Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20180129 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION January 29, 2018 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Historic Preservation Incentives II. Miscellaneous Regulations section of the Land Use Code P1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: Historic Preservation Benefits DATE: January 29, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________ REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council has requested a discussion of current benefits for preservation projects. Staff is seeking direction before taking any action to prepare code amendments. The following memo is primarily focused on the floor area bonus HPC can award, however all of the available preservation benefits are addressed. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY: City Council adopted a preservation ordinance in 1972, creating the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Within two years the historic districts were established and designations, primarily of publicly owned properties, began. With the guidance of HPC, in 1980 the Planning Office developed the “City of Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures” listing significant historic resources that met criteria for designation and protection. The number of designated properties and HPC’s authority grew over the ensuing years. Today the Inventory contains 300 properties from both Victorian and Modern eras, which are subject to review for any proposed alterations. The mission of the historic preservation program, as stated in the Municipal Code (Section 26.415.010), is to promote the health, safety and welfare through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen’s cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history. To balance the restrictions that may be associated with historic preservation, HPC can grant certain benefits. Many of the benefits were adopted in 1987, the first year that the City had full-time historic preservation staff in place, and have not significantly changed since that time. The two most significant benefits added since inception are the Historic Landmark Lot Split and Transferable Development Rights. Aspen’s benefits are intended to encourage good historic preservation practices. Benefits allow the City to act as a partner in preservation, providing support to property owners responsible for the stewardship of the community’s heritage. DISCUSSION: Since HPC developed new design guidelines in 2015, HPC has expressed concerns with the size of additions proposed to historic structures and a desire to meaningfully address the problem. HPC is aware of this Council worksession and met on December 7th, 2017 P2 I. 2 and January 10th, 2018 to prepare recommendations for staff to pass along. HPC wants Council to know that the benefits available to historic properties are important and effective but that some need to be updated and possibly modified to reflect current policies. HPC feels that preservation projects that allow a historic resource to be expanded only minimally with most new square footage in a detached structure or transferred off the site is by far the best outcome for residential projects and some commercial sites as well. Benefits should particularly aim for this and should not facilitate what one board member referred to as “train wrecks on the back of historic resources.” Following is a complete list of preservation benefits as outlined in the Municipal Code. HPC’s recommendations on the benefits are noted in the discussion. A. Historic Lot Split B. Increased Density C. Variations D. Parking reduction/fee waiver E. Conditional Uses F. Floor Area Bonus G. Growth Management quota system Exemption H. Waiver of impact fees I. Rehabilitation Loan Fund J. Conservation easement program K. City-Owned Building Rehabilitation fund L. Transferable Development Rights (TDR) M. Tax credit applications 1 N. Community-initiated development O. Building Codes P. Contractor Training Q. Cultural Heritage Tourism R. Preservation Honor Awards S. Historic Markers T. Work Sessions The most frequently utilized benefits are explained in more detail below. Staff is prepared to answer any questions about other benefits at the January 29th meeting. Historic Lot Split: Allows approval of a subdivision of property to create two lots, each often smaller than would be allowed if the parcel was not designated. HPC has found this to be a very effective preservation tool, as it generally restores the platting of the original townsite into 3,000 square foot modules and results in smaller homes. They strongly recommend retaining this benefit as-is. Increased Density: Allows, by right, two detached single-family dwelling units or a duplex on a smaller lot than would be allowed if the parcel was not designated historic. HPC believes that this can be a very good preservation outcome because any benefit that makes it possible to detach new 1 There are State and Federal Tax Credits available to some historic preservation projects. The City of Aspen has volunteered to review applications for State credits rather than forwarding them to the state historical society. The benefit to the City is the ability to assess and retain an application fee for preservation purposes. The benefit to property owners is the ability to complete the review process through a more face to face process with local staff. In reality, very few applications are actually submitted. Staff has become concerned with statewide auditing that has been on-going related to these credits and would like Council to consider