Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20090921MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Drew Alexander, Planner Technician RE: Outdoor Merchandising and Food Vending -Work Session MEETING DATE: September 21s`, 2009 BACKGROUND The summer of 2009 was a very active season for outdoor merchandising and food vending. A walk around town immediately revealed several establishments using outdoor dining or outdoor merchandising in their business strategy. That same walk around town would also display the abundance of establishments using sandwich board signs to direct shoppers and diners to sales and eateries. Some of the sandwich board signs were not for restaurants or retailers (which is a Code requirement), but instead being used for medical offices, realtors, or tourist-oriented services like rafting or biking. There has also been more temporary outdoor food vending in the City than there has been in recent years. These businesses can operate legally on 6 month permits, with most expiring in October or November. As the snow season approaches, Community Development thought that it would be worthwhile to investigate these activities and to decide whether or not the City's strategy should change for 2010. DISCUSSION This work session will hopefully give Community Development staff the direction necessary to guide future regulation and enforcement for the items at hand. Some issues my require code amendments. Staff is asking City Council to weigh in on the following items and to provide that direction: Sandwich Board Signs: There has been concern in the community that the amount of these signs has gotten out of control and brings with it a feeling of "chaos" to the commercial core, especially the pedestrian malls. A majority of the sandwich board signs in place now are violating the signage regulations in the Land Use Code. How many can we handle? Is this a problem? Should staff enforcement be more strict? Outdoor Dining: Outdoor seating for restaurants has always been popular during the warm months. In 2009, the City of Aspen increased outdoor dining along the pedestrian malls. This has received mixed feedback from the community, but overall appears to be a success. These businesses operate under mall leases that aze handled through CCLC. Should there be a change in strategy for the 2010 season? Also, some of these establishments have offered support for new regulations that could allow them to be more permanent, including installations of permanent roof-like structures which would deviate away from the umbrella model. Allowing substantial improvements could create a sense of entitlement or permanence. Should the City consider permanent structures? • Outdoor Merchandising: Currently the City of Aspen prohibits any type of outdoor merchandising. Obviously, this is not strictly enforced upon. In 2009, Aspen saw more and more racks of clothes, sports gear, and art spilling out into the right-of--way and pedestrian amenity space. The City receives very few complaints on this style of selling merchandise. Should the Code change? Should the City enforce the right-of way more? There has also been a wealth of interest related to weekend and special events (like the farmers' market) where establishments would be free to put merchandise outside. What seems to be lacking is the proper support vehicle to bring this idea to reality. Should the City have weekend or special merchandising events? Should there be a designated zone or street where this should take place? Temporary Outdoor Food Vending: Community Development received an abundance of applications and interest this summer for temporary outdoor food vending. There were three permits issued, but several denied due to the current Code regulations. These regulations pursue an element of market fairness by limiting the duration to six months, ensuring location on private property or public mall lease, and requiring applicants to receive approval from the business or businesses they will locate adjacent too. The community feedback for these establishments has been mostly positive and the operators have been curious about ways to extend their permits. Should the City loosen up on this type of use? Is it okay now? Should the City curtail these operations? Staff understands that 2009 was (and continues to be) a very challenging yeaz for business owners. All of the strategies listed above are clearly ways to stretch a nickel in an effort to attract shoppers and diners. These strategies also allow the downtown to feel looser, more relaxed. What concerns Staff are the azeas where the Code is inconsistent with practice and expectation. This places staff in an awkward enforcement position. Tonight's direction will allow Staff to amend codes and policies to align with expectations. Again, Staff hopes that this discussion will provide the direction necessary to resolve these issues and work towazds a plan that influences an attractive downtown for 2010. 2- 9/18/2009 9/18/2009 2 9/18/2009 3 9/18/2009 4 9/18/2009 9/18/2009 6 9/18/2009 ina cM aumm~p. ~ °°o~a ~~~~a mun nupne-enH a~~w~~ e: m ::' nw.,'ema me ~.me.. er...e.mn wem .ie.a ros .~...... we snwie aim. mop-. mer eon c mme.me. There'smo many, it looks magic. 7 9/18/2009 8 9/18/2009 TT CMyab^ ntly albwaoubow naYpnbaea0np on pMeneYa anp be meInYM OpPpp Nlnp ua tlae Yn Ype~Miw~Fp MY aummere le Ichink we mWE allow eaen I tM1lnk iYS been fine, it @els about ngbt. Ithink it'smo mucb, too dunareE. 9 9/18/2009 10 9/18/2009 11 9/18/2009 me ca.v.~..a vmner o Gov. vwrtneoaaae. a.eabae ..uee. ItMnk we mWE allow eaen mare. ItM1lnk k'i Eeen Flne, jus[tM1e right _ti}~ amount. IcFink tlere bas been too mo<b, It's nattbe image we sM1oolE project. 