Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20131217 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 17,2013 U Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre, Myrin and Gibbs present. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn,Jennifer Phelan and Justin Barker COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Myrin stated that he abstained from voting at the last meeting on the second vote and there was a lot of pressure from the applicant. He asked if under those conditions if it is possible to adjourn the meeting until a later date where they are not being pressured because of others timelines. Ms.Tygre stated that other than abstaining she is unsure how P&Z can make the applicant table something if they don't want to. Mr. Erspamer said he agrees with procrastinating and sometimes one meeting is not enough. Ms.Tygre asked if the commission does not feel they have enough time to make a decision can they continue it even if the applicant does not want to. Ms.Quinn,Assistant City Attorney,stated she thinks they can. Mr. Gibbs said he feels a continuance is perfectly in order. Ms. Quinn stated that inappropriate behavior by an applicant is grounds to continue a meeting. Mr. Erspamer read the thank you from Steve Skadron and presented the calendars. He asked to pass on a thank you from Planning and Zoning to the mayor. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan stated there is an item for the first meeting in January. Ms. Phelan said they are looking at the first week in February to have a work session with City Council. She also said the second meeting in January will be the year in review meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comments. MINUTES - November 19, 2013 Ms.Tygre wanted criteria and criterion changed when needed. Mr. Erspamer page 10, 2nd paragraph "walk off" needs changed to "lock off", page 17,4th paragraph wants added " Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Brown to state this in a more respectful manner". Mr. Myrin motion to approve, seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST No Declaration of conflict of interest. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits - AABC Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing. Ms. Quinn has reviewed the affidavit of public notice and it is appropriate. 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 17,2013 Justin Barker, community development planner, said the application is for the development of affordable housing units outside of city limits but within the urban growth boundary and the establishment of a certificate of affordable housing credit. The property is located in unincorporated Pitkin County and was originally approved as Lot 2 of the Alpine Grove Subdivision. This included one lot of existing condos as well as this lot which was intended for 17 affordable housing units to be built in two phases. The first phase was built and condominimized to become the Pacific Avenue Condominiums and includes nine units completed as mitigation for the Residences at the Little Nell. As well as completing the remaining eight units,the applicant is requesting to establish a certificate of affordable housing credit for the 24 FTE's that would be generated by this development at the category two level. P&Z is the recommending body to City Council regarding the establishment of units outside of city limits and the affordable housing credit. Units that are establishing affordable housing credits must meet the criteria of the land use code including being located within city limits. City Council does have the authority to accept units outside city limits as long as they are located within the urban growth boundary. APCHA supports these units mostly because they are three-bedroom units being offered at the category two level. Another review criteria for establishing units within the urban growth boundary outside city limits is all approvals must be obtained from the governing body with jurisdiction over that particular parcel, Pitkin County. The vested rights from the original approval of the 17 units had expired in 2010 but the applicant is working on an administrative approval. The City Council hearing will not be scheduled until the approval has been obtained. Staff is recommending approval of the units outside city limits. The affordable housing credit program was designed to establish an option to offset the impacts of development that occurs within city limits. Mitigation can be accepted within the urban growth boundary but is considered a secondary option. Staff is recommending a prioritization that would reflect the idea that Staff prefers things established within city limits rather than outside. Staff is presenting a reduced percentage of credits being established versus what is actually being generated. Staff recommendation is currently 75 percent of the 24 FTE's which would create 18 total FTE's of credit. Staff is also recommending that P&Z and Council evaluate if a reduction in credits would be appropriate. Mr. Gibbs asked if there was any reduction when the Residences at Little Nell were built. Mr. Barker replied no, it was a combination of different types of mitigation. Ms.Tygre asked if phase one satisfies the requirement of the Little Nell and Mr. Barker replied it does. Mr. Erspamer asked for clarification on the use of"prioritization". Mr. Barker stated the mitigation is preferred to be within city limits. Mr. Erspamer stated it is priority to want it in,or they have to go through the P&Z process. Mr. Barker stated the 25 percent reduction is a reflection of that prioritization. They prefer to have units within city limits. Mr. Erspamer asked if this is a penalty in the code. Mr. Barker stated it is not specifically listed within the code but is an