opting out of this process and directing local applications to History Colorado in Denver for review. P3 I. 3 construction from the historic resource (in this case in the form of a second residential unit on the site) helps to retain the integrity of the resource. Both staff and HPC recommend one particular change to this benefit. By taking advantage of building a second residential unit on a site, there is an automatic increase in allowable floor area by a few hundred feet, depending on lot size. HPC feels that a property that receives this increase in floor area should not also be eligible for an additional floor area bonus, creating a double dip. If the increase allowed by zoning is less than 500 square feet, HPC is open to a property owner asking to earn the “short-fall” as a bonus. HPC’s preference, if a property owner chooses to do a duplex on a historic property, is that the two units be detached above grade in order to create as much separation from the new construction and historic home as possible. Variations: HPC may elect to grant variations that would allow development in side, rear and front setbacks , development that does not meet the minimum distance between buildings, up to 5% additional site coverage, and less pedestrian amenity for commercial historic properties. HPC can also provide variations from the Residential Design Standards. HPC recommends retaining all of these benefits as they are very important and provide necessary flexibility to place new construction around a historic resource in a sensitive manner. Parking: HPC may reduce or waive on-site parking and/or cash-in-lieu fees on sites unable to accommodate parking due to the preservation of a historic resource. Some members of HPC are not sure they have the appropriate expertise to determine whether waiving on-site parking is an acceptable impact on a neighborhood, however, like the other variations in HPC’s authority, this benefit is often very valuable and necessary on a constrained lot. Board members discussed the possibility of not allowing the cash-in-lieu waiver when other benefits provided to the property exceed a certain monetary value. Floor Area Bonus: HPC may grant up to 500 sq. ft. for projects that demonstrate exemplary HP practices. (The floor area bonus may also be awarded as part of a lot split review). Projects must demonstrate the following criteria: 1. Design of project meets all applicable design guidelines; 2. Historic building is the key element of the property and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building; 3. Work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; 4. New construction reflects proportional patterns found in the historic building’s form, materials or openings; 5. Construction materials are of the highest quality; 6. Appropriate transition defines the old and new; 7. Project retains historic outbuildings; and/or 8. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. HPC recognizes this as the most valuable of all of the incentives, and the one that has the most potential to motivate excellent preservation. Created over 30 years ago at a time when preservation was a newer concept and often viewed as a burden by long-time property owners on whom it had been imposed, the bonus was an important incentive. The extra square footage has now achieved P4 I. 4 a monetary value to the property owner that is perhaps in excess of the community benefit that may be achieved in some cases. The board does not want this benefit eliminated and has a number of ideas for possible adjustments, including: (1) Amend the floor area bonus so it is not the same for all lot sizes. The existing sliding scale for by-right floor area already allows a disproportionately large amount of square footage on small lots and HPC does not wish to aggravate this. They suggest that small lots should be eligible for less bonus area than larger lots to avoid overdeveloping a property. (2) Update the criteria for the floor area bonus. Some of the criteria address actions any applicant would likely take and should not earn an extra award, such as using high quality exterior materials on a new addition. HPC feels that earning the bonus is about directly preserving the historic resource. It was suggested that new criteria could be written in a way that each criterion met is equal to a percentage of the bonus. Some actions would be worth a larger portion of the bonus than others based on the amount of building fabric that is impacted or the perceived excellence of the outcome. For instance: • Restoration of multiple original windows=100 square feet • Preserving a carriage house on the site= 250 square foot bonus • Completely detaching an addition= 500 square feet Currently, the determination of how much bonus to award between 0-499 square feet is hard to define and property owners typically ask for the full amount. HPC wants an applicant to show exactly how they earned the bonus, not just jump to including 500 square feet in the design. HPC feels that updated and more specific criteria will help applicants understand better in advance what qualifies for a bonus. Clear communication of this information early in the design process is important because once a full bonus has been designed into a project it becomes an uphill battle for HPC to disallow it. Other actions which HPC wants to encourage through a bonus include: “exemplary” restoration work -a term to be further defined, multiple small structures on a lot rather than one large structure, a close relationship between the height of the historic resource and any addition, and voluntary creation of affordable housing. HPC