Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20170905Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 5, 2017 1 Mr. Rally Dupps, Acting Chair, called the September 5 2017 meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Ms. Jasmine Tygre, Ms. McNicholas Kury, Mr. Spencer McKnight and Mr. Rally Dupps present. Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Mr. Ryan Walterscheid, Mr. Jesse Morris, and Mr. Keith Goode were not present. Also present from City staff; Ms. Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney, Ms. Jessica Garrow, Director of Community Development (arrived late), Mr. Phillip Supino, Principal Long Range Planner and Mr. Justin Barker, Senior Planner. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. Tygre wanted to state she is not happy with the attendance at tonight’s meeting. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked staff if any training opportunities were available to commission members. Mr. Supino responded there may be some opportunities available regarding what staff plans to share at tonight’s meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Cindy Klob, Records Manager, noted the commissioners will soon receive an email for the annual board survey. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were none. MINUTES Ms. Tygre asked for the spelling of a name to be corrected on the May 16th draft and then motioned to approve the meeting minutes for the following dates. Mr. McKnight seconded the motion. All approved, motioned carried. • April 18, 2017 • May 16, 2017 • August 1, 2017 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were none. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were none. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Supino and Mr. Barker introduced themselves. Mr. Supino referred to the development moratorium for about a year. The objective of the moratorium was to coordinate the land use code with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). This was a top ten Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 5, 2017 2 goal for City Council in 2015 and the moratorium wrapped up in March 2017 with the adoption of five of six ordinances. The sixth ordinance was adopted in May 2017. Having now used the amended land use code with a few applications and staff discussion, areas have been identified that require some revision or clean-up. He stated this is standard process when so much (150 pages) of the land use code have been revised. He continued stating the objective now is to address both items discovered by staff requiring revision or items were left out of the original ordinances for various reasons. Staff wanted to check in with P&Z before meeting with Council on September 25, 2017 with the first reading. Use Categories and Zone Districts Mr. Barker noted some of the changes in the ordinance are straight-forward, but they want feedback on others from P&Z. He reminded the board of the recent updates to the use categories made in terms of their description and relevance as well as the framework identified to manage a use when it doesn’t fit into a specific category. He added the updated categories had not been carried forward in all the zone districts, because the moratorium only applied to specific zone districts. This effort will include updating the other zone districts, such as the Lodge zone district and fixing the references between the definition section and the zone district sections. Another change relates the differences between general and specialty retail categories which have not been defined in the other zone districts as well. Mr. Barker stated staff is asking for feedback regarding accessory uses, exceptions or example type uses for specific use categories to make the code clearer. Mr. Supino reviewed the history for the modified approach employing use categories instead of specific uses. He added the use categories provide a framework including specific uses, accessory uses and exceptions. He stated the use categories are defined in Part 100 of the code in the definitions section and then the specific zone district code section will refer back to Part 100. Ms. Tygre asked if the removal of the Neighborhood Commercial a Council decision. Mr. Supino replied Neighborhood Commercial is a term used in the old approach. He added the Neighborhood Commercial zone district remains intact, but the term was also used previously to group uses. Mr. Barker added Neighborhood Commercial is no longer called out as a use type, only a zone district. Typos, Errors and Omissions Mr. Barker noted they have also included typo and reference corrections in this ordinance that were not necessarily related to the moratorium. Lodge Auditing Requirements & Growth Management Mr. Supino noted staff is interested in responding to previous discussions with Council during the moratorium regarding lodge uses and the tools available to staff and Council to monitor lodge uses to ensure they are functioning as intended. A term has been used recently “lodge in name only” to describe some approved lodge uses which may not be actually functioning as a lodge. Staff is taking a broad approach to this amendment by looking at the definition of a lodge to make it stronger and more specific in both the growth management and lodge audit sections in Part 500 of the land use code to make the tools available on the back end more robust for monitoring and zoning enforcement. He added there is a wide range of lodge types from hostel-type to sophisticated time-share properties. He Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 5, 2017 3 then stated the concern is that in response to market preferences for more residential-type products, there has been movement away from lodges supporting the bed base to lodges in name only. The lodge audit section gives the Development Director the ability to request information from the lodge operators about occupancy and marketing practices to determine if a property is being made available for transient residential use. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if this includes Airbnb. Mr. Supino replied the line is getting fuzzier, but this is not intended to look at somebody listing their property on a private vacation list site. It is geared to someone who has an approval for a lodge use or the property is located in a lodge zone district and to be able to make sure the lodge is made available in a traditional way. Mr. Supino stated staff wants to strengthen the auditing requirements to see what additional metrics can be tracked to ensure code compliance. Staff is also looking at modifying the definition to make the distinction between smaller and larger lodge properties as well as limit in the community where small lodges may be located and establish a minimal unit threshold. Mr. Dupps asked if the proposed changes are trying to prevent situations where a lodge, for example the Molly Gibson is turned into a single-family residence yet say it is a lodge. Mr. Supino replied this is an example of what they are trying to address. Mr. Barker stated the current definition includes onsite management and reception services for the physical requirements. There are no minimum threshold requirements at this time. Mr. Dupps remembers the challenges when accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were allowed, but never made available for rent. He asked if staff will be able to demand an audit and what happens if they don’t meet the code. Ms. Bryan answered as long as it is provided in the code and clearly states what is a violation, then the City can generally enforce it. Mr. McKnight noted one metric to possibly capture is the rates to determine if they are competitive. He is aware of fractional units in lodges that are available for rent but they have astronomical rates so no one ever rents them. He suggested a formula to compare rates with an average of the next three lodge’s rate. Mr. Supino asked if he thought it would be effective to tie the rate information to a use category. Mr. McKnight responded this could be a good approach and he likes the idea of having size built into the definition of a lodge. Ms. Tygre feels it will be difficult to enforce. She added they tried to do this with the ADU program, but it never came to anything. Mr. Barker added the program was eliminated because they could not force occupancy on the units. Mr. McKnight likes the idea of keeping it broader to allow the boards to review applications without being handcuffed to tight descriptions. Mr. Supino asked if having types of lodges defined such as the size, number of unit and amenities could allow for the broader review as suggested. Mr. McKnight felt this may provide the flexibility needed for a broader review. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked about the sales tax paid on the units. Mr. Supino remarked it would subject to the lodge tax which is applied when the unit is occupied. She believes this could be an avenue to consider further. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 5, 2017 4 Mr. Dupps suggested adding the phrase “lodge in name only” within the definition to the lodge. Overall, P&Z is supportive of strengthening the definition and audit capability in order to address enforcement. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked about the benefits of a structure being defined as a lodge. Mr. Supino answered one benefit in some cases is a lower affordable housing mitigation. Mr. Supino asked if she would be generally supportive of ensuring the owner is not taking advantage of the benefits to which she replied yes. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked about requiring the front desk to be staffed. Mr. Supino replied staff would look into this further. Parking Standards Mr. Supino reviewed the ordinance passed under the moratorium and noted it has been working fairly well. The ordinance did not convert all zone districts properly so staff plans to address this now. He added they also want to clarify sections dealing with multi-family projects. Ms. Tygre asked how P&Z will evaluate applications in the future. Mr. Supino noted staff’s memo will refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). Ms. Jessica Garrow, Director of Community Development, joined the meeting. Commercial Design Review Mr. Barker noted currently for minor changes to historic properties, the owner can utilize a certificate of no negative effect administrative review. For non-historic buildings built prior to the existence of the commercial design review (approx. 1986) and those that do not have a previous commercial design approval, any change, no matter how minor, must go before P&Z for review. This has been a burden to property owners and staff. He estimated only buildings built in the past 10 years have P&Z approvals in place, so many properties are impacted by this requirement. Staff has been looking at providing the same type of administrative review as provided for historic properties. He stated the thresholds and requirements may be different. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked how much does it cost to come before P&Z with a minor change requiring a commercial design review and approval. Ms. Garrow replied a minimum of $1,300. Mr. McKnight feels it is a good idea to pursue the changes. The other board members were supportive of staff’s direction as well. Calculations and Measures Mr. Supino noted in early 2018, staff is also looking at a miscellaneous code amendment to address some of the calculations and measures items not related to any of the moratorium. Staff will follow up with the board at a later time, which will include the formation of a steering committee. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 5, 2017 5 Council Top Ten Goals Overview Mr. Supino noted staff is responding to Mr. Mesirow’s request to review Council’s top ten goals. Ms. Garrow noted the goals are now every two years, instead of one year goals. Mr. Supino identified three of the goals which he believes may be of interest to P&Z. Mr. McKnight remarked he would personally like to have additional P&Z members available for this discussion. He asked if it is something that could wait for another meeting. Ms. Garrow replied tonight’s goal is to simply to provide information and one of the goals involves reviewing the expectations for all of the 15 City’s boards and commissions. Council is eager to discuss the call-up process and the role of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and P&Z relative to City Council. Staff anticipates future meetings with P&Z on this goal. Ms. Garrow suggested staff provide the information at tonight’s meeting and when Council finalizes the goals later in September, staff can come back to a P&Z meeting with more specific questions. Mr. Supino noted he would schedule another check-in later in the fall. Sign Code Ordinance Mr. Supino reminded P&Z of the check-in back in June on this required update. The ordinance has been adopted and will go into effect September 27, 2017. He noted as part of this ordinance, sandwich boards were eliminated. Previously, these signs were allowed for retail and restaurant uses in approved zone districts. The concern and discussion with Council centered around the Supreme Court’s decision limiting the City’s ability to regulate sign allowances for specific uses which now allow for the potential of sandwich boards to work as off-site signage, almost like billboards. They could have been used by businesses that don’t actually have a physical location in Aspen. The other major concern was to how to make them available to businesses that would benefit from them while not seeing a huge increase in the number of them in the community. He described the approaches considered including one sign per building or one sign per linear foot of street frontage. Under both of these scenarios, there was a potential for a significant increase in the number of signs as well as the sign content may not have anything to do with the building. Giving these concerns, Council decided to eliminate them for now and gather more input on how to try to allow them in the future. Ms. Tygre asked if they all need to be removed. Mr. Supino responded the effective date is September 27, 2017 and the ordinance was written so existing sandwich boards that get a permit prior to the effective date can have one year before they need to be removed. So far they have heard from the businesses there needs to be a level playing field moving forward. Mr. Dupps feels these signs are crucial to the success of a business. He asked if staff could look into making them available on a short-term or temporary businesses. Mr. Supino replied there is a provision for temporary grand opening signs, but because of the limitations imposed by the ruling, it is extremely challenging to make something available to some businesses, but not all. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels the way finding issues will be huge. Ms. Garrow replied Council demonstrated interest in making something available for second-tiered spaces. Mr. Supino encouraged the board to provide feedback from the community as commissioners receive it. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 5, 2017 6 Ms. Garrow noted blade signs are still available for businesses to use. Mr. Supino noted the following were also included in the sign code ordinance: • Marijuana businesses are prohibited from using full-coverage window wraps to meet state visibility requirements. • Stronger controls added for back-lit LED signs • Televisions larger than 32 inches in size and used as a sign must be set-back 15 ft from windows and rights-of way. Smaller televisions must also be set-back, but may be able to face the right- of-way. Ms. Tygre feels first floor businesses should utilize window displays instead of glaring neon signs. Mr. Dupps would like to see televisions go away completely. Ms. Tygre asked if something had changed with how applicants only had to mitigate for part of their employees even though the original building was never mitigated. Ms. Garrow replied generally it is gone. If someone’s project does not trigger demolition, they still only mitigate for the net new sf. If someone triggers demolition, they must mitigate for all the employees. A motion was made to adjourn and seconded. All in favor, motion passed, the meeting was adjourned. Cindy Klob City Clerk Department, Records Manager