Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20210420Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 1 of 18 Chairperson McKnight called the regular meeting to order at 4:31 PM. Commissioners in attendance: James Marcus, Rally Dupps, Scott Marcoux, Teraissa McGovern, Ruth Carver, and Spencer McKnight Commissioners not in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill and Kimbo Brown-Schirato Staff in Attendance: Philip Supino, Community Development Director Ben Anderson, Principal Long-Range Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Supino stated the meetings scheduled for May should be held. Mr. Supino stated Ms. Brown-Schirato will be moving out of the City and will resign from the commission. PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Carver motioned to approve the January 19, 2021 minutes and was seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Marcoux motioned to approve the February 2, 2021 minutes and was seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Marcoux motioned to approve the March 2, 2021 minutes and was seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. McGovern motioned to approve the March 3, 2021 minutes and was seconded by Mr. Marcoux. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 2 of 18 PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. McKnight asked if proper notice was provided. Ms. Johnson stated the published notice was found sufficient for both hearings. The notices were entered as Exhibit I and exhibits II and saved with the agenda packet. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation Land Use Code Amendment – Growth Management and Affordable Housing Credits Mr. McKnight opened the hearing and turned the floor over to Staff for the high-level review. Mr. Anderson introduced himself and stated the hearing is related to proposed code amendments for growth management (GM) and affordable housing (AH) credits. He then reviewed the code amendment process which begins with a policy resolution from City Council requiring community outreach and stakeholder discussion. Mr. Anderson noted both hearings tonight involve the discussion for the proposed amendments and P&Z can provide a resolution of recommendation to Council. Mr. Anderson noted the discussion or comments are not binding and City Council will be making the final determination on the proposed code amendments. Mr. Anderson displayed and discussed the proposed schedule for the review of the code amendments in April and May. He also discussed how the proposed amendments originated with the coordination of the land use code with Council’s AH goals. There was a Fee-in-Lieu (FIL) study conducted in 2019 which identified potential actions for improvement to make it more proportionate and defensible. City Council then approved a policy Resolution No. 79-2020 to provide direction to the proposed code amendments including the following. • Fee-In-Lieu Calculation and Update Methodology - Staff worked with consultants TischlerBise and White and Smith • Improvements to the AH Credits program • Improvement to Multi-Family Home (MFH) replacement – Staff worked with consultant Design Workshop • Study of existing incentives and credits with AH mitigation requirements Mr. Anderson stated staff wants to review the following proposed amendments with P&Z. • Fee-in-Lieu update • Improvements to AH Credits • Elimination of Lodge Incentives and Credits – AH mitigation • Clean-up to MFH Replacement – no policy or regulation changes Mr. Anderson reviewed the criteria City Council will consider in their review of the proposed amendments. He added P&Z does not necessarily need to use them. Ms. Johnson noted this hearing is more in the policy making realm. Mr. Anderson discussed the history of Fee-in-Lieu and the proposed methodology. He stated the fee-in- lieu is a codified amount that represents the dollar value assigned to the value of AH mitigation. It is assigned per FTE (Full Time Equivalent) within categories. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 3 of 18 Mr. Anderson then reviewed the properties utilized to determine the construction and land costs. The properties included public, private and public/private projects. For the land costs, the mix included six projects under an acre and the Lumberyard project which is ten times the size at 10.5 acres. Because the final density hasn’t been determined yet for the Lumberyard project, staff took the densities (FTEs per land area) for the other 6 completed projects and translated the average onto the Lumberyard project. He then displayed a table of proposed construction costs. The average soft cost per SF of net livable is $187 and the average hard cost per SF of net livable is $501 for a total average cost per SF net livable of $688. Next, he displayed a table of land costs showing a cost range of $135 - $540 per SF net livable and an average cost of $417 per SF net livable. Then he displayed a table showing the totals adding the land and construction costs for a total of $1,105 per SF net livable and $442,000 per FTE. He acknowledged this is a very large number compared to developing AH in other communities. Mr. Anderson displayed a table showing revenues per FTE for sale, rental and average of sales and rental per revenue category based on Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) guidelines. The sales and rental figures from APCHA were taken down to a per FTE basis and then the figures were averaged. APCHA provides clear sales figures by category based on the number of bedrooms in a unit. For the rental figures, some assumptions had to be made. Staff took APCHA’s rental rates out 15 years with an increase of 2% per year and then subtracted an assumed 50% of the maintenance and operation (M&O) expenses to calculate and rental FTE amount. From the calculations, staff was able to determine proposed FIL amounts by category. He displayed a table of the proposed FIL amounts along with a chart showing