does not want to grant a bonus in a case where floor levels are removed from the interior of a historic resource and that “found” square footage is used to create a larger new addition. They do not want to award a bonus to any project where the bonus arguably does nothing but create a bigger addition. Growth Management quota system Exemption: Certain projects have fewer or different requirements in Growth Management because the property is historic. For instance, there is reduced affordable housing mitigation for commercial development in a historic building than what is required in a non-historic building. As an example, the recently approved remodel of the former Main Street Bakery property involved a modest addition of 231 square feet of net leasable P5 I. 5 space. A non-historic property would have to mitigate for the 0.5 FTEs (full time equivalent employees) generated by the addition by providing an affordable housing credits or a cash-in-lieu payment of approximately $110,000. As a landmark, the property was fully exempt from this requirement. GMQS exemption can be positive for preservation because it may reduce or eliminate additional programming and square footage on the property in the form of on-site affordable housing. On a large project, the amount of affordable housing waiver or reduction can be significant, allowing mitigation for up to 6.8 FTEs to be waived. This waiver is “by-right,” does not involve discretion and is typically a matter of applying a code-based formula to determine the amount of required mitigation. HPC recognizes GMQS exemptions as a significant financial benefit that should be maintained. They did indicate that the monetary value of this benefit may be forgotten during consideration and award of other benefits and they are open to the possibility of creating a limit on the benefits that can be awarded to a single application. On a commercial project, this may be one of the few benefits that is applicable, so its elimination would be undesirable. Waiver of impact fees: Certain impact fees are not assessed on a permit to expand a historic structure. This waiver is “by-right” and does not require HPC to grant approval. Similar to above, this provides benefit to a property owner without adding bulk to the historic site. The impact fees that can currently be waived generally are a much smaller value than some of the other benefit options, but the number should not be overlooked. Transferable Development Rights (TDR): HPC and City Council may approve the creation of TDRs, which allows undeveloped floor area to be severed from the historic property and sold, to be landed and developed on a different non-historic property within the city. HPC considers this to be a very effective preservation benefit. They are open to discussion of some criteria to ensure that the severing of TDRs clearly benefits a historic resource. An HPC member also suggested reviewing an example of a property with historic structures on it where so many TDRs were removed over the years it has made it difficult to effectively renovate the structures. Building Codes: The Building Department applies flexibility in adopted Building Codes related to historic buildings when appropriate and without compromise to life/safety. For instance, on a historic commercial building with a pair of original entry doors, neither leaf of which meets the minimum clearance for an entry, Building has allowed the doors to remain in use if an automatic door opener opens both doors at once. Historic buildings also receive relief from aspects of the Energy Code. This flexibility is provided in the Building Codes used by the City and administered by the Building Department. HPC has limited direct involvement in this benefit. ADDITIONAL CONCEPTS DISCUSSED BY HPC: • Consider the addition of more incentives that do not physically impact the property (eg. expedited permit review, fee waivers, etc.) • Consider a sliding scale requiring property owners to return a percentage of financial incentives for each year less than five that they hold on the property. (See Ordinance #14, Series of 2015, the Berko family voluntary AspenModern landmark designation.) While speculative development is not necessarily a negative for preservation, HPC is concerned that no one is living in the homes that have received benefits. P6 I. 6 Questions for Council: 1. What changes does Council recommend to the floor area bonus? Does Council support some or all of the suggestions listed above? 2. Are there other benefits that Council recommends changes to? 3. The term generally used in the Municipal Code is “Benefit,” which is an advantage to be gained and may be considered to be an expectation. Is there any value in considering redefining the benefits as “Incentives” which are given/earned to motivate or encourage certain outcomes? RECOMMENDATION AND NEXT STEPS: Staff supports further development of all of the benefit changes identified in this memo. Following Council direction, staff will conduct additional follow up with HPC and will seek feedback from historic property owners, representatives and developers before brining suggested code language back to Council in a public hearing. SUMMARY OF BENEFIT CHANGES DISCUSSED BY HPC: • Focus on benefits that allow a historic resource to be expanded only minimally, with most new square footage in a detached structure or transferred off the site. • Create a maximum number of incentives any one property can receive. This could be a total number, a restriction against combining certain incentives, or a limit based on a monetary value. • Update the review criteria for a bonus