HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20100119City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -January 19, 2010
Comments ................................................................................2
Minutes ....................................................................................2
Conflicts of Interest ....................................................................2
Proposed Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit Code Amendment .....2
301 W Hyman -Subdivision and additional land use reviews ................. 8
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -January 19, 2010
Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting in Sister Cities Meeting Room to order at
4:30pm. Commissioners present were Jim DeFrancia, Cliff Weiss, Michael
Wampler, LJ Erspamer, Stan Gibbs and Bert Myrin. Jasmine Tygre and Brian
Speck were excused. Staff present were Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer
Phelan and Ben Gagnon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City
Clerk.
Minutes
MOTION.• Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes from January OS, 2010,
seconded by Michael Wampler; all in favor, APPROVED.
Conflicts of Interest
None stated.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Proposed Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit Code Amendment
Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing for the proposed certificate of affordable
housing credit code amendment. Ben Gagnon stated there was a parallel in that
Peter brought forward this idea to amend the text of the land use code but it would
apply to anywhere in the city so it is not to be considered just in terms of this
project.
Gagnon explained the P&Z's job to amend the text in the land use code is to
determine if the application meets the standards for an amendment: Gagnon said
those standards are spelled out in exhibit C and as the memo states there are a
number of standards that don't apply to this proposed amendment. None of the
standards related to this particular amendment: would this amendment be
compatible to surrounding zone districts, would it have an impact on traffic, would
it place demands on public facilities, would it have adverse effects on the natural
environment; this amendment would not change any dimensional requirements of
any zone district. Gagnon said this amendment would not change any review
process; it would simply allow for the issuing of certificates of affordable housing
credit, so in terms of having an impact on its surrounding area in terms of a
development this code change would not allow anyone to build anything more than
is in the code or anything less or do anything that the code today allows or doesn't
allow. Gagnon said this is strictly a technical process to allow the granting of a
certificate; there certainly are other impacts but are not related to how big a house
could be or how big a project could be. Gagnon said that staff focused on the
standards of review regarding whether the amendment was consistent with the
Aspen Area Community Plan, whether it's consistent with community character
2
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -January 19, 2010
and generally speaking whether it's in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
land use code.
Gagnon said the central priority of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan was
affordable housing. Gagnon said that this code amendment would allow the person
who is demolishing, replacing and expanding a single family or duplex to buy
down the equivalent FTEs and what they've done is say Peter has a certificate of
14 full time equivalent credits, which would be issued because he scraped and
replaced and created deed restricted housing; the person would come in and buy
those from him and what's happened instead of putting cash down this person will
now have bought a certificate that reflects an actual affordable housing unit that is
actually built and actually occupied as opposed to putting down cash towards
housing that may or may not be built in the next 2 years or 5 years or 8 years or
whenever that cash in lieu is exercised.
Gagnon said that another way the certificate could be used was if the growth
management application comes before the Planning and Zoning Commission or it
goes to City Council, in other words it's a bigger project, it's a PUD, a multi-
family housing replacement; it's something that goes to P&Z instead of just an
administrative application and requires housing mitigation for say 4 FTEs and one
of the options for the application is to buy down credits in the form of certificates
that reflect actual housing that's out there and actual housing that's been built and
occupied as opposed to trying to find some kind of payment in lieu or some other
way to mitigate.
Gagnon said the process for actually establishing the certificates relies on the
housing authority to make a finding that the development of affordable housing up
to a certain size and certain number of units according to the housing guidelines.
This is not in the code this is affordable housing not in the code; this is affordable
housing not required for the purpose of mitigation. Gagnon said in the past Lodge
employers have acquired or built affordable housing just for employees or
converted a Lodge to employee housing. Gagnon said that what this code
amendment says is that if it creates deed restricted affordable housing that's not
required for mitigation you will get credits that can be used in the future against
required mitigation and staff did not see where that would inhibit or discourage the
building of affordable housing or the acquisition of deed restriction of affordable
housing and that could in fact could serve a real community benefit in that the
mitigation that is applied through the development of a small or large size could be
built right away and not be built and developed later on so that the mitigation be
provided immediately before the development impact is created.