the percent increase from 2018 for each category. He explained the Category 2 rows of figures is highlighted because it represents the AH mitigation required when someone builds a single family or a duplex. And the Category 4 rows were highlighted because it represents the AH mitigation required for a commercial, lodging and MFH developments. The other categories are used in AH category conversions and for the AH certificate program. He noted the percent increases are different across the categories due to different methodologies used to calculate revenues for each category. He believes the proposed new methodology is more defensible and rooted in the APCHA guidelines. Mr. Anderson asked the commissioners if they had any questions at this time. Mr. Marcus asked to confirm if the $1,100 per SF is the cost to develop AH in Aspen. Mr. Anderson confirmed this was an average cost calculated. He stated the cost was based on net livable to identify the unit size instead of gross floor area. Mr. Marcus asked if other incentives were available to reduce the cost, would this be considered. Mr. Anderson replied in terms of costs, the consultant team considered private, public, and public/private projects. In regard to revenues, the team wanted to make sure the cost/revenue analysis was similar to the City of Aspen building a unit. If the private sector builds a project, they may have additional revenue streams available to them. Mr. Anderson provided examples such as a recent private development that was sold to an employer for housing and developers being able to take advantage of the low-income tax Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 4 of 18 housing credits. These were kept out of the equation because the City is trying to identify what it would cost the City to build a unit. He added the City has other programs than the FIL system such as the AH credit program. Mr. Marcus commented if the goal is to be defensible and equitable, there should be a view on what is the most efficient way and not the most expensive. Mr. Anderson replied the City is trying to build and codify a methodology to include all those options and have it easily updated. It would require knowledge of the internal rate of return for developers and other sales information that is not available. Mr. Marcus asked if the included the revenue from the public/private partnerships to allow for a broader range. Mr. Anderson replied those projects are all rental and are subject to APCHA rental guidelines. Mr. Anderson stated there is also a proposed annual valuation using the Engineering News-Record’s National Construction Index (NCI) to update the FIL. Also, the cost calculation would be evaluated every five years using actual projects and land acquisitions. Mr. Anderson reviewed comments from the public outreach with the development community on April 6th and 7th. Comments from the meetings included concerns the percent increase was not consistent across categories the assumptions regarding the M&O costs and the rental revenue, the outcomes of the study may have impacts on other housing policy including categories, and using the NCI for annual updates. Mr. Anderson then discussed AH credit improvements. He stated they’ve heard the program is successful, but there are some aspects making it difficult for people to take full advantage of the program. Staff is proposing four changes: 1) AH development projects can pursue AH credits in conjunction with other state and federal incentives, 2) Allow for phased issuance of AH certificates to correspond with the construction phases at 30% at foundation, 30% at framing and 40% at Certificate of Occupancy, 3) Multiplier of FTEs of 20% generated within a designated historic structure due to the extra costs associated with such structures, 4) Provide flexibility for credit insurance in the deed-restricting of existing free-market MFH development. The floor area is not as clearly defined in some of the older buildings. Mr. Anderson noted there are two major issues with the AH Credits program staff is not proposing changes for at this time. Staff will continue to analyze to seek solutions to the following. 1) Banks and other lenders do not, or have difficulty evaluating the value of credits with a project’s pro forma. 2) The uncertainty on the demand side of credits. This is the risk in a credits project asking if there will be buyers for my credits and how long will it take to sell them. Mr. Anderson next discussed the work to date for MFH replacements. He stated they are still studying this, and they are not yet ready to propose any amendments. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 5 of 18 Mr. Anderson stated the community focus has shifted to providing affordable housing and staff is proposing eliminations to the lodge incentives and credits. He noted the incentives were put in place in 2007 to reduce the mitigation rate for new developments and the employee generation credit for mitigating existing lodge rooms in redevelopment scenarios. Mr. Anderson reviewed the proposed timeline, noted the draft resolution in the packet and stated he would be happy to take comments to Council. Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners if there were any questions of staff. Mr. Marcoux asked if the phased construction credits could be changed to when the mechanical, electrical, plumbing (MEP) starts. Mr. Anderson replied the recommendation from the City’s building inspectors was the MEP was already in place with the framing and roofing. Mr. Dupps noted he keeps seeing parking as a subject in public comments regarding the increased density in the RMF zone district. He asked for more information. Mr. Anderson stated this information would be covered in the second agenda item. Mr. Marcus asked what ideas have been reviewed to resolve the financing issues and why did staff decide not to pursue any changes at this time. Mr. Anderson noted when the credits program was conceived, the idea was to create a mechanism keeping the City out of deal regarding the sale of them. He added for the issue to be resolved, the City would have to intervene dramatically in the market of the credits. Mr. Marcus stated the City would need to buy them to guarantee a price. Mr. Anderson agreed and noted this would be a fundamental change from the original intent of the program. Ms. McGovern asked if changing the FIL calculation would not have any impact on accepting cash-in-lieu (CIL) when a building permit is obtained. Mr. Anderson confirmed her statement was accurate. Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment. Ms. Johnson then asked each attendee for their comment. Mr. Buck Carlton believes originally people were supposed to have a certain percentage of their units go to AH so everybody gets integrated normally. Now, he believes a lot of money has been paid and you have to look for places for AH. He believes this is not going to change but wanted to point it out. He sees the biggie as the 20% benefit for places that have already been set up for HPC. He thinks HPC is a very important part of Aspen and to then have another incentive that breaks up what’s been going on to create a lot of multi-units in places probably should not have them is probably not a good idea. Ms. Caroline McDonald, 1000 E Cooper Ave, stated it has been proposed they’re going to give a $6,000 CIL for construction at 1020 E Cooper Ave. Her property is actually where it would probably be because it’s off the main street and it has access to the alley. She does not believe CIL helps her neighborhood. She has two units and the parking is totally unacceptable and CIL if just feeding the government more money to supersede the public needs. She thanked the commission for the opportunity to comment. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 6 of 18 Mr. Jim VeShancey stated he makes his living in construction and development management. He wondered if the AH credit is somehow tied to the value of a deed-in-lieu (DIL) payment so if somebody has an AH credit, they could sell it on the open market. And that person could use it instead of paying the DIL. He asked if a market understanding that those two are tied together in terms of value could be established. Mr. Michael Smith believes it should just all go to a cash program and then when someone creates housing, they get paid the cash amount for the FIL. He feels this will create a more transparent market and probably drive down the cost of AH. He was astonished at the costs. He has built units in Carbondale at approximately one third the cost. He believes the costs should be studied further. Ms. Christie Gilliam is a real estate agent and she agrees with Mr. Michael Smith they are develop units down valley at a lot lower cost. Mr. McKnight closed public comment and asked staff if they wanted to respond. Mr. Anderson wanted to clarify when he was speaking of FIL, he was speaking specifically about AH mitigation as opposed to the parking fee-in-lieu. The money coming in from that process has a different purpose. He is strictly referring to AH mitigation. Mr. Anderson stated the purpose of the credits is to serve as a proxy for the FIL and no dollars are exchanged with the City. He added they have found the value of the credits on the market serve as a holder value of the credits so there is some connection. He added the program has generated a number of units that would otherwise not have been built. It’s been a success, but it does require the connection of the credits with the FIL. Mr. Anderson stated they tried to make an effort to identify the costs noting the public partnership project was relatively in line with the private sector project. Mr. McKnight opened commissioner discussion. He stated he would ask the commissioners on the four items discussed starting with the FIL calculation methodology. Ms. McGovern provided a thumbs up. Mr. Marcus stated there are potentially other sources of revenue through public private partnerships to bring down the costs. He believes it’s a mistake on one hand to say it’s okay to increase the FIL to pass on to the developers, but the City will have no accountability for improving the credits program by backing it up. He added it seems uneven there’s an expectation that private developers should bear the full cost and the lack of competitiveness of how to bring down the costs and on the other side the having the City be accountable to make the credits program more efficient. He stated if developers build them and the FIL is higher, it could potentially be a good thing, but there is no benefit if developers can’t sell them. He believes the proposed increases are huge and is reluctant to support the changes. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 7 of 18 Mr. Anderson noted Mr. Marcus makes good points but reiterated the changes he is suggesting are big and will change the nature of the program. He added the City will continue to work on these issues. He stated the costs are the same across the categories and it’s the calculations of the revenue streams between 2015 and 2020 that’s making the difference. Mr. Marcus asked if they looked at the actual revenue for the private developer. Mr. Anderson stated they looked at the rent revenue for 15 years for the Aspen Housing Partnership projects. He added they had to make a choice because the M&O costs and financing considering the nature and size of a project. They found a range of 25% to 80% so they picked something in the middle they felt was justifiable. Mr. McKnight agreed with Mr. Marcus. Mr. McKnight then asked for comments regarding the AH certificate credits. Mr. Marcus asked what the point is if the two primary issues are being punted. He agrees it will be hard, but he proposes the commission state they are generally in agreement with the proposed FIL changes with the condition the City actually prioritizes and takes up what has been identified as the two primary shortcomings