to “raise the bar” and focus specifically on direct preservation of the historic resource and actions which are beyond standard expectations. • Adjust the floor area bonus to relate to lot size. Smaller lots would be limited to a smaller bonus. • Amend the Code so that if a property owner chooses to do a duplex on a historic property, any potential floor area bonus available to the site would be reduced by the automatic increase in floor area provided for the second unit according to zoning. • Consider the addition of more incentives that do not physically impact the property (eg. expedited permit review, fee waivers, etc.). • Provide extra benefits when the property is developed with voluntary affordable housing. • Update criteria for establishment of TDRs. • Consider a sliding scale requiring property owners to return a percentage of financial incentives for each year less than five that they hold on the property. BENEFIT PROPOSED BY STAFF TO BE DISCONTINUED: • Review of Historic Preservation Income Tax applications, returning this review to the State. P7 I. Miscellaneous Code Amendment Work Session January 29, 2018 Page 1 of 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council FROM: Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner Justin Barker, Senior Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: Work Session: Miscellaneous Regulations Code Update WORK SESSION DATE: January 29, 2018 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff seeks direction from Council on the scope and approach to updating the Miscellaneous Regulations section of the Land Use Code, as well as whether to pursue targeted clean-up amendments to other sections of the Code related to 2017 moratorium changes. PROJECT BACKGROUND: 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. Most of the changes are clarifications and slight adjustments, as well as formatting and organization of the section. The last miscellaneous code amendment was conducted in 2015. Additionally, follow-up changes from the moratorium process are needed to ensure the code delivers on Council’s policy goals. 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). To date, the focus group has discussed five major topic areas: exterior features calculations, grade and height calculations, formatting, demolition, and yards and setbacks. Between focus group meetings, staff discusses the concepts developed by the focus group and further refines the amendments being proposed. Each of these topical discussions will result in a conceptual framework for the amendments to the Land Use Code. Staff will use those concepts to develop new code language and formatting to achieve the goals (discussed below) of the code amendment. DISCUSSION: The over-arching goals of the amendment process are to make a clearer, more straight-forward land use code. The amendments will improve the utility, interpretation, formatting, and appearance of the standards in 26.575.020 Calculations and Measures, while not changing the development rights provided to commercial and residential properties by the regulations in the Land Use Code. The current version of this section of the Code is cumbersome, confusing, and at some points contradictory. This leads to difficult project-by- project discussions about the details and nuance of the code. It is staff’s view that the proposed amendments to the code will simplify or eliminate many of those conversations, while ensuring P8 II. Miscellaneous Code Amendment Work Session January 29, 2018 Page 2 of 8 that development standards and development rights remain the same. The focus group shares and supports these over-all goals. There are a handful of topic areas and sections of the code that create the most confusion or require the most frequent discussion. Those have been the topics discussed by the focus group and staff to date. In many cases, the simplification goal can be achieved through formatting and organizational improvements. Other sections of code will require more detailed rewording or the development of new regulatory frameworks to ensure clarity and consistency in the code. The following discussion outlines the specific topic areas and amendment goals for each discussed by the focus group. Exterior Features Calculations Problem: This topic area includes architectural elements like decks, patios, eaves, and other things attached to the exterior of a building. Under the current code, some of these items are included in the calculation of floor area, and others are not. Determining what counts and what doesn’t is a regular point of discussion between staff and applicants. Given the variation between architecture and site design from one property to the next, there are often few uniform answers, which is not the optimal way to administer development regulations. Approach: To address these issues and limit confusion in administering these standards, staff and the focus group have developed the following goals for the amendments: • Maintain current gross square footage for residential and commercial development; • Simplify what features count as floor area and what do not; • Clarify the methodology for calculation of floor area relative to those features; • Clarify terminology, eliminate unhelpful terminology, and improve comprehension of the code language. Solution: Staff and the focus group are working to refine a conceptual framework for achieving clarity and consistency in the application of this code section. With Council support, staff will develop revised code language and new calculation methodologies, which staff will present to Council in the coming months. Grade