will be challenged because there is too much money involved. Mr. Murdock noted there will be plenty of opportunity for those to go into the portion of town grandfathered in if they want to avoid the conditional use review. He does not foresee a landslide of applicants coming in to challenge the board since it will primarily involve new buildings. He added some towns have had this in place for 20 years. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Mr. Murdock his preference in the two options and he responded he is neutral. He wants a solution that is best for Staff, the board and town. He also realizes over time, the code may require adjustments. Mr. Conklin then reviewed their approach to drafting the ordinance. They originally had a longer list of standards and then tried to collapse the list. Although it is not specifically stated, their list is tied to the AACP. Mr. Dupps believes it is similar to the residential design standards (RDS) and is very well done. Mr. Murdock hopes it allows for locally-owned businesses to have opportunities to exist and compete with the formula businesses. He stated he has heard from the developers that all the new buildings want chain businesses and not local businesses because they feel they can afford the rents. Ms. Tygre asked if it is assumed the exemptions for existing buildings remain in place as long as the building remains the same to which Mr. True responded is correct. Mr. Murdock stated it is possible for more for formula retail to come into town. Mr. Dupps asked if the renovation clause should be adjusted to catch those buildings with empty spaces. Mr. Stirling and Mr. Murdock responded it was a great idea and they had not previously thought of it. Mr. Supino asked if other commissioners support a stronger approach to the renovation triggers relative to the loss of exemption. Ms. Tygre feels it should be looked at to prevent loop holes. Mr. Dupps feels it could be similar to the process of receiving affordable credits upon receiving a certificate of occupancy, requiring spaces to be finished. Ms. Tygre feels it is worth thinking about more. Ms. Tygre suggested the portion in Section 2, item B of Resolution 23, Series 2017 identifying the zones such as Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) and non-historic portions of the Mixed Use (MU) where formula businesses should be allowed may require more thought to protect locally serving businesses. Mr. Supino summarized the board’s review stating it supports the conditional use approach of formula retail regulations as a conditional use in zone districts identified in the draft ordinance. The board Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 21, 2017 8 suggested further exploration the loss of exemption criteria. The board supported the approach utilizing the standards listed in Exhibit D over the draft ordinance. Mr. Supino mentioned there is a public meeting on Thursday, February 23rd at the Limelight Hotel from 5:00 pm – 6:30 pm. He added there is a survey and additional information on the City’s public participation website (aspencommunityvoice.com). Ms. Tygre motioned to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. All in favor, the motion was approved and the meeting was adjourned. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager