Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20180116 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING January 16, 2018 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. December 19, 2017 V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 465/557 North Mill Street Rezoning - TO BE CONTINUED TO MARCH 6, 2018 VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Housing Credits Policy Discussion B. Appoint chair and vice chair C. Miscellaneous code update check-in VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 1 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal 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 December 19, 2017 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the December 19, 2017 meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Rally Dupps, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Spencer McKnight and Ryan Walterscheid present. Also present from City staff; Mr. James R. True and Ms. Jennifer Phelan. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Manning stated the City is still seeking applications for open board positions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were none. MINUTES Mr. Walterscheid moved to approve the minutes from December 5, 2017; seconded by Mr. Dupps. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were none. Aspen Pedestrian Mall Project – Review Design Alternatives Tim Thompson, asset department, introduced Mike Albert and Darla Calloway from Design Workshop. Mr. Albert told the Commission they are going to share the results of the analysis that has been completed and present the three alternatives. They hope the best attributes of each rise to the top for the best plan. The focus is mainly on the above grade improvements. As far as the schedule goes, they are contracted for Phase I and II. The goals have been established by the community to maintain the historical integrity and character. It will explore innovative ways to improve the stormwater system as well as replace aging utilities. The goal is to retain the malls as an urban park, increase accessibility and engage the public and business owners. There has been rigorous community engagement for the last year. We asked the community their priorities. Responses included character, vitality and updating the utilities as the highest priorities. The David Fountain as well as the fire pit need some consideration. Art should be looked at as well as the information kiosk and the Sister Cities plaza. We asked about the paving, should the future mall retain the look of the current brick and 90 percent of the respondents replied yes. They also suggested additional furniture, water features and at grade plantings. We asked what kind of events would be appropriate. The most popular were small musical performances, talks and outdoor dining. We considered flexible elements including art, flowers and food and beverage carts. There were a number of questions about lighting and benches. Most came back as what we currently have is great. There was a common theme that there is not enough bike and ski storage. Ms. Callaway said as far as infrastructure, any stormwater improvements will meet the urban drainage master plan. We will treat all the surfaces. It is common to treat private parcels within the right of way. However, this is more of a policy discussion. To treat the adjacent private parcels would not require a P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 19, 2017 2 great deal more infrastructure. Stormwater strategies do not impact the integrity of the mall. It will be achieved mostly through permeable paving. There will need to be some underground infiltration. This is not how the mall drains today with the curb and gutter system. This past summer we investigated all the utilities through potholing and found a mixed bag of conditions. Most impactful to businesses and users are the water and electrical lines. We could just replace what is there today. There would be significant impacts to the trees. There is also the question of should the utilities be closer to the buildings. It may make sense for this project to preserve the trees. Could the utilities go in the alley. The reality is most of the services today are located in the malls. It would require re-routing to the alleys and significant construction impacts. We are looking at where the lines go and what the impact to the trees will be. As far as accessibility, over a five percent grade would not be ADA compliant. There are multiple directions of travel on the mall. To make it ADA compliant all the cross slopes need to be at two percent. That is not possible with the connection to the businesses. Most of the mall services will be replaced to bring it up to ADA standards. One option is can the center of Hyman and Cooper be left alone with the existing paving and how do we address the slopes. They would need to rise up to meet the direction of travel. There has been lots of conversation around brick and maintaining the historic character. We shipped the different brick types to a manufacturer in Denver to see if they could be replicated without the date stamp. They can. All the options have similar construction impacts as far as timeline and will result in significant costs. Mr. Albert spoke about the three alternatives. Option one is stay the course. This most closely aligns with what is there today. He gave a virtual tour of the mall. The street crossings would be painted running diagonal at the corners. The dancing fountain would be repaired to today’s standards. The crab apple trees would be removed off site during the utility replacement. Outdoor dining stays the same along the sides of the buildings at Mill. The bridges and crossings are replaced as is. The trees would be replanted. The Kai Davis fountain stays as it is but the water level would be lifted up for more public interaction. One to two parking spaces would be removed at the corners and replaced with bike racks and trash receptacles. The playground would be brought up to today’s standards with a nature theme. The restrooms stay in place. The Sister Cities plaza would be relocated to the node in front of the old McDonalds building to the original diamond shape. For outdoor dining on Cooper and Hyman some would stay against the buildings and some would be in the middle. We would work to create better passage ways across the malls. All alternatives look at the replacement of the information kiosk, this option would stay in the same location. He showed images of the nature inspired playground. All alternatives look at a connection to Durant Street. This alternative is just an expanded eight foot sidewalk with trees between the sidewalk and buss pull in with rain gardens for the stormwater. Alternative two is more community activity. It is a similar design with a few opportunities to increase programming. Instead of a painted cross walk at the Wheeler intersection it is concrete. The dancing fountain is repaired. There is the same tree and dining configuration along Mill Street. The main difference at Hyman and Cooper is the dining is relocated to the middle. This option rebuilds the Kai Davis fountain. There is an expanded curb to the east to increase the pedestrian crossing. The playground is upgraded to an imagination playground. The Sister Cities plaza stays much like today. There is the opportunity for flexible games at Wagner park to activate the space. The community is open to additional water features at the Galena node. The fire pit is removed in all three alternatives. He showed images of the playground. The Durant connection will have additional plantings. There is a bike shelter included in this alternative. Alternative three looks at building the South Mill connection. Mill Street has changed the most since the original connection. This will introduce brick and concrete into the crossing. The dancing fountain is repaired. The existing crab apple trees would be replaced with a non-fruit bearing ornamental tree. Along Hyman and Cooper will be similar but outdoor dining is detached from the buildings and placed along the gutters. The Kai Davis fountain is reconstructed with a cascading water feature. There is a lot P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 19, 2017 3 of change at the Cooper and Sister Cities area. The restrooms are reconstructed to increase visibility to the park and open it up. There could be a way to increase the size of the restrooms to increase capacity as well as a pavilion. We asked if the Sister Cities area could become more. This alternative includes a misting fountain. The Paradise Bakery side of the curb would be reconstructed to improve the crossing. There would be locations for rotating art at the Galena node. The playground focuses on flexible elements. The Durant connection would have paved surfaces, street trees and bike and ski storage. Ms. Calloway reviewed the questionnaire results. Maintaining the historic character was the highest priority with utilities being next. Also favorable is improving the Wagner park edge. The highest vote of any question was relocating the restrooms. Mr. Mesirow asked if the replacement of the water lines would affect the trees. Some won’t be replaced. Mr. Albert replied it depends on the alternative. Ms. Calloway said the crab apples can be reused. Some of the trees are too large to box up, store then reuse. It will come down to what the arborist says. We will come back with a proposed tree planting plan. Mr. Mesirow asked for the Durant connection, will there still be a curb on the street side. Ms. Calloway replied yes. Mr. Dupps asked if alternative three were to go forward what would the construction phasing be. Mr. Thompson stated that will be an ongoing conversation with the public and business owners. Those are the big questions we need to tackle as a group. We need to know the impacts to the business owners and the costs. We won’t know the time frame until we know the preferred option. Mr. Dupps asked if funding has been secured. Mr. Thompson said we are moving towards a preferred option now and looking at financing options. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the preferred alternative is being designed with a budget in mind. Mr. Thompson replied we don’t have a number today. Mr. Walterscheid asked if they have started thinking about the how. Ms. Calloway replied we are very conceptual but starting to talk about the details. Mr. Walterscheid asked what is the future for the current restroom building. Mr. Thompson stated it would be relocated to another city project. We are heading towards moving the building. Mr. Walterscheid asked if it is shifted down is it still in the view plane. He is curious what the height of a new building in a new location would be. He also asked if there has been discussion driving the playground configuration. Ms. Calloway said we are trying to build in more age groups within the space. Mr. Dupps said engineering had a presentation that we are moving curbs and gutters to a more European style. Is this design doing that. He also said that pedestrians and cars are all on the same level and managed by pylons for a safer alternative. Mr. Albert said that will be the case at the Wheeler and Paradise crossings. It is our intent to maintain that. There is ongoing dialogue about the security question. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there is discussion about getting rid of the information kiosk. Mr. Thompson replied yes. She said the structure blocks views any way you look. She likes the posters but there is information at the Wheeler and Chamber. She does not love it. Kevin Dunnett, parks, said the plan is to redesign and lighten it. Mr. Albert replied it seems like it is necessary and desired. It creates a node where people gather and go. Mr. Mesirow asked about building the connection to the natural element. Mr. Thompson stated that will come forward in the next design. P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 19, 2017 4 Ms. McNicholas Kury said focusing on the Sister Cities area, it is important to have it realigned as the square rather than the circle. It reflects more of the historic restoration and matches the design of the other nodes. Mr. Dupps agreed that it opens the corner more into its own node. He likes the idea of the water feature. Mr. Mesirow said he does not want to lose the outdoor game aspect. He likes the natural option for the playground. Mr. Dupps said he thinks the crab apples should remain. They are historic with a patina, age and significance. Mr. Thompson said they have been a big conversation and on people’s minds. Mr. Dupps said historic trees are being preserved all around Aspen. Mr. Walterscheid said he is surprised people are in favor of moving the restroom. He is less inclined for a structured shade shelter and would rather see just trees. Mr. Alberts said there may be trees on the north and south side to provide shade. We have not got to that level of detail. Mr. Walterscheid asked what is historic about the Kai Davis fountain. Ms. Calloway replied the fountain and the curb. Mr. Mesirow said he likes the option with the seating. He asked if the water level could be brought higher. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if that needs to wait for this project. Ms. Calloway replied the edge condition could wait. Ms. McNicholas Kury said extending the curbs would be great. Mr. Mesirow and Mr. Walterscheid agreed. Mr. Dupps said he also likes the seating around the fountain and an extended place to walk. Mr. Walterscheid said he understands the dining alignment on either side. He is not opposed to stuff in the middle but understands the concern. He could see one street being different from the other. Mr. Mesirow asked if there is more available space for dining in one of the options. Mr. Albert replied he is not sure. Mc. McNicholas Kury said she likes Ryan’s suggestion. She would hate to see the Cooper mall lost to dining down the center. Mr. Mesirow said he is concerned with the middle option creating the opportunity for it to feel privatized. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the larger trees contribute to the different feel to the streets. Ms. McNicholas Kury said the Galena water feature would be great. She is a fan of whimsy and public art. She likes the idea of rotating exhibits. Mr. Mesirow said he is on board with more public art. Ms. Calloway said they will identify locations for proposed art. Mr. Mesirow said he likes the conversation of food carts and street vendors. Mr. Dupps said he loves alternative three and that is the direction to go in. Mr. Dupps excused himself from the meeting. Ms. McNicholas Kury said she thinks there is room for discussion about achieving accessibility along the center. Mr. Walterscheid asked if parks has commented about the trees. Pete Rice, engineering said mostly it is trees four to six inches in diameter that could be relocated. Ms. Calloway said in some conditions it is only two. Mr. Mesirow said he likes the fire pit. It is a gathering place. He understands the fuel used but it is a nice part of the mall. Ms. Calloway said others have also said that. Mr. Thompson said the conversation of energy usage comes up. Mr. Walterscheid said it is a nice feature in the winter. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked how the brick search is going. Ms. Calloway stated they have confirmed with the manufacturer that they can make an in-kind replacement. Mr. Walterscheid said it would be nice P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 19, 2017 5 to put the completion date on the brick. Mr. Mesirow said he is not in favor of snowmelt. Mr. Walterscheid said a lot of businesses ask for it. Ms. Calloway stated they will return to P&Z as the design progresses. At 6:10 p.m. Ms. McNicholas Kury moved to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning, City Clerk P5 IV.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Hillary Seminick, Planner THROUGH: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 465 and 557 North Mill Street Rezoning - Public Hearing MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 The applicant is requesting the public hearing be continued to March 6, 2018. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation of the public hearing to March 6, 2018. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to continue the 465 and 557 North Mill Street Rezoning application to March 6, 2018.” P6 VI.A. Housing Credits Discussion P&Z – 1/16/2018 Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 RE: Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit update and discussion REQUEST OF P&Z: The purpose of this discussion item is to provide an update on the nearly eight- year old Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits Program (here after referred to as Housing Credits). P&Z is asked to weigh in on a number of policy options related to the program and provide staff with feedback on potential changes to the program, which will be presented to City Council on January 30, 2018. A similar check-in with the APCHA Board is scheduled for January 17th. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen created the Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits in 2010 to encourage the private sector to assist in the creation of affordable housing. Five Housing Credits projects have been completed, and another three are approved but not yet completed. To date, the five built projects have created certificates for 66.25 FTEs, with another 99.5 FTEs as part of the approved, but not yet built projects. The program allows a private developer to build voluntary affordable housing units, and then receive a certificate from the City indicating how many FTEs were housed. The developer can then sell those certificates (aka Housing Credits) to other developers who have their own housing mitigation requirements. The developer who purchases the credits would then use them to satisfy their affordable housing mitigation requirement, rather than using a cash-in-lieu payment or building their own affordable housing units. The program currently includes the following limitations: Public Sector Limits: Housing Credits may only be established by a private sector developer or a non- profit that does not receive public funding or whose core mission is not related to the creation of housing. This means, for instance, that Habitat for Humanity is not eligible to create Housing Credits, as their core mission is to create housing. Similarly, any non-profit that is a taxing district is not be eligible, as they receive public funds. Dormitory Units: The code limits Housing Credits to full units (studios or larger), and prohibits dormitory units from being eligible. While dormitory units provide an important housing option for seasonal employees, they do not generally represent a long-term housing solution for full-time employees, so Council in 2015 decided to exclude these types of units from eligibility. Sales and Rental Limitations: As part of a 2015 code amendment, the program was updated to require that any housing which is part of a mixed-use building (i.e. contains affordable housing units and any P7 VII.A. Housing Credits Discussion P&Z – 1/16/2018 Page 2 of 4 other use) be designated as for-sale or be subject to some other form of permanent deed restriction if the housing units are being used to create Housing Credits. This ensure that these units will remain permanently in the inventory, particularly if the building is demolished or redeveloped in the future. Additionally, projects that are 100% affordable housing are eligible to be for-sale or for-rent. Fractional or Additional Housing Units: The Land Use Code allows any additional housing mitigation provided by a developer to be eligible for the creation of Housing Credits. This situation arises when an applicant provides more housing than is required by their development. For instance, a developer may have a requirement to house 2.15 FTEs, and the easiest way to do that is to provide a single 2-bedroom unit that houses 2.25 FTEs, leaving an “overage” of 0.10 FTEs. Similarly, a developer may choose to provide additional affordable housing as part of their project. To be eligible for Housing Credits, these units must comply with the Sales Limitations provision above (e.g. be for-sale or be subject to another long-term agreement guaranteeing the unit will remain permanently in the housing inventory). Category Limitations: The Housing Credits system is based on the Category of the units provided, and the associated cash-in-lieu amounts. There are cash-in-lieu rates established for Categories 1 through 7, and Housing Credits can be established at any of these categories. Cash-in-lieu is used to convert Credits between categories. This is needed because often the available Housing Credits are not at the category a developer needs. For instance, many of the Housing Credits have been established as Category 2 units, but a developer’s housing mitigation is at Category 4. A conversion between these categories is therefore necessary to ensure a developer is providing the correct mitigation. There is cash-in-lieu established for Categories 1 through 7, so Housing Credits can be established at any of these categories. Location Limitations: The code limits where City of Aspen Housing Credits may be established to within city limits. Only development within the City of Aspen can use these credits, as no sister program has been created in surrounding jurisdictions. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION: Staff requests P&Z feedback regarding emerging issues related to the Housing Credits Program. 1. Location Requirements. Peter Fornell approached City Council in the spring requesting examination of the potential to increase the locations available for the creation of multi-family affordable housing credit units. With the recent changes to the Land Use Code, the number of locations for multi-family housing credits projects has been limited to the multi-family zone districts and the Mixed-Use zone district. Additionally, the residential zone districts (R-6, R-15, R-30, etc.) could develop single family or duplex buildings for housing credits. If the City is interested in expanding locations for multi-family housing credit units, it could consider amendments to the other zone districts to (1) re-introduce housing credits as an option in the other commercial zone districts, or (2) adjust the residential zone districts to allow multi- family development. Alternatively, the city could explore re-zoning specific properties to zone districts that accommodate multi-family housing. Presently, staff does not recommend amendments to the zone districts or major re-zonings. If P&Z or Council is interested in looking at additional opportunities for housing, staff suggests including this as part of a larger P8 VII.A. Housing Credits Discussion P&Z – 1/16/2018 Page 3 of 4 examination of annexation and future land use mapping, which would be a longer-term project. There is no funding for such a project at this time. Questions for P&Z: A. Does P&Z wish to recommend City Council examine additional locations for multi-family housing credits projects? 