and Height Problem: The current code uses three different measures of site grade as various phases of development review: finished grade, natural grade, and interpolated (historic) grade1. This creates confusion among designers and administrators as to which grade applies at which point in development review, and from which building height is measured. Additionally, building height is measured in a number of different ways to control building heights and make sure that those heights are consistent at various points on a lot. The code also enumerates 13 specific types of 1 Finished Grade: The elevation of the ground surface measured where it meets the exterior wall of a structure upon completion of construction. A surface must be flat (with exception for drainage requirements) for at least 5 feet measured horizontally from an exterior wall or flat (with exception for drainage requirements) between the exterior wall of a building and the property line to be considered finished grade. Natural Grade: The undisturbed elevation of the ground surface prior to construction or other development activity. Interpolated (historic) Grade: An historic grade that is determined by an analysis of pre-existing conditions on a site. P9 II. Miscellaneous Code Amendment Work Session January 29, 2018 Page 3 of 8 exceptions to maximum height, from chimneys and venting, to satellite dishes and solar arrays. This system is overly complex relative to the objective of controlling building heights and ensuring compliance with zoning standards. Approach: In preliminary discussions, staff and the focus group suggest the following goals for amendments to the grade and height regulations: · Maintain current development rights and restrictions, particularly regarding net lot area and maximum height of structures; · Simplify the definition and determination of grade; · Clearly define and limit the allowed exceptions to height and grade. Solution: The outcome of the proposed amendments to these standards will include limiting the amount of grading conducted on sites, and the uniform application of height measurement standards for all developments. Limiting grading will have numerous environmental, quality of life, and development benefits. The uniform application of height measurement methodologies will ensure quality design which conforms to City zoning standards. Yards and Setbacks Problem: One of the most consistent pieces of feedback from the focus group relates to the distinction between yards and setbacks on a property. Setbacks are prescribed distances from lot lines (typically between five and 15 feet) in which development is not permitted. This creates separation between structures, preserves and enhances green spaces and helps to shape the pattern of neighborhoods. Yards, on the other hand, are those areas on a lot that are not covered by structure and are outside of the setback area. Development (typically patios, decks and other ground-based features) is permitted in yards. The current code provides an exhaustive and unwieldy list of exceptions to setback standards, things that can be placed in setbacks for one reason or another. It also has extensive standards for what can be placed in yard areas, at what height, and whether specific features are included in floor area calculations. Like the exterior features category above, the current code leads to regular conversations about whether a specific feature or design element on a property can be placed in a setback or yard, and whether it counts toward floor area or not. Approach: This code amendment process is intended to address these issues. Specifically, staff and the focus group are interested in clarifying what is a setback versus a yard, what can be located where, and how those elements may contribute to floor area. The specific goals for these amendments are as follows: · Maintain current development rights and restrictions; · Maintain current setback distances; · Clarify distinction between setbacks and yards; · Simplify the description of features permitted in each area. Solution: Eliminating the need for project-by-project discussion of these elements and adding clarity and predictability for designers will save time, streamline the development review process and improve the functionality of the code. The focus group and staff continue to collaborate to develop a conceptual framework to achieve these goals. Demolition Calculation P10 II. Miscellaneous Code Amendment Work Session January 29, 2018 Page 4 of 8 Problem: As was discussed extensively during the AACP-LUC coordination process, the demolition of existing structures is a trigger for compliance with a wide range of City regulations and impact fees. Triggering demolition, which is the deconstruction of 40 percent or more of a structure, requires full compliance with regulations, such as parking and mobility requirements, second tier commercial space, commercial and historic preservation design guidelines, and Growth Management. Consequently, the calculation of what constitutes demolition is an important standard in the Calculations and Measures section of the code. And it is an important calculation to perform correctly. The current calculation methodology requires extensive, detailed analysis of the removal (or not) of specific structural elements, sometimes down to a framing member or piece of roof sheathing. An important omission from the current calculation methodology is that windows are not included. As more and newer building, particularly residential, are being renovated, excluding windows from the calculation will become more impactful, as it will allow more