Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19920331A G E N D A ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING March 31, 1992, Tuesday. 4:30 P.M. 2nd Floor Meeting Room City Hall I. COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Whipple Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, Leslie Lamont B. Old Library Text Amendment, Leslie Lamont IV. ADJOURN PUBLIC NOTICE DATENL(,,,_,,, TIME PURPOSE tj""r CASE # . ...... 6 . .... nor, :,.MAR 2 71992 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, Christel Elliott do hereby certify that on the 20th day of March, 1992, I placed a true and correct copy of the Public Notice re: Whipple Accessory Dwelling Unit in the United State Mail, first-class, postage prepaid to the adjacent property owners listed on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Christel Elliott STATE OF COLORADO ) )SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn before me on this day of , 1992, by Christel Elliott. Witness my hand and official seal My commission expires: Notary Public ,;6"� i PUBLIC NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS RE: WHIPPLE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 31, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd floor Meeting Room, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application submitted by G. Steve Whipple, 121 S. Galena, Suite 203, Aspen, Colorado 81611, requesting a conditional use permit for an attached accessory dwelling unit. Property location: 825 Roaring Fork Road. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/ Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5090. s/Jasmine Tygre, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on March 12, 1992. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- City of Aspen Account 804 INC. LOT 14, SECOND ASPEN COMPANY I SUBDIVISION 804 ROARING FORK ROAD ASPEN CO 81611 i ALAN FELDMAN LOT 13, SECOND ASPEN COMPANY 600 EYLINTON AVENUE EAST SUBDIVISION SUITE 402 TORONT05 ONTARIO M4P1P3 ANNE F. FARISN ALL OF LOTS 5, 69 7, 8 AND 9, #16E AND PART OF LOTS 10 AND 11 OF 2200 WILLOWICK BLOCK 49 ASPEN COMPANY SUB HOUSTON TX 77027 ASPEN CENTER FOR METES AND BOUNDS ENVIROMENTAL STUDIES 100 PUPPY SMITH ASPEN CO 81611 BERMUDA PROPERTIES, INC. LOT 4, SECOND ASPEN COMPANY C/O POLLNER, MEXAN, SIDNEY, SCHWARTZ 360 LEXINGTON AVENUE NEW YORK CITY NY 10017 BRUCE BERGER THE "EASTERLY TRACT" OF THE SUITE 604 C. F. MURPHY ASSOCIATES, INC. 342 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK CITY NY 10171 BRUCE BERGER THE "WESTERLY TRACT" OF THE SUITE 604 C. F. MURPHY ASSOCIATES, INC. 342 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK CITY NY 10171 CHARLES B. JR. AND ROBIN H. MOSS LOT 16, SECOND ASPEN COMPANY B.S. MOSS ENTERPRISES, INC. SUBDIVISION 7 CHATEAU RIDGE DRIVE GREENWICH NY 06831 DAVID H. KOCH LOT 10, SECOND ASPEN COMPANY C/O KOCH INDUSTRIES SUBDIVISION PO BOX 2256 WICHITA KS 67201 DAVID H. KOCH LOT 9, SECOND ASPEN COMPANY C/O RUTH E. WILLIAMS POST OFFICE BOX 2256 WICHITA KS 67201 GARY LAUDER & WILLIAM LAUDER C/O ESTEE LAUDER INC. 767 5TH. AVENUE 37TH. FLOOR NEW YORK CITY NY LEONARD A. LAUDER 2 E. 67THM STREET NEW YORK CITY NY LEONARD A. LAUDER AND EVELYN H. LAUDER 2 EAST 67TH. STREET NEW YORK CITY NY SAM K. VIERSEN, JR. TRUSTEE BOX 280 OKMULGEE OK SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION (NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE) STEPHEN J. MARCUS POST OFFICE BOX 1709 ASPEN CO 33402 81611 10021 10021 10021 74447 EM M THE EDWARD ARTHUR GOLDSTEIN TRUST 416 COMSTOCK AVENUE LOS ANGELES CA 90024 WHIPPLE-BREWSTER CORP 121 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN CO 81611 LOT 2, SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION LOT 15, SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION COMMON AREA MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: Whipple Conditional Use Review DATE: March 31, 1992 SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a single family home with an attached, 423 square foot (net liveable), accessory dwelling unit. Staff recommends approval of conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit. APPLICANT: George Whipple LOCATION: 825 Roaring Fork Road, Aspen ZONING: R-15 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To provide an attached studio accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Ordinance 1 requirements. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Having reviewed the application and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: 1. A construction site drainage plan and procedure should be considered before starting any excavation for the proposed development. The construction procedures employed must be such that no runoff from rain or snowmelt be permitted to drain to the street from contact with disturbed earth. 2. The engineering staff requests that the applicant give consideration to maintaining historic storm runoff; and maintaining any increased storm runoff on -site. 3. Per the Municipal Code Section 19-101, the applicant's driveway from the property line to the street can not exceed eighteen (18) feet in width. 4. The applicant shall consult the City Parks Department and the City Engineering Department for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way and shall obtain permits for any work or development from the City Streets Department. STAFF COMMENTS: Conditional Use Review - Pursuant to Section 7-304 the criteria for a conditional use review are as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located; and RESPONSE: The proposed accessory dwelling unit will be approximately 423 square feet on the ground floor of the proposed single family home. The unit will comply with the Housing Guidelines and the requirements of Ordinance 1. The unit will be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit for residents of Pitkin County. Provision of an accessory dwelling unit is consistent with the City's policy to encourage affordable housing in all neighborhoods. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and RESPONSE: The accessory dwelling unit is attached to the proposed single-family residence and will not increase the mass or floor area of the proposed home. The design of the house would be the same if the accessory dwelling unit were not included. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and RESPONSE: The attached accessory dwelling unit will have no adverse effect upon surrounding properties. The proposed residence will continue to appear as a single-family structure. Seven parking spaces are provided for on -site. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protec- tion, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools;.and RESPONSE: A single family residence occupied the site until 1987. No new services are required to redevelop the site with a primary residence and a 423 square foot accessory dwelling unit. The Engineering Department is requiring the applicant to maintain historic storm runoff patterns and any increased storm runoff must be contained on -site. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and 2 Z RESPONSE: The proposal includes a s�:dio accessory dwelling unit for employees of Pitkin County. An increase in employees is not expected by the provision of an accessory dwelling unit. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: The conditional use meets the requirements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan anon other requirements of this chapter by integrating a community housing need into the redevelopment of the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use for the attached accessory dwelling unit with ttr following conditions prior to the issuance of any building perm__":.s: 1. the applicant shall, upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Authority, record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk, Recorders Office and Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall_ be rented for periods of six months or . ~: Eger. 2. all representations that are made in the application and those reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be complied with. 3. const:ruction procedures employed must be such that no runoff frog. rain or snowmelt be permitted to drain to the street from cor. --t with disturbed earth. 4. the Municipal Code Section 19-101, the applicant's driveway fry- property line to the street can not exceed eighteen (18) fee : idth. 5. thy;- _. A cant shall consult the City Parks Department and the City Engi:ieering Department for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way and shall obtain permits for any work or development from the City Streets Department. 6. the applicant shall agree to join any future improvemer districts which may be formed for the purpose of construct 1nCi improvements in the public right f'-way. 7. the applicant shall review th the Engineering Department potential st.z-m-water drainage management issues. ATTACHMENTS: Site Plans 3 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: Text Amendments - Sections 24-5-213.E.3, 24-7404,_B._._, 7-4 =104:B.1.b. of the Aspen Municipal Code DATE: March 31, 1992 SUMMARY: The applicant seeks to amend Sections 24-5-213.E.3, 24- 7-404.B., 24-7-405, and 24-8-104.B.1.b. of the Aspen Municipal Code. The amendment will affect the parking requirements for the Of f ice Zone District, Special Review for parking and GMQS Exemption for a Change in Use. A text amendment is a two step review process requiring a public hearing at the Commission and Ordinance adoption procedures at City Council. Staff recommends approval of the text amendment for Sections 24- 5-213, 4-7-404, 24-7-405 and proposes an alternative amendment for Sectio! 24-8-104. APPLICANT: Pitkin County, as represented by Sunny Vann. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Amend Sections 24-5-213.E.3, 24-7-404.B, 24- 7-405 and 24-8-104.B.1.b. of the Aspen Municipal Code. STAFF COMMENTS: A. Background: As a result of rezoning the old library parcel from Public to Office, the eventual user of the building will be required to provide parking in compliance with the requirements of the Office Zone District. The Office Zone District requires 3 parking spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable. That requirement may be reduced to 1.5 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable by Special Review with cash -in -lieu. But the requirements of the Office Zone District do not allow a further reduction of on -site parking. Although there are no proposals to redevelop the property or change the existing structure, the rezoning effectively provided for uses that must address the parking requirements for an Office Zone District. The City Council directed staff to consider a more flexible parking review and reasonably: mitigation for situations similar to the old library when on -site parking cannot be provided because of the existing build out of the parcel. The County prepared the proposed text amendments creating a mechanism in the code for the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to review parking requirements in the Office Zone District with similar flexibility that is found in the Commercial Core and C-1 Zone Districts. The County's proposed amendments were reviewed by staff. Some proposed language changes were reconsidered and the calculation for mitigation of a change in use was modified from the County's proposal. The amendments contained in this memorandum represent a consensus from staff, the City Attorney and the applicant.. B. Proposal: The purpose of the proposed amendments are to consider reasonable parking requirements and provide relief from parking mitigation in situations when parking cannot be provided on -site. It is not the goal of City staff to promote demolition of existing buildings to eliminate a non -conformity. Following is a summary of the applicants proposal. 