2. Cash-in-Lieu Rates. As part of the larger housing program, the Land Use Code includes cash- in-lieu rates established in late 2015. The code allows increases based on the Engineering News Record, but requires Council action (Code section 26.470.050.E: “The City may choose to update the fee-in-lieu schedule, by ordinance, based on the change in the Engineering News Record inflation index.”). An increase to the fee was not included in the 2016, 2017 or 2018 fee ordinance, and staff requests direction if the fee amount should be increased. Currently, the cash-in-lieu rates in the code are: Fee-In-Lieu (per FTE): Category 1: $ 356,433 Category 2: $ 320,186 Category 3: $ 286,495 Category 4: $ 223,072 Category 5: $ 157,280 Category 6: $ 132,817 Category 7: $ 104,148 Staff recommends an update to account for the past three years of increased process. An potential increase in the range of 4.5% to 7% is estimated based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. Questions for P&Z: B. Does P&Z desire an increase to the cash-in-lieu fee, pursuant to the annual Engineering News Record increase referenced in the land use code? 3. Accessory Dwelling Units. When the housing mitigation and cash-in-lieu methodology was updated in late 2015, it eliminated to use of ADUs as a mitigation option. The code included a provision to remove the deed restriction from existing mandatory and voluntary ADUs. Five (5) applications have been processed by the Community Development Department to remove ADUs. Mandatory ADUs may be removed only by extinguishing a housing credit. The ADU then becomes a voluntary unit, and if it received a floor area bonus, which is typical for these ADUs, the building is considered a legally-established non-conformity. Voluntary ADUs may be removed through the landing of a housing credit or by a cash-in-lieu payment. Staff believes the program is working as originally intended and only recommends clarification changes. Specifically, staff recommends the language be updated to clearly state that the buy-out option takes the ADU’s original mitigation purpose into account. There are a few ADUs that were built as mitigation for 2 free-market residences (a duplex), and it has been staff’s position P9 VII.A. Housing Credits Discussion P&Z – 1/16/2018 Page 4 of 4 in administering the program that this fact requires the buy-out equal to two (2) ADUs even though only one (1) ADU was physically built. Questions for P&Z: C. Does P&Z support staff’s direction to clarify the ADU buy-out calculation when an ADU was built as mitigation for two free-market units? NEXT STEPS: Staff will discuss potential changes to the Housing Credits program with City Council at the January 30th work session, which will include a summary of comments from the P&Z and APCHA check-ins. Following that work session, staff may return with potential code amendments, as well as follow up items for discussion. P10 VII.A. TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 At the first meeting of the year, the Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with electing a Chair and Vice-Chair. The appointment is for one year and currently elected members can be re- elected. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may use this motion “I move to make a recommendation to elect ____________, as chairperson and _______________as vice-chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission for 2018.” P11 VII.B. RESOLUTION NO. __ Series of 2018 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to elect a chairperson and vice- chairperson as outlined in Section 26.212.030, Membership-Appointment, removal, terms and vacancies of the land use code; and WHEREAS, the term of each position is for one (1) year; and WHEREAS, the commission voted to elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson on January 16, 2018; and WHEREAS, _______________was elected chairperson and __________________was elected vice-chairperson; and WHEREAS, both positions shall expire on January 15, 2019; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen, Colorado, by this resolution that _______________be appointed as chairperson and _________________be appointed as vice-chairperson. DATED: January ____, 2018 _________________________ _______________, Chair ATTEST:__________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy Clerk P12 VII.B. Miscellaneous Code Update – P&Z Check-In January 16, 2017 Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 RE: Miscellaneous Code Amendment REQUEST OF P&Z: The purpose of this discussion is to update and solicit feedback from the Commission regarding the process to amend the Miscellaneous Regulations, Definitions, and Parking and Mobility sections of the Land Use Code. SUMMARY: The focus of the proposed amendment is on Section 26.575.020, Calculations and Measures, which includes the standards for calculating a wide range of development metrics, including building height, floor area, deck exemptions, and more. The