Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20170620Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2017 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the June 20, 2017 meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Mr. Spencer McKnight, Mr. Keith Goode, Mr. Rally Dupps and Mr. Mesirow. Mr. Ryan Walterscheid, Ms. Jasmine Tygre, Mr. Jesse Morris, and Ms. McNicholas Kury were not present. Also present from City staff; Ms. Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney, Ms. Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director and Mr. Justin Barker, Senior Planner. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Garrow wanted to let the board know Ms. Sara Nadolny, Planner, is leaving the City for a planner position for the Town of Basalt. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were none. MINUTES Mr. McKnight moved to approve the April 4, 2017 minutes and was seconded by Mr. Dupps. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were none. Public Hearings None. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Garrow noted the topics to be covered. Sign Code Update Ms. Garrow noted every community is required to update their sign code to ensure they are compliant with the Reed decision essentially requiring signs to be content neutral. Staff has questions for P&Z for some sign types which one could argue are not content neutral. Staff is conducting a public outreach process to gather input from residences, ACRA, CCLC. The feedback so far has been the sign code works, so the amendments are targeted to ensure compliance with the Reed decision. She referred to the questions on p 10 of the agenda packet. Question a: Ms. Garrow noted there are two ways to look at restaurant menu boxes. Currently, only restaurants have the option to utilize menu boxes. One is to eliminate all menu boxes as signs. Another Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2017 2 option is to reclassify as them as small directory signs and continue to allow them. Restaurants could continue to use them for menus and retail shops could use them to display sales for the week. Ms. Garrow explained the types of signs. • Projecting \ Blade sign: They are free and don’t count toward your sign allotment. Every business can have one. • Wall \ Window sign: Signs attached to the building or in a window. Wraps used in windows have specific regulations. Menu boxes and directory signs fall in this category. • Sandwich Board sign: Currently limited to restaurant or retail businesses in specific zone districts. • Yard sign: Yard sale, political, real estate signs. • Banners: Typically only allowed over Main St for special events. She stated allotments are calculated based on the size of the tenant space. She added the following: • Menu boxes not attached to the building are considered to be free standing wall signs. • You are allowed either six or eight sf for signs • There is a whole section of what is exempt. Menu boxes are exempt for restaurants. The amendment needs to move the menu boxes into a clear category. Mr. McKnight asked if only restaurants and retail are considered for this type of sign. Ms. Garrow confirmed this was accurate and real estate would be considered retail. Mr. McKnight wondered how a real estate office would utilize them. Ms. Garrow added they are looking into ways to limit it based on the zone district as well as building level. Council in potentially interested in allowing more sign allotment for the second-tier spaces. She added real estate offices are not allowed in the prime level so they are typically located in the second-tier space. She asked if P&Z is interested in continuing to allow this type of sign. Mr. Mesirow does not feel the free-standing menu boxes are offensive as long as you don’t see a vast number in front of each building. He also would not mind having to walk up to the building to view the boxes as well. Ms. Garrow stated there could possibly be some limits set per building, parcel or business. Mr. Goode would like businesses to continue to have them, but does not want to see real estate offices with 20 little boxes. Mr. McKnight supports allowing restaurants to continue having them. He would need to understand the need for other businesses to have them. Ms. Garrow noted there has been some discussion around scrutiny levels with the City Attorneys. Mr. Goode suggested perhaps a business could have a menu box if they provide a public restroom. Mr. Dupps suggested perhaps the menu box could reside in a window of the business. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2017 3 Question b: Ms. Garrow noted sandwich boards are currently only allowed for restaurants and retail businesses, but the City can no longer make this distinction. She asked if P&Z preferred to allow them or not. Mr. Goode asked if they are only allowed for below or above street level spaces. Ms. Garrow noted they may look into that, but currently it is based on use. Mr. Mesirow stated he likes the sandwich boards and provides flexibility to the businesses. Mr. Dupps and Mr. Goode prefer they stay. Mr. Goode added if it means there will be 50 signs in the mall, perhaps it can be limited to locations not at street level. Mr. McKnight would also like them to stay and agrees with Mr. Goode. Both were concerned businesses would lose a valuable opportunity to engage customers. Mr. Goode asked if the building owner could decide who gets one or not. Ms. Garrow replied staff has discussed this as an option. Mr. Goode is concerned this would become a bidding war. Ms. Garrow stated in terms of being content neutral, staff cannot read the signs to determine if it relates to a local business or not. Mr. Mesirow asked if this was true of our current code. Ms. Garrow replied this is something that needs to be changed. He then asked if there have been issues in the past. She could remember only one instance. She asked P&Z if there were any areas of town where sandwich boards were or were not appropriate. Mr. McKnight noted having a bunch of extra signs on the mall would be an issue. She added they would have