structure to be demolished without triggering demolition. This is one important example of the amendments needed to the calculation of demolition to ensure it delivers appropriate development outcomes. Calculating and complying with the current demolition standards is arduous for staff administering the code and for designers attempting to avoid triggering demolition. While the demolition standards are important to achieving community development outcomes, such as the preservation of existing structures, environmental stewardship, and the creation of affordable housing, the current regulations are unnecessarily complex. Approach: Staff and the focus group believe that the definition of and methodology for calculating demolition can be simplified while preserving the intent and outcomes of the regulations. The specific goals for the amendments to demolition are: · Maintain the current proportion of deconstruction which constitutes demolition; · Simplify the methodology for calculating what activities and structural elements are included in the definition of demolition. Solution: To assist in the amendment of the demolition standards, staff is compiling a report of the approach taken by a dozen communities around the county to regulate demolition. As is often the case, none of the communities discovered during the research project use demolition as a trigger for code compliance and impact fee generation quite as Aspen does, but preliminary analysis has revealed some useful techniques which will be discussed by staff and the focus group in the coming weeks. Formatting While it may seem like an obvious and simple step to achieve the goals of the code amendment, revising the formatting of the code, particularly the Calculations and Measures section, 26.575.020, would be a significant improvement. One of the most common challenges faced by users of the code is citing specific standards in the Calculations and Measures section. Staff and the focus group have discussed ways to make citations easier, improving the utility of the code and communication between staff and applicants. The current code is black and white, depends upon lengthy sections of code language, and does not have charts or graphics to supplement many of the standards in the code. Staff and the focus P11 II. Miscellaneous Code Amendment Work Session January 29, 2018 Page 5 of 8 group agree that breaking up large sections of text and adding more visual aids are needed improvements. The goals for the formatting aspect of the code update are: · Improve comprehension of code language · Increase the use of visual aids · Increase the quality of visual aids · Improve navigation though and citation of Calculations and Measures The revised formatting developed through the collaborative focus group process will be demonstrated to Council in conjunction with draft code language at subsequent Council meetings. OTHER AMENDMENTS: In addition to the amendments to Part 500 of the LUC, staff proposes Council consider specific amendments to other areas of the code. Throughout the year, staff maintains a redline version of the code to track errors, omissions and uncoordinated areas of code for amendment. Staff anticipates that a handful of these errors will be included in a draft ordinance, along with the other amendments identified in this meeting. Council is asked to provide feedback on the topics outlined below. View Plane Survey Descriptions The View Plane regulations in the Land Use Code were updated as part of the moratorium. One of the most impactful improvement to those standards was updating the survey descriptions of each View Plane to use modern survey technology. Last month a surveyor working with one of the updated View Plane descriptions discovered an error in the survey description language which impacts surveyors’ ability to interpret and work with the new descriptions. Other surveyors and the consultant who assisted in the amendments during the moratorium concur that there is an issue. The fix is simple; the base elevation for each view plane needs to be adjusted a few feet to match original height of each reference point. Staff suggests including the fix as a separate ordinance in the Miscellaneous Code Update process. Outdoor Food Vending The current code does not provide specific standards for outdoor food vending carts beyond limiting the size to 50 square feet and controlling the size and appearance of signage. Council has expressed interest in adding additional controls, including not permitting wheels to be visible, precluding the use of vinyl as a covering or treatment, not permitting the carts to be a registered vehicle, and further limiting signage. It may also be possible to require that carts meet certain commercial design guidelines for the character area in which they are located. Staff will include the changes to these standards requested by Council in the draft ordinance to be considered in spring. Indoor Outdoor Light Trespass Council has expressed an interest in limiting the trespass of light from residential properties, specifically light emanating from clear garage doors and other residential glazing. The City’s current lighting regulations are intended to be Dark Sky compliant, limiting light trespass and preserving the night sky from light pollution. Staff’s position is that strengthening those regulations by limiting light trespass from the interior of structures ought to be undertaken as part of a comprehensive look at the lighting regulations generally. This would ensure that the entirety of the lighting code achieves Council’s goals and Dark Sky preservation standards, as P12 