proposed amendments will have to include some amendments to the Definitions included in Part 100, and other sections of code to ensure coordination between various regulations and standards. The Parking and Mobility section will undergo targeted amendments to make sure the regulations deliver the policy objectives identified during the 2016-2017 AACP-LUC coordination process. Periodically, the Planning staff amends the Miscellaneous Regulations section of the Land Use Code to improve ease of use, clarify regulations, better coordinate various sections of the Code, and adjust regulations to align with Council goals and new development practices. The last miscellaneous code amendment was conducted in 2015. Every few years this section of the Code requires updating to remain relevant to current building practice, to create more predictability in zoning review, and to ensure that the purpose of the requirement is met. Most of the changes are clarifications and slight adjustments, as well as formatting and organization of the section. Since last November, Planning staff has met biweekly with a focus group of 11 design and development industry professionals to discuss specific topics within the amendment process, including representatives from P&Z (Rally Dupps and Jasmine Tygre) and HPC (Gretchen Greenwood). The over-arching goal of the amendment process is to improve the utility, interpretation, formatting and appearance of the standards in 26.575.020 Calculations and Measures, while not significantly changing the development rights provided to commercial and residential properties by the regulations in the Land Use Code. Between focus group meetings, staff discusses the concepts developed by the focus group and further refines the amendments being proposed. All this input will be used to produce revised code language in January and February, following check-in meetings with HPC, P&Z and City Council. P13 VII.C. Miscellaneous Code Update – P&Z Check-In January 16, 2017 Page 2 of 4 To date, the focus group has discussed three major topic areas: exterior features calculations, grade and height calculations, and formatting. Each of these discussions has resulted in conceptual frameworks for the amendments to the Land Use Code. The following memo outlines those frameworks and identifies additional topics and goals to be considered by the focus group in the coming months. P&Z is encouraged to provide ideas for additional discussion or specific amendments and improvements to the sections of the LUC open for amendment. PROPOSED CHANGES/TOPIC AREAS: The focus of this Miscellaneous Code Amendment is on the Calculations and Measures standards in Section 26.575.020. The standards in this section are used to assess metrics like floor area, height, setback standards and the location and extent of various building features and appurtenances. The code amendments seek to clarify and simplify those sections. The following is a summary of the frameworks developed for the topics listed above. Exterior Features Calculations The current code treats these features, including decks, patios, walls, large eaves and overhangs, entry features, and other appendages as elements which contribute to floor area unless explicitly excepted. For example, the current code allows for decks which occupy up to 15% of floor area to be exempted from floor area calculations. All deck area above 15% counts toward floor area. This standard, with its explicit, specific references to deck, leads staff and applicants to have regular discussions about what constitutes a deck, and whether this or that example should count or not. The proposed amendment is intended to eliminate those discussion by including all appended, exterior features in one category with a square footage cap. In an effort to simplify understanding of and compliance with the regulations regarding these features, and to facilitate quality, flexible design, the focus group developed three categories for treating mass on a development site. The primary mass is that portion of the building that is within the “thermal envelope” (enclosed space). The ancillary mass are those elements attached to the primary mass but not within the “thermal envelope” (e.g. a deck, loggia or large overhang). The ground plane includes those features below a specific height and outside of the primary and ancillary mass. (See the drawings in Exhibit A for illustrations of the three feature categories.) Each of the three categories would contribute to floor area in specific ways. The outcome of the proposed framework is a simplification of the regulations for features in each category, while not increasing the square footage available for each feature type. The proposed framework is intended to eliminate the frequent conversations between staff, applicants and boards as to what constitutes a “deck” or “loggia” or “fence.” Additionally, the proposed framework would make clearer the way those features are calculated as part of floor area. Finally, the proposed framework would simplify the calculation of how various features in yards and setbacks, which are not attached to the building, may or may not be included in floor area. All of this is underpinned by the goal of not significantly impacting development rights for properties. Grade and Height The current code relies on different definitions of existing, natural, and finished grade to assist in the determination of grade for development, the measurement of height from grade. The three definitions are applied in different ways and to measure different aspects of a development plan. This leads to confusion and the misapplication of some standards. Amendments