3
City Planning & Zoning_Meeting -Minutes -January 19, 2010
Gagnon said that the multi-family housing stock is aging and our code allows for
the redevelopment ofmulti-family housing in a number of ways but for whatever
reason the applicants are not excited to go through the options that we have in
growth management for multi-family housing replacement. This code amendment
creates an opportunity; a different route to do 100% deed restricted affordable
housing for amulti-family replacement project. Gagnon said that if you have 3 or
more free market multi-family housing units you could demolish and replace it
with all deed restricted affordable housing and because of this ability to get a credit
that's actually a financially viable redevelopment strategy for the developer but it
creates affordable housing where none exists.
Jennifer Phelan said that it provides another potential form of mitigation where it's
a voluntary ability for someone to develop or deed restrict a site and have those
units on line before the mitigation is actually bought on the private market.
Gagnon distributed the existing TDR certificates.
Cliff Weiss asked if this went through APCHA and where are their minutes.
Gagnon replied yes it did but they are in the other memo. Stan Gibbs stated they
were on page 30. Jennifer Phelan said that Council considered this at a work
session last fall and were willing to entertain this idea. Gibbs asked if Council was
final decision on this. Gagnon replied that Council was final decision and the way
the language was written was for P&Z was that P&Z finds that the amendment
meets the standards of review.
Michael Wampler said that he didn't see cost anywhere in the memo or resolution,
they were proposing to build 8 units; how would the credit work towards them.
Wampler said if those units aren't used for 5 years, how are those credits;
obviously there will be an inflation rate on value of what those credits are but
where is it addressed. Gagnon replied it is actually the same way it is addressed in
the code today; the housing authority will determine how many credit he gets, how
many FTEs he gets; there is a formula to follow.
LJ Erspamer asked if this will exclude the public purchase of housing; in other
words let's say the city has a housing fund and they want to buy these certificates.
Gagnon replied that there was nothing in the language that would keep the city
from doing the same type of thing. Erspamer asked if this reduced the requirement
for more employee housing inventory. Gagnon said there were 2 separate distinct
motivations for affordable housing; one was large employers must provide housing
for their employees in town and some is motivation. Erspamer asked how records
4
City Planning& Zoning Meeting -Minutes -January 19, 2010
were kept. Gagnon replied it was in the back section; it's like a certificate and is
recorded; the transferability of the certificate; the reissuance of the certificate and
APCHA and Community Development have it. Erspamer asked if a sunset date
could be included. Gagnon replied that it wasn't fair to the market.
Cliff Weiss said that FAR was touched on but what was the FAR AH Zone limits;
what are the height limits. Gagnon said there was a guide in the memo; if you
want to rezone to AH you automatically go through a PUD process.
Stan Gibbs asked Ben to explain on page 2 of the memo what "buy down" means.
Gagnon replied that the credits could be applied in either case; if you were to
redevelop something or if you wanted to take a free market unit and buy it down; it
was possible to do but not necessarily likely.
Bert Myrin asked where the landing site could go wrong. Gagnon replied you have
to approve the amount of mitigation that's required; this is a different method for
meeting the mitigation.
Peter Fornell, applicant, stated that when a developer wants to build something and
they know that there is required mitigation for it; if that developer builds an ADU
we have to hope that he puts someone deserving in it; if somebody decides to go
the cash in lieu route we have to hope that money is well spent. Fornell said when
he went to Council they said they would be interested in supporting this code
amendment; he said that he is creating competition for himself but that doesn't
bother him because he wants to see the furthence of employee housing. Weiss
asked the applicant if there were code for this kind of conversion in terms of
setbacks, height and density would you prefer that to a PUD process. Fornell
replied that a PUD process gets a lot of lighter scope than a permitted use in a zone
district and this is causing a harder microscope and your questions was I going to
spend $300,000.00 or $3,000,000.00 to build this building gets settled on its own
because nobody's going to approve a PUD project for any purpose that doesn't
have the inherent qualities that they need to have including structural and design
and appropriateness. Fornell said that he would prefer to see it as a PUD for an
employee housing development but if you think there is an idea out there in future
that might cause a new zone district, well certainly that's something that could be
addressed. Jeffrey Halfrety, designer/architect, said that was an interesting
question because different zones apply with different mass and scale and height
requirements so it enables the community to control it better through a PUD
process in one generic AH because we were trying to make AH zoning in different
5
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -January 19, 2010
parts as far as the AACP in the Commercial Core and zone by zone was different
with lot size, density and should be site specific.
LJ Erspamer asked if a certain amount of rent was charged for the certain category.
Fornell responded that they were all going into the housing lottery that category
dictates the housing price and they were for sale units. Erspamer asked how many
locations in town did Peter see this applying to: Fornell responded that there were
maybe 3 to 10 maximum and most of them consist of old buildings that need
something done with them because nothing fits them.
Weiss asked if this building to be torn down was historic. Phelan responded that it
was not on the list.
Public Comments:
1. Gary Snyder, public, said this seems to fit a slot that hasn't been thought of
before as far as the code amendment goes. Snyder said the property and the
people building those are taking the chance that they weren't going to work
for them financially. Snyder said it was a good time that someone steps up
and does something about employee housing as opposed to doing another
single family home.
2. Michael Behrendt, public, asked briefly how FTEs were computed. Phelan
replied that in the land use code there was a section that talks about a studio
unit mitigates for 1.25 employees. Gagnon said that a 1 bedroom mitigates
for 1.75 employees and a 2 bedroom mitigates for 2.25; there was a whole
sliding scale. Behrendt asked if they were also size related. Gagnon replied
they were. Behrendt said that in this case you were dealing with 6 or 7 FTEs
here with four 1 bedroom units. Gagnon explained that these were free-
market units today and the code amendment proposal is to convert free-
market units to deed restricted affordable housing units in perpetuity you get
credit for the deed restricted affordable housing units.
Gibbs closed the public comment section.
Bert Myrin said that a while back lodges converted from lodging to affordable
housing; does this create a potential for more lodging to convert to affordable
housing because it would create some money for these old lodges. Gagnon replied
that they would have to rezone to AH PUD and you have to go through the list of
criteria for PUD and a whole separate set of considerations that we are talking
about but yes it was an option to rezone the property but it must be consistent with
the Aspen Area Community Plan. Gagnon said the Aspen Area Community Plan
6
City Planning & Zoning Meeting- Minutes - January 19, 2010
wants to see old lodges persevered. Fornell said the market will prevent that from
ever happening.
Erspamer asked what happens if the certificates for the mitigation prices raise.
Gagnon replied the developer was happy and the city was just as happy. Gagnon
said that they would still be providing mitigation for development.
Weiss said this was obviously good for the community but he had 2 hesitations:
one is the PUD versus zoning for this project and he was worried that everything
coming PUD will max out the P&Z agenda year in and year out with this; he
recognizes that it's debatable; the PUD certainly gives P&Z more control but there
is a very pro affordable housing Council and he didn't know if they cared as much
about the neighborhoods as P&Z does. Weiss said a lot of things pass that are
necessarily fit for the community. Weiss said his other concern was that there was
a discrepancy between what housing recommends and the code in this choice of
category; he was confused by category 4 verses Housings recommendation
category 1, category 2; he would have like to have seen more of a presentation on
the sliding scale when it is closer to the core it has more value and as you move out
to Cemetery Lane there is less value and there was nobody from housing to debate
this and present their side of this. Phelan replied there was a minimum size for sale
studio category 4; a category 4 one bedroom; a category 2 one bedroom is actually
allowed to have a smaller size so when you design something that doesn't meet
your minimum square footage for a category 4 one bedroom, it would be dropping
to a lower category. Gagnon said that in these cases you will see a tendency for
lower category units because the FTEs are an important part of the equation and if
you can only fit so much square footage on a site then you are more likely to do a
category 2 rather than a category 4 because of space. Gagnon said there is a limit
on the number of certificates that can be sold also; there is only so much activity
out there in terms of mitigation requirements and single family and duplex scrape
and replace; we are not seeing any of that right now. Fornell said although this is
the R-15 zone district has a strange district line.