II. Miscellaneous Code Amendment Work Session January 29, 2018 Page 6 of 8 well as addressing recent changes in lighting technology. Staff recommends Council initiate a comprehensive look at the lighting code as part of the 2019 work program. Parking and Mobility As part of the 2016 AACP-LUC coordination process, the parking standards in the Land Use Code were updated and rebranded the “parking and mobility standards.” These amendments better integrated the City’s parking regulations with transit and mobility standards, ensuring that development enhances City infrastructure and capacity for automobiles and alternative modes. The new regulations are already yielding positive results for new and redeveloping properties. The AACP-LUC coordination process was limited to the City’s commercial zones, meaning that some lodge and residential zone districts and development types were not addressed in the code amendments. During the amendment process, staff noted these omissions for Council and suggested that they be addressed in a future code amendment. To tie up some of the loose ends in the parking and mobility standards, staff has “gotten the band back together,” working with the same consultant team to look specifically at residential multi-family and lodge parking and mobility standards. The amendments are focused on those use categories and zone districts, as well as cleaning up confusing or sub-optimal language discovered since staff began working with the new code. None of the policies or regulatory outcomes approved by Council and included in the 2016 revisions will be altered. Only those standards not updated during the 2016 process will be considered for amendment, ensuring the effectiveness of the regulations for all development types. Vesting and Affordable Housing Mitigation Recent extension of vested rights applications brought before Council have raised questions about vesting extensions and affordable housing mitigation. Specifically, Council has questioned whether the City may be losing affordable housing mitigation by granting extensions of vested rights. There are two options for facilitating the conversation about vested rights and mitigation: 1. Require extension applicants to demonstrate in their application packet the difference between the affordable housing mitigation required at the time of original approval versus what would be required at the time an extension is granted. 2. Require that staff present that information to Council as part of the staff report for an extension application. This information can be required by Community Development Department policy, or through a code amendment. Staff recommends that the information be provided as a matter of policy for extension applications, and that the information be provided to Council by staff. PUBLIC OUTREACH: The primary means of public outreach for this code amendment has been the 11-member focus group. Because the amendments center on a technical section of code used primarily by designers, architects and other industry professionals, it is important to get the guidance and support of those most experienced with and impacted by that section of code. To date, numerous members of the focus group have expressed satisfaction with the collaborative P13 II. Miscellaneous Code Amendment Work Session January 29, 2018 Page 7 of 8 nature of the process. Their ongoing participation and support will constitute the bulk of the public outreach conducted during the code amendment process. Additionally, the planning Staff has used the community development newsletter to advertise the code amendment process to the over 600 recipients of the newsletter. Staff will continue to use the newsletter to update the public about the progress of the code amendment process. Check-in meetings have been held with both HPC and P&Z, where staff informed the membership of the proposed scope of the amendment process, as well as provided detailed information about the ideas developed by the focus group. Both bodies will be provided draft code language prior to first reading for additional comment. 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. P&Z Feedback The P&Z meeting scheduled for January 16th was cancelled due to a lack of quorum. It was rescheduled for February 6th. At a preliminary P&Z meeting in November, prior to the initiation of the focus group and staff review process, the commission supported the over-all goals of the proposed amendment to Part 500 of the Land Use Code. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL: 1. Does City Council support the over-all goals of the Miscellaneous code amendment process? 2. Does Council support the specific goals enumerated for the various topic areas? 3. Are there additional goals staff should consider for the code amendment process? 4. Does Council direct staff to include standards for food vending carts in this code amendment process? P14 II. Miscellaneous Code Amendment Work Session January 29, 2018 Page 8 of 8 5. Does Council support staff’s recommendation to add lighting as an item for the 2019 work program? 