1. The applicant, in researching the Land Use Code prior to the 1988 Code rewrite, found that in the Office Zone District parking could be reduced from 3 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable upon special review without cash -in -lieu. The applicant proposes a reestablishment of Special Review by the Commission reducing on - site parking to 1.5 space/1000 sq. ft. of net leasable (if appropriate) without cash -in -lieu. In addition, if further reduction in parking is requested beyond the 1.5 spaces/1,000 square feet of net leasable then, by Special Review, cash -in -lieu would be required for the spaces reduced beyond 1.5/1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable. 2. In order to reduce the parking from 1.5 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable for cash -in -lieu the Special Review section of the Code must be amended to provide the Commission with additional review criteria. 3. The GMQS Exemption for a Change in Use does not include the category of Public. An interpretation was made at the time of the library rezoning that the required review was also -'a change in use - public use to office/private use. The applicant, through this text amendment, wishes to formalize that review process. In addition, the change in use section of the Code is not clear on how employee and parking mitigation is calculated. The applicant has proposed that the calculations assess the employee and parking mitigation required of the existing use compared to the mitigation Orequired for the proposed use. Whether or not mitigation was originally provided is irrelevant. The difference from what should have been required verses what is required by the new use is the mitigation for the change in use. For example, if the parking required for a residence is 2 spaces and parking required for office is 12 but the residential use did not provide 'the 2 required on -site parking spaces the mitigation for the proposed use is the difference of what was required not what is provided. Therefore mitigation would be 10 spaces. 2 0 However, upon staff discussion, research and review of the premise of the Growth Management System and GMQS exemptions, stiff cont ,.ends that tY�- . change in u.,,:La only exempts an applicar, - from the competition process not from mitigation. Mitigation should be considered as if a vacanC' parcel were being developed. Thus, in the above example if only 0 spaces are provided on -site the entire 12 parking spaces would be required to be mitigated. If the original use had mitigated both parking and employees the new use would only mitigate the difference of what is required from what was originally provided. 4. The applicant has proposed an appeal to Council for parking mitigation. Council, following a recommendation from the Commission, may waive all or a portion of the parking mitigation required for a change in use proposal only. C. Amendment: the proposed amendments are as follows (bold indicates new language): 1. Section 24-5-213 - Office (0). E. Off-street marking requirement. 3. "All other uses: 3 spaces/1,000 ft. of net leasable area; fewer spaces may be ovidc-,r: by special review pursuant to -icle 7 ??�.--yision 4, but no fewer that. 1.5 spaces/1, 000 sq. ti. per of net lea able area shall be prc. 'ed. en Upon establishment of the pw1 'king requirement as provided for above the parking spaces required hereunder may �,n provided via a payment in lieu pursuant to Article 7, Di- ..on 4." 2. Section 24-7-404 Review standards for special review. B. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to establishment or reduction by special review, or may be provided via a payment in lieu, the Development Application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. -2—.1. In all et -her zone districts where the off-street parking requirements are subject to establishment or reduction by special review, the-pplicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of t. residents, customers, guests and employees of the prr. act have been met, taking into ran -count potential u.- := of the parce-t�ro�ected �_. :;ffic generation of the project i s proximity to mass t_. ,-visit routes and the downtown area, and any special se�� ices, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 3 3 �2 . In ' (L�TRy all zone districts, where the off-street parking requirement may be provided via a payment in lieu, the applicant shall make a one-time only payment in pane payment to the City, in the amount of $15, 000 per space required based on the report entitled "Physical and Financial Conceptual Design for Two Parking Facilities for the City of Aspen" prepared by RNL Facilities Corporation. Note: no other changes are proposed for the rest of this section, 7-404.B.1.(2) 3. "To obtain a reduction and/or waiver in the number of off-street parking spaces required by a GMQS change in use exemption, the Commission and City Council shall take into consideration whether a valid public purpose would be served by the reduction and/or waiver, whether the property is located within a designated historic district, the availability of sufficient publicly owned parking spaces in the area to justify the reduction and/or waiver without detriment to the public health, welfare and safety, the availability of shared parking, and the applicant's commitment to support alternative transportation modes." 3. Section 24-7-405. Procedure for special review approval. "A Development Application for Special Review shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the Planning Director and then approved, approved with conditions or disapproved by the Commission at a hearing held in accordance with the procedure established in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2. An application to reduce and/or waive the number of off-street parking spaces required by a GMQS change in use exemption shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval by the Commission and then approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the City Council at a hearing. A development application for special review may be consolidated with any other Development Application pursuant to the Requirements of Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2." 