Myrin said his two hesitations were one is pushing the housing to the outskirts of
the city limits because the land values are less expensive. Gagnon responded the
Aspen Area Community Plan values in town affordable housing much more than it
values much more than it value out of town affordable housing. Myrin said the
second hesitation he did not have an answer to because we were creating code for
possibly forever and we may not be here when it is implemented.
7
City Planning & Zoning Meetins -Minutes -January 19 2010
Erspamer said that the neighbors come to Council and the Council might listen to
them; in his neighborhood they went and Council ignored them, the character of
the neighborhood means nothing in the Aspen Area Community Plan. Erspamer
said that he thought this was a good idea and he has met the criteria for the code
change. Erspamer said he was concerned about the duplex lots changing to 4plex
and 8plex and what it is going to do to the neighborhood. Erspamer said the PUD
process for this affordable housing is only one parking space per unit.
Gibbs echoed a little bit of what LJ said and the amendment has a lot of merit and
met the criteria. Gibbs said this would get around cash in lieu and generate more
affordable housing.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #3, series 2010;
seconded by Mike Wampler. Roll call vote: Erspamer, yes; Myrin, yes; Wampler,
yes; Weiss, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Gibbs, yes; APPROVED 6-0.
Discussion of the motion prior to the vote: Weiss said that he had stronger feelings
about the code amendment then he did about the project; it has good intentions but
was not so sure about the unintended consequences and was worried about voting
on this passing the code change. Weiss said he liked the concept but was worried
for certain neighborhoods; he felt that the PUD and COWOP processes needed to
be reined in. DeFrancia appreciated Cliffls comments and concerns; his own view
was there was not any code that would be absolutely perfect; this is an amendment
and could be amended again. DeFrancia thought it was a positive step and it was a
code amendment that would contribute some flexible alternatives and the staff
recommended it and that was the basis for his motion to approve. Myrin said that
he wasn't convinced that P&Z could change it completely because there was no
restriction on the way the certificates were being used or landed. Weiss said that
parking in relation to this code; there are certain requirements for parking now both
zoning and housing. Weiss said that yes P&Z will have to judge the parking plan
but parking has a big effect on every place that you may apply this code change; in
some cases it requires certain amount of on street and certain amount of off street
parking; this is open ended.
PUBLIC HEARING:
301 W Hyman -Subdivision and additional land use reviews
Stan Gibbs opened the hearing on 301 W Hyman and asked for the public notice.
Peter Fornell said that he had the photo and Jim True said the photo had to be clear
and the posting and affidavit had to be attached; it must be up 15 days prior to the
hearing. Fornell said that he would bring it in Wednesday. Mike Wampler saw it.
8
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -January 19, 2010
Jim True said that traditionally they have allowed an applicant 24 hours to provide
the affidavit. Fornell said that he was representing John Cooper; the property was
owned by an LLC and Peter was the managing member of the LLC.
Ben Gagnon explained there were 4 land use review processes: the amendment to
the zone district map, rezoning; consolidated conceptual and final PUD;
Subdivision and Growth Management for Affordable Housing. Gagnon said that
the first 3 Rezoning, PUD and Subdivision are P&Z recommendations to City
Council, where the City Council is the final authority. The Growth Management
for Affordable Housing is the Planning & Zoning Commission is the final decision
making body. Gagnon said that there are some criteria that are repeated in
different land use processes for example Rezoning, PUD and Subdivision you are
supposed to find the proposal consistent with the AACP. Gagnon said the AACP
talks about the public and private sectors working together to ensure success in
providing affordable housing; the AACP wants to see greater participation by the
private sector and those criteria are met in this case. Gagnon said another distinct
criteria in the AACP is encourage affordable housing within the traditional town
site and that's where transportation comes in being able to walk to work and events
and less reliance on the automobile; those criteria are repeated in the
Transportation and Housing Sections and the Growth Management Section as well.