6. Which approach does Council favor for addressing the issue of vesting extensions and affordable housing mitigation? FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. NEXT STEPS: Following this work session, with Council direction, staff will return with a policy resolution to begin the formal code amendment process. The policy resolution will focus on the conceptual frameworks developed by staff and the focus group to achieve the goals identified in this memo for each aspect of the code amendments. Staff and the focus group will continue to collaborate on the development of draft code language, formatting, graphics and other aspects of the proposed amendments until the end of March, when the ordinance review process is scheduled to begin. Attachments: Exhibit A: Amendment goals summary sheet Exhibit B: Code samples from other communities Exhibit C: Exterior features examples Exhibit D: Example demolition calculation P15 II. Exhibit A: Miscellaneous Code Amendment Project Goals Summary Overall · Maintain the current development rights provided to residential and commercial projects; · Improve the utility of Calculations of Measures, 26.575.020; · Streamline and simplify the interpretation of the code language; · Improve and augment the formatting and visual aids in the code; Exterior Features Calculations · Maintain current gross square footage for residential and commercial development; · Simplify what features count as floor area and what do not; · Clarify the methodology for calculation of floor area relative to those features; · Clarify terminology, eliminate unhelpful terminology, and improve comprehension of the code language. Grade and Height · Maintain current development rights, particularly regarding net lot area and maximum height of structures; · Simplify the definition and determination of grade; · Clearly define and limit the allowed exceptions to height and grade. Yards and Setbacks · Maintain current development rights; · Maintain current setback distances; · Clarify distinction between setbacks and yards; · Simplify the description of features permitted in each area. Demolition Calculation · Maintain the current proportion of deconstruction which constitutes demolition; · Simplify the methodology for calculating what activities and structural elements are included in the definition of demolition. Formatting · Improve comprehension of code language; · Increase the use of visual aids; · Increase the quality of visual aids; · Improve navigation though and citation of Calculations and Measures. P16 II. ASPEN’S CODE bland tables and charts large paragraphs of text and multiple standards improve graphics create stylistic continuity P17II. increase use of section numbers and subsections separate individual standards into smaller paragraphs use more tables color as a visual cue use more graphics create uniform graphic style EXAMPLE CODE P18II. increase use of section numbers and subsections separate individual standards into smaller paragraphs use more graphics create uniform graphic style EXAMPLE CODE P19II. exterior stairways above grade patio / stone walls roof overhangs / planter boxes cantilevered space entry features fire features loggia above grade decks / connected features trellis / pergola Exhibit C.  Exterior Features, Examples  P20 II. 1 A C HBDEFG A C HBDEFG 2 3 4 5 3 3.5 5 1 2 6 6 4.5 4.5 3.5 4 E.5 E.5 1.5 1.5 A.5 A.5 A.75 A.75 1A-303 -- 2 A-301 -- 2A-302 -- 1 A-302 -- 1 A-301 -- 17 15 13 14 16 13 1 2 43 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 A C HBDEFG A C HBDEFG 2 3 4 5 3 3.5 5 1 2 6 6 4.5 4.5 3.5 4 E.5 E.5 1.5 1.5 A.5 A.5 A.75 A.75 1A-303 -- 2 A-301 -- 2A-302 -- 1 A-302 -- 1 A-301 -- 1 3 5 7 4 10 19 6 8 12 2 13 9 11 17 18 15 14 16 1 A C HBDEFG A C HBDEFG 2 3 4 5 3 3.5 5 1 2 6 6 4.5 4.5 3.5 4 E.5 E.5 1.5 1.5 A.5 A.5 A.75 A.75 1 A-303 -- 2 A-301 -- 2 A-302 -- 1 A-302 -- 1 A-301 -- 1 7 10 19 8 12 2 13 9 1117 15 18 14 24 23 22 20 21 PROJECT SCALE WALL DEMO CALCULATIONS 16019.00 Z-002 EXISTING UPPER LEVEL 3/32" = 1'-0" 3 Z-002 0 4 8 16 Scale: 3/32"=1'-0" EXISTING MAIN LEVEL 1/16" = 1'-0" 2 Z-002 0 8 16 32 Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" EXISTING LOWER LEVEL 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 Z-002 0 8 16 32 Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" WALL DEMO AREA 3/32" = 1'-0" 4 Z-002 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" WALL DEMOLITION LEGEND EXISTING WALL NEW WALL FENESTRATION WALL AREA TO BE REMOVED EXISTING VENEER OF LOG TO BE REMOVED - REMAINING PORTION TO REMAIN DATE PERMIT 05.26.2017 COPYRIGHT 2017 THUNDERBOWL ARCHITECTS ASPEN, COLORADOPARCEL ID # 2737181320171419 CRYSTAL LAKE RDC THUNDERBOWLARCHITECTSTHUNDERBOWL ARCHITECTS 300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 201 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 710-2938 10/25/2017 P21II. 1 A C HBDEFG A C HBDEFG 2 3 4 5 3 3.5 5 1 2 6 6 4.5 4.5 3.5 4 E.5 E.5 1.5 1.5 A.5 A.5 A.75 A.75 2 5 6 1 3 4 27 24 21 - below 22 - below 23 26 25 8 7 10 9 11 28 12 13 14 17 18 19 - below 20 - below 16 151 2 3 4 5 6 8 7 10 9 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 16 11 24 21 22 23 223.83 sq ft 138.78 sq ft 272.29 sq ft 98.39 sq ft 16.3 sq ft 31.74 sq ft 1312.02 sq ft 169.16 sq ft 90.2 sq ft 172.86 sq ft 83.3 sq ft 181.20 sq ft 131.39 sq ft 96.0 sq ft 111.13 sq ft 177.04 sq ft 74.61 sq ft 164.39 sq ft 2.04 sq ft 19.05 sq ft 32.08 sq ft42.29 sq ft 82.15 sq ft 576.60 sq ft 25 875.75 sq ft 27 612.50 sq ft 26 867.93 sq ft 28 19.03 sq ft PROJECT SCALE ROOF DEMO CALCULATIONS 16019.00 Z-003 DATE PERMIT 05.26.2017 COPYRIGHT 2017 THUNDERBOWL ARCHITECTS ASPEN, COLORADOPARCEL ID # 2737181320171419 CRYSTAL LAKE RDC THUNDERBOWLARCHITECTSTHUNDERBOWL ARCHITECTS 300 S. SPRING ST. SUITE 201 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 710-2938 FLAT PLANE METHOD ROOF DEMO 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 Z-003 0 4 8 16 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4 8 16 Scale: 3/32"=1'-0" EXISTING ROOF PLAN 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 Z-003 ROOF DEMOLITION LEGEND EXISTING ROOF TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ROOF TO REMAIN 10/25/2017 P22II.