HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.apz.032-02 RESOLUTION N0. 32, SERIES OF 2002
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL DENY 1.) A TEXT
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE TO AMEND SECTION
26.530.050, HOUSING REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS, ALLOWING
FOR A PAYMENT IN LIEU OPTION IN THE MULTI-FAMILY
REPLACEMENT PROGRAM; AND 2.) APPROVING OF THE
SUBSTITUION OF PAYMENT IN LIEU OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
APPROVED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON PARCEL 3 OF THE
ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION / PUD FOR LOT 3 OF THE ASPEN
MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION/PUD, CITY OF ASPEN.
Parcel ID: 2737-182-85-003 (Fathering Parcel)
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from the Applicant, Four Peaks Development, LLC, represented by Sunny Vann,
requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission grant the following:
1) Text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow for the payment in lieu fee option
in the Residential Multi-Family Replacement Program;
2) PUD Amendment to substitute a payment in lieu fee for the four (4) affordable
housing units presently approval for Parcel 2;
3) An Insubstantial PUD Amendment to substitute payment of the fee in lieu for the
Accessory Dwelling Unit approved for the duplex on Parcel 3;
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and
considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code
as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community
Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed
public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Board, has reviewed and
considered the proposal and has recommended approval with conditions, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended to the City
Council, by a vote of five to two (5-2), to deny the Text amendment to the Land Use
Code to amend Section 26.530.050 allowing for the payment in lieu fee option in the
Residential Multi-Family Replacement Program; then took no action on the PUD
Amendment request to substitute a payment in lieu fee for the four (4) affordable housing
units presently required for Parcel 2 because of the vote of denial on the above Text
Amendment precluded it; then approved, by a vote of seven to zero (7-0), an Insubstantial
PUD Amendment to substitute payment of the fee in lieu for the Accessory Dwelling
Unit approved for the duplex on Parcel 3; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
request for a Text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow for the payment in lieu fee
option in the Residential Multi-Family Replacement Program is not consistent with the
goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS,the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that that the
Insubstantial PUD Amendment to substitute payment of the fee in lieu for the Accessory
Dwelling Unit approved for the duplex on Parcel 3 meets or exceeds all applicable
development standards and that the approval of the proposal, with conditions, is consistent
with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this
Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ON THE 19TH DAY OF
NOVEMBER 2002, THAT:
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the request for a Text Amendment to the Land Use Code to allow for the payment
in lieu fee option in the Residential Multi-Family Replacement Program was
recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission because the proposal
was found to be inconsistent with the applicable review standards.
Section 2
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the request for an Insubstantial PUD Amendment to substitute payment of the fee
in lieu for the Accessory Dwelling Unit approved for the duplex on Parcel 3 of Lot 3 of
the Aspen Mountain PUD, is approved with the following condition stated herein:
1. If the applicant chooses to pay a fee in lieu instead of constructing an Accessory
Dwelling Unit for Parcel 3, then they shall pay $549,990 to the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority prior to issuance of building permit for the duplex on Parcel 3.
Section 3
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied
with as if fully set forth herein,unless amended by an authorized entity.
Section 4•
This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 5•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Approved by the Commission at its regular meeting on November 19,2002.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 19 2002
PUBLIC HEARING:
LOT 3, ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD AMENDMENT
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD
Amendment. David Hoefer stated that the proof of notice was received and met
the jurisdictional requirements for the commission to proceed.
Scott Woodford explained that the application requested (1) a text amendment to
the land use code to allow for the option of payment in lieu fee for the Residential
Multi-family Replacement Program (RMRP); (2) PUD amendment (Top of Mill)
to substitute a payment in lieu fee for the four affordable housing units presently
required for Parcel 2 (this action is dependent upon approval of#1); and (3)
Insubstantial PUD Amendment to substitute payment of the fee in lieu for the
Accessory Dwelling Unit required for the duplex on Parcel 3 (the final decision
rests with Planning and Zoning and not dependent upon approval of#1). Woodford
said that there was another piece of this puzzle not on the review for tonight to
transfer reconstruction credits from another site to replace the affordable housing
for fee in lieu if the other requests were approved tonight.
Woodford stated that staff recommended denial for the text amendments # 1 and 2
but recommended approval for #3. Woodford said that the text amendment (#1)
was required to permit substitution of a payment in lieu fee for 4 on site affordable
housing units for Parcel 2. Staff had concerns for the original intent of the multi-
family replacement program because it allowed for these units to be replaced on
site and the units would be built at the same time as the rest of the development.
The burden to build the affordable housing units would be placed upon the city if
payment in lieu were accepted. Woodford said that the Housing Board
recommended approval for the text and PUD amendments; he said that Community
Development looked at any implications that these amendments might have.
Sunny Vann provided the background from the original Savannah to the Four
Peaks applications for Lots 3 & 5; these 4 units were the mitigation from the
demolition and reconstruction. Vann said that this housing mitigation was the only
plan that did not provide a cash in lieu option. Jasmine Tygre stated that the text - - - - - -
amendment might not be necessary because of the changes in infill requirements
on multi-family replacement. Scott Writer replied that they needed to obtain a
certificate of occupancy on the triplex but first needed the certificate of occupancy
on the affordable housing units; this needed to happen very quickly and that was
the reason for the code amendment. Tygre responded that if the text amendment
were approved it may be created for only this project; she noted that she was not in
favor of a text amendment that benefited only one property. Vann said that it
affects all properties that want to develop prior to the infill regulations completion.
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 19 2002
Chris Bendon stated that the cash in lieu option might be part of the infill
amendments but council could take action on the project separately. Woodford
stated that the PUD design was wrapped up with the ADU design included.
Ron Erickson stated that P&Z was against the ADU because it was substandard.
Vann responded that the ADU met the standards even though it was not up to the
P&Z liking.
Ann Murchison, public, said that she and the neighbors had no objection to the
cash in lieu. She said that the only concern was the parking of cars and that in
coming cars headlights be addressed. Vann said that if this were approved then
there would be another opportunity to review the duplex at a public hearing.
The commission discussed the text amendment with concerns that this was for one
applicant, the location for the affordable housing on site was preferable rather than
cash in lieu, 2-3 million dollars would be a good benefit for the housing program,
the concept of cash in lieu was good but not totally confident in the use of the
monies, site specific replacement of affordable housing should be the goal of the
infill program and not appropriate for the city to be responsible for that developers
affordable housing replacement with the cash in lieu for another site. The money
from this cash in lieu could be used for buy downs of free market units, lodge
conversions for affordable housing projects such as the Ullr, which would buy
down existing units and not have the advantage of buying down something that
would be brand new.
Sunny Vann stated that this Resolution goes back and restates all the subsequent M
amendments to the project; he requested that the text amendment be made in a
motion form with a resolution to be drafted after the approval or denial.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve a text amendment to the
land use code to allow a payment in lieu fee option to the residential
multi-family replacement program and to substitute a payment in lieu
fee for 4 affordable housing units presently required for Parcel 2;
seconded by Ruth Kruger. Vote: Erickson, no; Haneman, no; Cohen,
yes; Kruger, yes; Myrin, no; Johns, no; Tygre, no. DENIED 5-2.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to recommend that City Council
accept the cash in lieu for the ADU on the Top of Mill with a minor
PUD amendment because the substandard unit would be not meet
current standards; seconded by Ruth Kruger. Vote: Erickson, yes;
Haneman, yes; Cohen, yes; Kruger, yes; Myrin, yes; Johns, yes; Tygre,
yes. APPROVED 7-0.
5