to these regulations are intended to P14 VII.C. Miscellaneous Code Update – P&Z Check-In January 16, 2017 Page 3 of 4 simplify the standards for designers and staff, while not increasing building heights or incentivizing excessive site grading. This topic area presented some challenges to achieving the dual goals of simplification and maintenance of current development rights. The framework that emerged from the discussion was the idea of establishing one grade to measure height based on the existing grade of the site. That established grade would then be projected up to the maximum height limit in the zone district to set the height limit for the property. To simplify the measurement of height and the establishment of grade, a cap may be placed on the amount (depth or height) of grading from existing grade that can be conducted on a site. The intent of this cap is to reduce the desire to significantly modify existing grade in order to gain the benefit of measurement from various points in the design and development review process. Formatting The discussion regarding formatting yielded several concepts to improve navigation through the section and ease of use. The most significant recommendation from the focus group was to break out the standards in 26.575.020 into their own section. The group recommended having the calculations and measures standards in close proximity to the setback and use standards in 26.710. Also, giving those standards their own section allows more space to separate the regulations from one another and simplifies referencing those standards. The group also discussed using simple formatting changes, such as more paragraphs, more numbered subsections and separating individual standards from one another to achieve a more user-friendly code. Adding subsection headers which clearly identify the contents of that subsection would improve navigation and understanding. These changes would make the section longer without necessarily adding language, so breaking out 26.575.020 into its own section would allow for that expansion without lengthening Chapter 26. Additional Concepts The focus group suggested the addition of intent statements to the various sections of Calculations and Measures. These statements would clarify what the code is attempting to regulate and why. For example, an intent statement regarding regulation of features in yards above the ground plane might include discussion of the effect on the over-all mass of development by significant detached structures like a built-in grill and above grade patio features. Additional graphics will be added and current graphics updated to improve ease-of-use and interpretation of regulations throughout 26.575.020. Those graphics will include charts, tables, and sketches to illustrate examples of specific standards. As part of the amendment process, staff also plans to make minor changes to the parking standards in section 26.515. The parking section of the Land Use Code was rewritten in 2017 as part of the AACP- Land Use Code coordination process. Staff has worked with those standards through a few projects since they were adopted. A handful of the standards, as well as some of the wording in the regulations, are confusing and require a second look to ensure they deliver the outcomes intended through the original amendments. P15 VII.C. Miscellaneous Code Update – P&Z Check-In January 16, 2017 Page 4 of 4 HPC FEEDBACK: Staff met with the Historic Preservation Commission on January 10th to discuss the amendment process to date, the frameworks developed by the focus group for the various topic areas, and receive feedback and ideas to inform the next steps of the process. Staff outlined for the commission all the concepts included in the “Proposed Changes/Topic Areas” section of this memo. HPC members expressed support for the over-all amendment process goals of improving ease of use and interpretation of the code, while not significantly altering development rights for commercial or residential projects. HPC members also generally supported all the conceptual frame works for the various topic areas. Some specific comments from HPC members included: cautioning staff not to further restrain the 15% exemption for residential deck area provided in the code, not adopting code language adding mass or floor area to projects, ensure the new formatting is conducive to design and presentation processes, better coordinating the calculation of floor area relative to grade, and analyzing whether the methodology for determining net lot area needs refinement. Staff will take these comments, along with the feedback received from P&Z, and incorporate it into the code language development process in the coming months. Staff requests feedback from P&Z on the following questions: a. Does P&Z support the conceptual frameworks developed for the topic areas discussed in the memo? b. What additional topics or regulations should the focus group consider in the coming weeks? c. Where in Section 26.575.020 would the introduction or redesign of graphics aid in ease of use of the section? NEXT STEPS: Staff is working with the advisory group, as well as HPC and P&Z, in January and February to develop draft code language. Following additional focus group meetings in the coming weeks, staff will work with Council to develop a policy resolution and draft ordinance for consideration in March. If staff is unable to schedule a meeting to discuss specific code language, the proposed language will be provided to P&Z by email for individual feedback prior to Council review. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Mass Sketches P16 VII.C. P17 VII.C.