option instead of just accepting units outside of city limits at the exact way it would be presented within city limits. Mr. Erspamer noted the initial approval was for the 24. Ms.Tygre said it is for the same thing it just didn't get built. Mr. Barker noted it is a little different since that was specifically for the one development and this proposal is providing credits to be opened up to any type of development. Ms.Tygre stated it was an already approved plan. Ms. Phelan said it was approved by the County Commissioners. Mr. Erspamer noted their vested rights have expired and they are re-applying. Ms. Quinn stated they are 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 17,2013 not going through this because of vested rights but because the applicant is requesting certificates of credit. Mr. Myrin asked if the discussion tonight is whether it qualifies for 100 or 75 percent of the mitigation. Ms. Phelan stated the affordable housing credit program, created in the past three years, did not talk about this type of situation, where someone would offer to voluntarily build affordable housing units outside the city boundaries and ask for credits from the city. There is a process in the land use code to accept affordable housing outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary and are proposing that these credits have a value and affordable housing has a value, however this program is not within the city and should perhaps be discounted. Mr. Myrin said that the current code could let something happen outside the city with a reduction and P&Zjust needs to figure out how to come up with that number. Ms. Phelan stated that Council has the discretion to accept housing outside the city limits. Mr. Myrin asked if going forward with the 25 percent reduction would set a precedent that 25 percent would also be the reduction the next time this came up. Mr. Barker stated that is part of the discussion that needs to happen. Ms.Tygre asked if the current code takes this reduction into account. Ms. Phelan replied that it is not written in the code. Mr. Myrin asked staff how they came up with the 25 percent reduction instead of some other number. Mr. Barker stated it was considered a roughly reasonable number at this point versus 50 percent. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. Peter Fornell,the applicant, stated the affordable housing credit program is designed to benefit the applicant that builds lower category housing. Less money is collected from the person buying the unit and more from the development community. He stated that the two projects he has completed have been just that. At 301 Hyman they completed eight one-bedroom units. Six of those went into the lottery and 63 applicants applied to purchase the units at$104,000 apiece. At 518 Main Street,they restored a historic cabin. Eight of the eleven units will be category two two-bedroom units for $124,000. He stated he wanted to show that his mind and heart are in the right place with what he has completed so far. Mr. Fornell stated that it is his notion to put housing in the city,and at the AABC the property was earmarked as affordable housing with a PUD overlay ten years ago. He said that 24 FTE's take a pretty big project to offset. Mr. Fornell said that building for credits at this location is the only way to see affordable housing get built here in the near future. Mr. Fornell mentioned the discounting of some sort for affordable housing units outside the c ity limits. He stated that to an extent he agrees with it but also not. He stated if he was going to Basalt or somewhere outside our transportation center he might agree with what Staff says about the discounting. He said you need to look at the project for where it is and the AABC is a central location with the exception that it is not inside the city limits. He said that if he would build these eight units and sell them for$1.3 million the credits are worth 5.8 and if he gets discounted it will be for the majority of the revenues that he is trying to create. If it is a category four, he would be discounted for a lesser percentage of overall revenues and is a larger burden for building category two housing. Mitch Hass said outside the city limits is a very broad term. He stated that this is a location at the AABC and has already been approved by the City as a place for mitigation at 100 percent credit for the Residences at the Little Nell. He said it is a location surrounded by employee housing by a large part. Phase one has already been built as well as a playground and park. He stated this is an appropriate place for employee housing. He said the AACP makes it very clear in pushing for employee housing 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 17,2013 without public subsidy and looking for ways to get public/private partnerships for employee housing development. He stated the AACP also talks about developing employee housing that is transit oriented. He said it is not far outside the city and compared it to the location of the City's employee housing at Burlingame. He stated the City is not developing other employee housing and it is up to the private sector and Mr. Fornell is the only one doing so. Mr. Hass said these are eight three-bedroom units sized at the category four level but Mr. Fornell is willing to deed restrict them at the category two level and hold on to the credits and assume the risk and the time it takes to sell them. Mr. Fornell stated that in regards to the discounting,when he goes out to the market to sell credits to potential users they already have a number in their head that they get from the Community Development Department. He stated he has to compete with a number that is not realistic and to further discount is crippling. Mr. Myrin asked if phase one was