4. Section 24-8-104. Exemptions. B. Exemption by commission. i.b. Change in use. Any change in use between the residential, commercial/office and tourist 4 accommodations growth management categories, or between these categories and the Pub (Public) zone district, for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least two (2) years, and which is intended to be reused, provided that it can be demonstrated that the change in use will have minimal impact upon City. A determination of minimal impact shall require a demonstration that a minimal number of additional employees will be generated by the change in use and thatley-ee affordable housing is generated; that a minimal amount of additional parking spaces will be demanded by the change in use and that parking will be provided; that there will be minimal visual impact on the neighborhood from the change in use; and that minimal demand will be place on the City's public facilities from the change in use. In order to determine the number of additional employees generated and required to be housed by a change in use between the residential, commerical/office and tourist accommodations growth management categories, and the Public Zone District, the Commission shall compare the number of employees housed by the existing use to the number of employees generated and required to be housed by the proposed use. In the event the number of employees generated and required to be housed by the proposed use is greater than the number of employees housed by the existing use, the resulting difference shall be mitigated. The applicable standards of the respective residential, commerical and lodge growth management categories shall be used to determine the number of employees generated and required to be housed. The number of employees generated and required to be housed by a public use shall be based upon the requirements of Section 8-104.C.1.b. of this Article. In order to determine the number of additional parking spaces required by a change in use, the Commission shall compare the off-street parking provided by the existing use to the parking requirement of the proposed use. In the event the off-street parking requirement of the proposed use is greater than the parking provided by the existing use, the resulting difference shall be mitigated. The applicable standards of the underlying zone districts shall be used to determine each use's off- street parking requirement. The number of additional parking spaces required by a change in use may be reduced and/or waived by the City Council 5 upon the recommendation of the Commission pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 4." APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of review for a Text Amendment are as follows: a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. RESPONSE: The reduction of parking by Special Review is already found in the Land Use Code. An initial reduction of required parking in the Office Zone District, without cash in -lieu, is consistent with the previous Code language prior to 1988. To amend the parking requirement for the Office Zone District by not requiring cash -in -lieu for a reduction in parking is a policy consideration. Although the money accrued via cash -in -lieu is deposited in the Parking Fund which is currently being used to offset construction and operating costs of the parking garage, parcels that are within walking distance of the garage and mass transit routes may be considered appropriate for a reduction in the required amount of parking. Also, for those unique parcels whereby parking cannot be accommodated on -site or 1.5 spaces/1000 sq. ft. of net leasable creates undesirable impacts on the property or surrounding properties, the ability to mitigate via a cash -in -lieu payment to the Parking Fund to support City wide parking and transit goals may be more appropriate. The change in use amendments fill the gap for Public parcels that may be rezoned or formally change their use to either commerical, residential, or lodge. Presently, many public land uses throughout the community are relocating it may become more prevalent to rezone public parcels and change their uses. This amendment formally addresses that change in use and defines the proper formula for assessing mitigation for all change in uses. b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The ability to review the parking demand based upon location of the property and other unique characteristics is consistent with past parking requirements in the Office Zone District (especially given the differences between the east side and Main Street Office Zone Districts) and the CC and C-1 Zone Districts. In addition, the 1987 Transportation Element of the Plan reviews public parking demand based upon land uses and the on-street/off-street public parking spaces available after demand is satisfied. Although the Main Street Office Zone District is not included on the parking demand map in the 1987 Plan, as one moves out of the commercial core toward Paepcke Park, the on -street demand becomes lower with more spaces available for the public. N. C The single area with the highest parking demand is the base of Aspen Mountain, followed by the Pedestrian Mall area. The Transportation Plan also analyzed the off-street parking problem. Based upon national averages, which were reduced for Aspen because of the strong inclination toward transit and pedestrian modes of transportation, and Aspen's trip generation rate, the recommended parking requirement for office use was 1.5 spaces/1, 000 sq. ft. of net leasable. The Plan only focused on the downtown core, however, for those office sites close to the downtown core, the plan substantiates the need for only 1.5 spaces/1000 sq. ft. In addition, the 1992 Aspen Area Community Draft Plan promotes a more auto free downtown with the support of auto alternatives. The auto alternatives must be in place to insure its use by residents and tourists. Otherwise, the automobile will be used with measure for additional parking. The change in use revisions support the Growth Management concept that a change in use should be exempt but the mitigation should be fully assessed. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone Districts and land uses, con w' I. eying existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: The proposed revisions to the office parking requirements are consistent with the Commercial Core and C-1 parking requirements in that all or a portion of the required parking may be mitigated by cash -in -lieu. The ability to reduce the parking requirement by Special Review without a cash -in -lieu enables the true need for parking of a particular site to be established. The criteria for Special Review considers the surrounding land uses and impacts to the surrounding neighborhood if the on -site parking is reduced. The ability to review a change in use for Public by applying mitigation standards similar to those applied to commercial, lodge and residential change in use should protect surrounding properties from an increase in intensity of use without mitigation. d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: Except for the amendment allowing Council to reduce or waive parking mitigation requirements, the amendments to Office parking requirements help to establish a realistic parking requirement by Special Review. Then, if the required parking cannot be provided, the Commission has the flexibility to impose mitigation. In combination, the two amendments should not create further parking problems or auto related safety problems. 7 The change in use section (that includes a Public category) will dictate the mitigation for an increase in the required parking and employee housing and address the potential parking and traffic problems. e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. RESPONSE: Parking cash -in -lieu payments are deposited in the Parking Fund which is used to off -set parking garage construction and operations. The proposed amendments do not eliminate a cash - in -lieu requirement. The amendments attempt to balance the parking requirements of a parcel that cannot provide on -site parking with the acknowledgment that some parcels do not need to provide maximum parking (3 spaces/1000 sq. ft.) given their proximity to garages, transit routes etc. Although a change of use is exempt from the GMQS competition, impacts are still mitigated and the new square footage that is "created" in a particular category is deducted from the annual allocation of that category. For example, if a 2,000 square foot residence converts to an office use, the annual quota for the Office Zone will be reduced by 2,000 sq. ft. to reflect the increase in office space inventory. f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. 1. RESPONSE: Auto disincentives have been examined as a means to reduce air and noise pollution within the downtown. Flexible parking review standards encourage auto disincentives rather than encourage demolition of existing non -conforming structures to comply with parking standards or parking lots to encourage auto use instead of green space. g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: During the creation of the 1992 Aspen Area Community Plan, a specific focus has been given to the transportation issues of the metro area. The vision being developed in the Plan is one of programs which promotes auto disincentives and protects existing structures. The amendments proposed support these goals of the Community Plan. 8 R m h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: Parcels on the outskirts of Main Street are very different from those office zoned parcels between Original and Spring Streets. Special Review for a reduction in parking will address the disparate locations of parcels zoned Office in a more reasonable manner. The ability to eliminate all required parking via cash -in -lieu helps to alleviate those problematic parcels where on -site parking cannot be provided for several reasons without encouraging the redevelopment of the property to correct a non- conformity. i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. RESPONSE: The revisions to the Office parking requirements are no different from the way parking review in the Office zone has been treated in the past. The ability to mitigate all, required parking via cash -in -lieu is consistent with the community's desire to support auto alternatives such as mass transit and maintain existing buildings. The intent of the cl,-�nge in use GMQS exemption is to ensure that the impacts from increase in the intensity of use will be mitigated. To amen_ >>hat section to include Public use addresses a missing link in t:. Code. POINTS OF DISCUSSION: 1. The amendment allowing Council to reduce or waive parking requirements for a change in use only requires ordinance review proceedings. Adoption of an Ordinance requires first and second reading with a public hearing at second reading. The public hearing only requires the publication of the Ordinance. If Council considered waiving all or some parking mitigation of a particular project there may be broader impacts on surrounding neighbors. Staff suggests that a full public hearing with noticing and posting of the property may be the more appropriate review procedure for this type of action. 2. Creating a new review procedure for Council will require an amendment to Section 24-6-205: Review of a development application by decision -making bodies. 3. The Commission may want to add additional review criteria for Special Review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments as contained herein. 9 0