Also the AACP talks about Housing needing to be compatible with the scale and
character of the community; this is criteria within the AACP that's also found in
the PUD section with regard to this case.
Gagnon said on page 32 was a zoning analysis of the neighborhood and starts with
a table that compares different zone districts and basically this was to get across
what a R-6 and R-15 zone district require or allow for in terms of floor area ratio
somewhere between .3 and .5 is typical which is a relatively small floor area ratio
and densities are obviously pretty low densities; single family and duplex uses in
R-6 and R-15 and as you work your way up to residential multi-family you see
higher floor area ratios, higher densities and when you get to AH PUD you see
higher floor area and higher densities. Gibbs asked if the density numbers were a
person per 6,000 square feet. Gagnon replied that it was a unit for lot area; for R-6
you need a maximum of 6,000 square feet for a single family home size; in the R-
15 you need a maximum of 15,000 for a single family home. Gagnon said the
floor area ratios were on page 33 and the densities were on page 34; the purpose
was to see what was in the neighborhood and what fit into the neighborhood.
Gagnon said the City of Aspen owns open space land between the 301 W Hyman
parcel and the closest neighbor and only neighbor to the west and that buffer
9
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -January 19, 2010
creates an unusual feel you don't usually have a 30 foot swath of open space
between two parcels.
Gagnon said this was a 3600 square foot lot and in the AH PUD process all of the
dimensions are left to the process; there are guides for FAR and for maximum
allowable density. Because the lot size is 3600 square feet the suggested guide is
that the structure be 3960 square feet fora 1.1 to 1 FAR. Gagnon said the initial
proposal was 4024 square feet, which was a small amount over the suggested guide
and that proposal had stairways on the outside of the building and walkways; staff
asked the applicant internalize all of those walkways and stairways primarily of
architectural standards that staff found weren't being met in that manner so the
applicant changed their proposal in response to staffs request the FAR went to
4486 square feet and that was a 13% increase what the zone district guide
identifies. Gagnon said the whole point to a PUD was measuring and balancing;
community benefit over dimensional requirements. Gagnon said the other guide
was the maximum allowable density in this case if it were to fit the guide exactly
he would be able to build 7.2 dwelling units and he is looking to build 8 so he is
looking to vary that guide slightly. Gagnon said the PUD section specifically
allows you to ask for an increase in maximum allowable density if there is a
significant community goal to be achieved through such and increase and a
development pattern that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Gagnon said the next big section is about Traffic and Transit, Pedestrian
Circulation and Parking; the existing condition on page 7 in the photograph is
about 6 head in parking spaces on the east side of the property, those are in the
City right-of--way and the parking department does not want to lose those head in
spots if they were to be parking on site on the property and secondly the only
parking would be on the north side of the parcel on Hyman Avenue and there were
a number of places in the code that it does not want to see onsite parking accessed
from a public street it would rather see it accessed from an alley or a private road
and neither of which exists on the site. The onsite parking spaces can be changed
by special review in the PUD process and take place at the PUD process and not
special review. Gagnon said the reason staff is supporting no onsite parking is the
combination of the parking department wanting to retain those head in spaces on
the east and to avoid having people drive off a public street onto a parking space
on the front lawn, which the code does not want to see in two different places of
the code in the residential design and in the characteristics of off street parking.
Gagnon said that if you put any head in parking spaces on site you would be
knocking out the parallel parking spaces on the street so your net gain overall
parking would be very small if any. Gagnon said the Parking Department walked
10
City Planning_& Zonine Meeting -Minutes -January 19, 2010
the site with staff and being familiar with that neighborhood finding sufficient on
street parking capacity for generating another 4-6 vehicles both on Hyman and
Second Streets and on Hopkins.