discounted. Mr. Hass replied it was not. He said that phase one met close to 89 percent of total mitigation requirement for the Residences of Little Nell and the remainder was met elsewhere. Mr. Myrin asked if there are examples where there has been a discount. Mr. Hass replied no. Ms. Phelan stated there has been no credit program and Mr. Fornell stated he is the only builder to build for credits. Mr. Myrin asked if it works for Mr. Fornell because the 24 FTE's require an enormous project in town where Mr. Fornell can distribute it to multiple projects. Mr. Fornell stated you rarely see anyone who needs 24 FTE's at one time. Mr. Gibbs asked what the delta in construction between categories two and four are. Mr. Fornell stated there is no real difference in construction costs other than in the size of the units. Mr. Fornell said it is a year less for him in building permits to build category four instead of category two. Mr. Erspamer asked if there is a risk of the project failing because the gap between the time he puts the money in until the time he gets it out is too far. Mr. Fornell said there is a risk in a lesser return than in other markets. Mr. Fornell said the risk is to him. It took four years to sell his first credit but he has sold 12 this year. He can't get the credit or sell it until someone is living in the unit. Mr. Erspamer opened the hearing to public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. Mr. Erspamer opened the hearing to commissioner comments. Mr. Myrin commented that the staff recommendation has "75 percent of the 24 FTE's produced by the project" does not carry forward to section 2 of the resolution which talks about 18 FTE's. He asked if there would be a drawback to having that as part of the resolution. Staff replied it would not be a detriment to add it in because it is just stating what it would be with the 25 percent reduction. Mr. Myrin stated he would be in approval with thatchange. Ms.Tygre disagreed with Staff recommendation in this particular instance based on the fairness issue. If another project in the same location got 100 percent FTE she does not feel there is justification for them to have 100 percent FTE but this applicant only gets 75 percent. She said it is treating the applicant unfairly and inappropriately considering the previous approval. She said she hates the idea that City Council uses the AABC and allows this but they started it and it is in the code. Her concern is that P&Z is to enforce the code as it exists not as they wish it to exist. Ms.Tygre stated that there may need to be a discussion that if affordable housing is going to be built outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary there should be an adjustment in the amount of credit given. She stated there should be criteria by which P&Z can decide what that reduction should be. She said that arbitrarily saying 25 percent is ill considered and would set a precedent that may not be the appropriate precedent. She 4 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission December 17,2013 stated she would rather see no housing out there rather than a reduced one and P&Z has to judge this project by the code and she does not think they should start changing code for one particular application until it has been discussed and is a matter of policy. Ms.Tygre stated she does not see any reason why the applicant should not get the 100 percent which they have had all along. Mr. Gibbs stated he agrees with Ms.Tygre. It is arbitrary and not based on the code as it is currently written. He also thinks since it is not really a development project where the developer is choosing to relocate its mitigation. He said that for a developer like Mr. Fornell where the site already exists it is not going to drive any choice of the siting. He said the code is trying to say to build in town if you can and only if Council agrees will you be able to do it outside city limits. He said that is as far as it needs to go and that is what the code says. He stated that is what he has to support. He said it is a well proposed project and if Mr. Fornell is successful it will provide a lot of housing. Mr. Erspamer stated that Ms.Tygre and Mr. Hass said it best. He said he was hoping the recommendation would not have said 75 percent. He stated it would have been better to leave the figure out. By just picking a number makes everyone look not good and he is against penalizing this one group. He said the project is great but he will not approve 75 percent but will vote for 100 percent mitigation. Mr. Myrin made a motion to approve Resolution 22 series of 2013 recommending City Council approve it with the following modification; section two changing 18 to 24 and will have 100 percent of the FTE's produced by the project (identical to the staff language on page three). Seconded by Ms.Tygre. Mr. Gibbs commented that he understands where Staff is coming from and he agrees with the concept but he thinks it would bear good discussion with Staff and Council and then a code amendment. Mr. Myrin stated that fixing the code is something P&Z needs to do and he thinks it is broken. He said they need to honor what the last approval was at this similar location. He said it makes no sense to him to create a reduction when there wasn't one at the same location previously. He said he commends Mr. Fornell for coming up with something that is 24 FTE's and it is rare to have a large project in town and Mr. Fornell is able to split it out. Mr. Fornell stated that there are two parking spaces per unit and four guest spaces. He said they are more than doubling the code for parking. Roll call Ms.Tygre yes, Mr. Gibbs yes, Mr. Myrin yes, Mr. Erspamer yes. Motion carried. Mr. Myrin made a motion to adjourn seconded by Mr.Gibbs. All in favor meeting adjourned. 5