to be in a line if multiple ones existed. Mr. McKnight then stated he changed his mind and now leans towards not having them if everyone can do it. Mr. Goode is only okay with them if the business is not on the ground level. Mr. Dupps agrees with Mr. Mesirow and would not like to see the signs go away. He wondered if it is best to see what happens and if it becomes a problem, just suspend everyone’s permit until you can figure it out. Mr. Goode asked about the status of the businesses handing out samples from their door. Ms. Bryan replied they are allowed to solicit people from their threshold, but the City can’t stop them from handing them out. Multiple P&Z members stated their displeasure with the businesses conducting this way. Mr. Goode questioned if the malls could be designated solicitation free zones. Question c: Ms. Garrow noted the City currently has different regulations for political, construction, yard sale, real estate signs and with the Reed decision will no long be able to make a distinction between them. She asked if the yard sale sign regulations be relatively liberal or more restrictive. Liberal would allow for a specific number of signs for a specific period of time. More restrictive would not allow any signs at all. Staff is recommending allowing for one or two signs per property for a set period of time. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2017 4 Mr. Mesirow asked during a presidential election year, how the City expects to tell owners to limit their signs to two at the most. Ms. Garrow suggest the regulations could state an owner can have one per year, but for a six-month period, they can have up to five. She added currently none of these signs require a permit which she anticipates would continue. Most agreed a more liberal approach would be best and did not feel a limit was necessary. Question d: Ms. Garrow stated banners are currently allowed over Main St and limited to non-profit or public service announcements. Because they are over the City’s right-of-way, staff believes they may be able to enforce limitations on what can be up as well as the content. She asked the board if they wanted to see any changes with banners. Mr. Dupps stated he personally has always disliked the banners because he finds them distracting and prefers to see the landscape instead. Ms. Garrow asked about the flags on the light posts to which he stated those were fine. Mr. McKnight feels they are fine for events, but personally feels it is not a worthwhile way to announce your event. Mr. Goode agrees with Rally and feels they are similar to a bill board. He is okay with the signs on the light posts. Mr. Mesirow does not know if they are effective, but does not care either way. Ms. Garrow noted Council likes the light post flags and sees the possible value of having a banner. Mr. McKnight feels he is not sure how the community or tourists feel about the banners. Question e: Ms. Garrow asked if there were any other questions or thoughts about signs. Mr. Goode asked about neon or lighted tube signs. She recognized the need to update the lighting code. Mr. Mesirow asked if projection was allowed and Ms. Garrow replied it is not allowed at all, except for a special event. Mr. Dupps noted he recently rented a Mini Cooper and it projected its logo on the ground. Ms. Garrow then stated staff is also looking into code for street blimps, which have been difficult to enforce. Mr. Dupps feels they can be fun. Ms. Garrow added staff is looking for a way to allow businesses such as the Hickory House to utilize signed vehicles, but limit those here solely for special events. Mr. McKnight stated he would support staff. 2017 Community Development Work Program Ms. Garrow noted there are a lot of items listed in the memo for the work program which includes everything the community development department could work on over the next year. She added the department could not do everything on the list. She asked the board which items are important. She Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2017 5 stated the first section contains items the department is already set to work on per Council’s direction. She divided the remaining items into sections and noted they are primarily left over items from the moratorium which need attention. 1. Use Mix Items 2. Parking & Mobility 3. Affordable Housing 4. Commercial and Residential Design Items 5. Additional Community Development Items which are not related to the moratorium Ms. Garrow asked them to take a look at items 4, 5 and 6 on p 20 of the packet which staff feels strongly should be addressed as clean up items from the moratorium. She believes number 4 (Definition and Standards for Lodge Use) is the most important one to address now. Ms. Garrow stated as part of the moratorium, free market residential-mixed use buildings were banned essentially everywhere. Staff is now seeing people coming in saying they want to build a one unit lodge in a commercial building. Staff is very concerned this will lodge will function as a free market residential and defeat the purpose of the recent code amendments. She noted the other two items are related to the building permit process. She stated it is challenging for a business owner to get through the permit process when your project is behind the really large residential building applications which take a lot of time. Staff is proposing a pilot program for those interested in pursuing some guarantee review times for tenant finishes. Staff is also interested in looking at energy efficiency process to see if there are ways to improve it. Ms. Garrow noted a couple of other topics she feels are important are affordable housing and the use mix. P&Z agrees with staff regarding the importance of number 4 – Definition and Standards for Lodge Use. P&Z also agrees with staff regarding number 5 – Expedited Tenant Finish Permitting Process. Mr. Goode asked at what point does the Building Department decide they need to contract help to process the back log. Ms. Garrow noted it is part a budget issue and part a small lodge issue. She said the efforts on amendments would complement existing efforts to address smaller projects. Mr. Dupps left the hearing. Ms. Garrow stated she would note P&Z supports numbers 4, 5 and 6. Ms. Garrow then discussed item number 7 – Renewable Energy Systems on p 21. She noted P&Z has yet to see an application because currently the application is only reviewed if the solar panel is installed on a wall, not a roof. She added it seems to be in conflict with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) by not allowing renewable energy systems to be installed without a review. Ms. Garrow asked P&Z if staff should further examine this section or not. Most applicants decide to abandon their efforts when they are told a review is required. Mr. McKnight feels someone should look at, but not necessarily require a review. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2017 6 Ms. Garrow noted number 8 – Local Food Production has yet to be picked up. Mr. Goode feels this would be awesome. Other members agreed. Mr. Mesirow asked if only exterior energy efficiencies are considered for number 6. Ms. Garrow replied it could also include mechanical and lighting systems. Ms. Garrow added this amendment would help the encouragement of the other energy program incentives without getting stuck behind other permits. Ms. Garrow summarized P&Zs recommendations: • Strong support on 4, 5 & 6 • Support for 7 & 8 as well. Mr. Mesirow and Mr. Goode re-emphasized their support for number 8. Ms. Garrow then discussed the use mix topic (p 15 of the agenda) noting the following: Legacy Business Program: Ms. Garrow stated San Francisco CA adopted this program which states if your business has been operating for 40 or 60 years, there is a specific program available with funding to help your business and address the high rents. It is unknown how this could be funded and administered. Mr. Mesirow seems like a really poor allocation of investment if looking at the long term viability of the business by propping up businesses that have proven they don’t work and crowding out other ones that are adapting and should work. He believes the distinction for him that comes in play is where something has a unique use. He then gave the example of community members purchasing the Explore Book Store. He does not see this as a good solution. Mr. McKnight agrees and disagrees. He sees buildings sitting empty waiting on a chain to come in that can afford the rent. He was also just thinking of Jimmy’s celebrating their 20th anniversary. Mr. Mesirow stated if the City is going to invest in a business, they need to figure out if the person is a Jimmy or not. Mr. McKnight noted this program feels like affordable housing for businesses and finding a way to curate what needs to be here rather than losing the town. Ms. Garrow noted it may be less about the legacy business program and more about a bigger business program. Mr. Mesirow stated if the conversation continued forward on expanding the walking malls for example, we should be thinking of that holistically with a central corridor with units on public land without worrying about hyper inflated rents. This could provide opportunities for businesses to determine if they can be successful or not without having to pay out large amounts of money up front. Mr. Goode noted Golden has found a way to incubate businesses with financing or permits. Ms. Garrow believes there may be an economic resiliency or sustainability focus the City could have that may have a land use component but is more about attracting businesses or providing space for businesses. She asked P&Z for their thoughts. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 20, 2017 7 Mr. Goode felt it could be great. Mr. Mesirow believe a certain amount of hand holding is much more important than we know. Mr. Goode wondered if the Planner of the Day hears more about this with new ideas that could be tied in some way. Ms. Garrow then discussed item B – Essential Business Overlay (EBO) Zone Standards. She stated the EBO was created that doesn’t really have any incentives but is available for people in the SCI and NC zone districts. She asked if more time should be spent on this now or left as a place holder. Mr. Mesirow stated if SCI could work and stay current, he believes it is something we should spend time on if time permits knowing in the past things change quickly making it difficult. Ms. Garrow reminded P&Z the use list has been updated as part of the moratorium but it was not a comprehensive effort to determine what type of businesses should be encouraged. The EBO provides more flexibility than previously allowed. During the moratorium, Council did not want to explore into incentives and bonuses. The board did not express it should be a high priority at this time, but should remain tabled for now. Mr. Mesirow believes if the City attempts to specify what business do or do not make sense, it would be a recipe for disaster. He does feel the City could attempt to provide funding and space incentives. Ms. Garrow then discussed item E – Live-Work Residential Standards. She noted there have been some businesses who would love to have a live-work space. She asked if this is something P&Z feels staff should spend time on it or not. She added ultimately staff could spend time on it and the answer might be there is no way to regulate ourselves which is everyone wants a free market residential unit without a noisy business below them. Mr. Mesirow stated he has heard there is a lot of abuse of live-work spaces. Ms. Garrow stated technically live-work is not allowed but for one area. Mr. Goode stated if we continue to build affordable housing projects, it would be nice to see a commercial space attached. Ms. Garrow asked if there was one thing P&Z could ask them to work on, what would it be. Mr. Mesirow stated find a way to lower the barriers for small businesses. Mr. McKnight and Mr. Goode agreed. Ms. Garrow asked if there was one area to focus on, what would it be. The board agreed affordable housing. A motion was made to adjourn and seconded. All in favor, motion passed. Cindy Klob City Clerk Department, Records Manager