Gagnon said that when Peter came in with his first proposal staff found that it
didn't meet the PUD requirements for architectural character. This becomes a real
difficult situation for staff because naturally the applicant will say what don't you
like about it and how can we change it so you will like it and staff is not in the
business of designing buildings; some changes were made but they still didn't meet
staffs overall objectives and didn't feel like it met the housing program in a
positive way and staff didn't feel like that was happening with what staff had in
front of them.
Gagnon said that the finding for Growth Management was that the APCHA Board
makes an approval; all of the units are above grade; the units are for sale units; sold
to APCHA qualified people.
Erspamer asked what time of day did the Parking Department take you to the site.
Gagnon replied it was sometime in the afternoon and two people from parking
came and they were familiar with the area and a page was written up and signed by
Tim Ware. Erspamer asked if Ben spoke to anyone at the Ice Garden. Gagnon
replied that they haven't and the parking department said that the Ice Garden
generates parking in the area more in the winter than the summer but again parking
found there was sufficient on street parking to handle a net increase of 4 units at
about 500 square feet each.
Erspamer said that if an alley doesn't exist around a home how can the City
requirement of access from an alley or private property be made. Gagnon replied it
was a preference. Erspamer said there is no alley so you can't apply the City
regulations to that.
DeFrancia said that staff is recommending that P&Z remand this back so that you
can work with the applicant on the architecture; does that imply that you are
recommending approval of the application. Gagnon replied yes.
Myrin said that on page 6 the requirement for AH PUD for off street parking; even
though there are no parking requirements; he asked if they can include parking
requirements. Gagnon replied yes P&Z could.
11
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -January 19 2010
Peter Fornell, applicant, said that the area of the residential design was what he
was most focused on. Fornell said that he wants it to be the right thing and
compatible with the neighborhood. Fornell passed around drawings from the 1 S`
through the 4`h attempts on designs (exhibits) and the last attempt was what was
shown. Fornell said that they have taken what Housing said from the standpoint of
the interior use of the building. Fornell said that the first floor component would
be brick and stacked rock and incorporated the second floor decks front and back
to the units and the 4 upstairs units will have vaulted ceilings and the 4 downstairs
units will be handicap accessible. Fornell said that his motivation was to get the
right people on the piece of real estate and then move forward with the credits.
Fornell distributed the design guidelines 26.410 from the code; he said that he met
with 9 of the 10 standards.
DeFrancia said that some landscaping up to the building would soften and some
shutters on the windows would give a little depth. Fornell asked the Commission
to help make this building better. Gagnon said staff was looking for that porch
entry on the longer block face which staff considers Hyman as opposed to Second
Street.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to extend the meeting to 7: 30 pm; LJErspamer
seconded. All in favor, APPROVED.
Jim DeFrancia said that he had to leave at 7:15 pm.
Public Comments:
Michael Behrendt, public, requested the neighborhood meet with the applicant and
he though the big problems that they will have are parking and sidewalks.
Behrendt said that he was there as an outreach.
Gibbs closed the public hearing portion.
Erspamer stated it was a big mistake not going to the Ice Garden about parking.
Michael Wampler said he has watched Aspen change over the years; we are
missing that funkiness and there was a lot missing for fun in the employee housing
that is missing here. Wampler said that he personally liked the beginning drawings
because it represents old Aspen in an old Aspen neighborhood and it would be a
spot that represents old Aspen. Wampler said bring the roof over the decks.
12
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -January 19, 2010
Myrin questioned the snow shedding and storage. Gagnon replied that was on
page 21 of the memo #3 so the snow would shed off beyond the walkway and
entrances. Myrin supported the parking concerns from the commissioners.
Phelan said that staff concern about the roofline was a volume issue. Weiss
recommended that P&Z not vote on this tonight.
Jim DeFrancia excused himself at 7:15pm.
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue the public hearing for 301 W Hyman to
February 2, 2010 with recommendations for the 29 feet to the peak, minimize mass
and scale and the roof to come out to cover the walkways, parking spaces should
beset aside for this project and the Aspen Ice Garden's thoughts on parking;
seconded by 1„I Erspamer. All in favor, APPROVED.
Adjourned at 7:30 pm.
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
13