12 9/18/2009 13 9/18/2009 nTn. Ma a.mmn epewa wnlwa wmpormr omao.r mw.enama. Tn... op•mm~ m.w e.emw.e Mtlm nenMe.pPn~nilrvmT i p.::mrvmwo.w.ip~ rm.a m em~p.Tnewroi:v c. mmp n~~r~ ..nnmo a :«:ew. mw ..mm.,... Ithlnk we should make it easierfor meaerype ure:nbli:nmme: ro exits. They don't bother me, lenjoy the mi aeenionai.vu.n:. mev slwme nm he.lro.ed. nie mt vrovieinq a nir market enviromnmt. Tn.cq.neup Ipnwnup on' Ivma up m a~ Temin~eryfootl rentling Ouleoo~~euaurantuanng Omdoo~mertnandinny 9gnage overall SandwioF board signs 14 9/18/2009 ine Cp eneup gRbnap on', pkR up m x~ Temporary(aad rending Omdoor resuuram so~iny Slgnage overall SandwiaM1 board signs Omdoar merAandning Vea 15 meua me cM nao IeerrneuRtbnp en owaaar nxmnmamne en ae wxxenaei MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director THROUGH: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Affordable Housing Credit proposal WORK SESSION DATE: September 21, 2009 General Baclceround: Peter Fornell is requesting that the city consider a code amendment (Exhibit A) that will allow the private sector to develop affordable housing which not associated to any required affordable housing mitigation, receive a credit for the housing, and then be able to transfer the credit to another development (or multiple developments) to meet part or all of the development's affordable housing mitigation requirement. This concept has been brought up in the past, most recently in the 2002 Infill Report (Exhibit B), with the idea that some developers may provide more affordable housing than required by receiving a credit, resulting in additional inventory in the city. Code Amendment Process: To implement a program to permit affordable housing credits, a code amendment to the Land Use Code will need to be processed and adopted. The proposed code amendment is first considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and a recommendation is provided to Council. Council then considers the amendment and makes a final decision on the matter. Currently, a code amendment can be initiated by the City Council or the Planning Commission and Mr. Fornell is requesting that City Council agree to sponsor the land use application. Requested Direction: Staff is requesting direction on whether the code amendment should be nursued. At this point, Mr. Fornell, is suggesting a concept to city council. Staff believes the idea has merit and may create another way to add additional affordable housing inventory to the city; however, exact code language will need to be developed. If council is interested in considering a potential code amendment and enabling Mr. Fornell to apply, staff suggests the following: 1) Mr. Fornell submit a land use application, 2) A deposit be submitted, as well as an agreement to pay all staff fees associated with the drafting and processing of the code amendment Attachments: A. Transferable FTE concept letter from Peter Fornell, August 25, 2009 B. Excerpt from 2002 Infill Report r-- ~~~ To: Steve Barwick From: Peter Fornell Date: August 25, 2009 Re: transferable FTE concept Deaz Steve, Thanks for your contact back with me to discuss the results of the City's meeting regarding my concept for affordable housing creation. You asked me to reduce the concept to writing, so I'll do my best to describe the basic concept I have. It is no secret that the City of Aspen always has had as one of their major goals, the creation of deed restricted affordable housing. Those goals for the most part involve the City having to develop in whole or in part, such creation. Historically, private property owners do not seek out the process because other development scenarios have higher returns. This leaves the burden of housing construction on the City. If a developer could create affordable housing that other developers could use for their mitigation, this may entice certain landowners to consider the notion of creating affordable housing themselves. Essentially, a new method of creating the required housing for development by the private sector. The theory would be, that a property owner builds deed restricted housing and receives credit for his or her development which may be transferred to another developer that has housing mitigation requirements as part of their development. To be more specific, I'll use the pazcel my partner owns at 301 Hyman. He as owner, obtains a PUD allowing the creation of affordable housing on that lot. With a lot size of 3600 sq. ft. the FAR for that zone district would allow for 4034 sq. ft. of development. A simple to use scenario would be a two story building of 2000 sq. ft. each floor. 450 sq. ft. is necessary to build a 1 br category 2 or 3unit, so 4 units on each floor and 8 total units. A lbr unit mitigates for 1.75 FTE's so we would produce a total of 14 FTE's. Upon completion of the project a lottery is held for the sale of the units at their deed restricted price (or the City could even buy the completed development at the deed restricted value if rental inventory is their goal) and he as the developer receives from the city 14 FTE credits (similaz to historical tdt's) that he can transfer to another developer to retire to satisfy their required mitigation. There aze certainly pazcels in the city owned by the private sector, where the owners of those parcels toil over the best use for their goals. This could cause a landowner to consider development of affordable housing as a viable highest and best use of their lot, therefore fixrthering the creation of affordable housing without public involvement. I hope this assists you in understanding the concept, I am happy to review this further with you or anyone at the (pity anytime. ~~'~ Proaosed Off-Site Affordable Housing Mitigation Credits Sending Sifes -Developing more affordable housing than required ^ Development of affordable housing in excess of minimum required for Infill Growth Management Exemption. The Housing Authority (or the City of Aspen) would issue certificates for employees housed beyond the minimum requirement. One certificate for each extra employee housed. ^ Buy-down of existing housing stock to affordable housing. Issue certificates in terms of employees housed by buy-down action. ^ Units would need to be within Infill area. Units outside the Infill area but within the city limits could be used if approved through a Special Review (either Housing Board or P&Z). Landing Sites -Developing less affordable housing than required ^ Commercial development where employees are generated and need to be mitigated. This program would allow a developer a fourth option for mitigating employee generation (on-site units, off-site units, redemption of mitigation credits, or via cash-in-lieu). Redeem one certificate for each mitigation employee not housed on-site. Historic TDR certificates would not be applicable in this program. Section Four, Page 9