of the credits program. Ms. McGovern responded she does not have enough information to back Mr. Marcus on his suggestion. She agrees it needs to be addressed but doesn’t feel this is the current forum to do it. Mr. Dupps asked Mr. Marcus to review his potential solution. Mr. Marcus stated the City would guarantee to purchase the credits at some price and then make them available to create a level of certainty for the developer building the units. He also wants the developer to have the ability to sell the credits on the free market. He added this would solve the financing issue because a bank could see the units are basically guaranteed and backed by the City. Mr. Dupps asked what happens if the City sells out of them like what has happened in the private sector. Ms. Johnson reiterated staff is asking for a recommendation on the amendments discussed and Mr. Marcus is proposing an entirely different amendment. She added P&Z can propose amendments to Council, but it would need to be an entirely different action. Mr. Supino felt it is important to consider the dollar amount that would be needed to purchase credits could only come from the General Fund which requires Council’s approval to use money from this fund. Other funds such as the 150 Fund would not be available to use to purchase the credits because of the strict limitations of the fund. There would be some hurdles for the City to create a budget authority to purchase the credits. Mr. Dupps feels the comments from Mr. Marcus and Ms. McGovern are valid. He feels the market for the credits is currently handicapped. Ms. Carver asked if a suggestion could be added for the City to guarantee a percentage of the credit or the full value after a specified timeframe if the credits were not sold. Mr. McKnight noted the commissioners agree the problems exist and the City knows it as well. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 8 of 18 Mr. Anderson stated staff has discussed it with City Council and there is support to identify solutions, but nothing has been determined at this point. Mr. Supino suggested including a recommendation in the motion in support. Mr. McKnight then asked for comments regarding the existing credits and incentives item. No one commented so he took that as support as it was presented by staff. Mr. McKnight next asked for comments regarding the MFH replacement item. Again, no one commented so he took that as support as it was presented by staff. Mr. Marcoux motioned to approve the resolution with the added language. Ms. Johnson suggested making a formal recommendation in support of the amendments proposed in the resolution and include a recommendation that City Council direct staff to engage in an analysis on the topic. Mr. Marcus then motioned to approve the resolution with the understanding the P&Z commissioners strongly encourage City Council to direct staff to analyze and identify solutions to solve the two primary shortcomings of the credit programs. Mr. Dupps seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call for Resolution 3, Series 2021: Roll Call: Mr. Marcoux, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Mr. Marcus, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of six (6) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. McKnight then closed the hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation Land Use Code Amendment – Residential Multi-Family (RMF and RMFA) Zone Districts Mr. McKnight opened the hearing for code amendments for residential multi-family zoned districts. Mr. Anderson stated this was a public hearing asking for P&Z recommendations to City Council. He noted the amendments are proposed by a third party and the only difference in the process is that the party first goes to City Council to ask permission to submit the application. Mr. Anderson introduced the application for both the RMF and RMF-A Zone Districts. He reviewed the process progress to date and the proposed schedule going forward. The applicant requested permission to apply which was approved and documented in Resolution 16, Series 2021. Next, the applicant conducted outreach including the public and P&Z. On May 11, 2021 a policy resolution and first reading are scheduled with City Council. And on May 25, 2021, a second reading of the ordinance and public hearing is scheduled with the City Council. He reviewed the types of outreach conducted by the applicant noting there were 120+ participants in the survey conducted. Any comments received via email were forwarded on to the commissioners. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 9 of 18 Mr. Anderson displayed the review criteria the City Council will consider. He stated P&Z can be informed by these criteria, but the commission also has discretion on how they approach the topic. Finally, he displayed a map of the lots that would be impacted by the code amendment. He asked for any questions of staff. Mr. McKnight found there were no questions and then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Bendon, Bendon Adams, introduced himself as the applicant’s representative. He stated the applicant is requesting a code amendment to allow for MFH on small lots in the RMF and RMF-A Zone Districts. The applicant is interested in developing MFH but currently lots below 6,000 SF cannot be developed. Currently a single-family home (SFH) is on the applicant’s lot. The applicant would like to develop a MFH that is a mix of affordable housing and free market. The application proposes to amend the code to change the minimum lot size to 3,000 SF. He then showed a map indicating most of the lots are east of downtown. He pointed out other lots west of downtown, down by the S-curves, Hunter Creek and Centennial areas, and at the base of Smuggler. Mr. Bendon then discussed the type of residences currently allowed in the RMF Zone District. He noted for historic lots the current minimum lot size is 3,000 SF in the RMF and RMF-A Zone Districts. Of the 24 lots the proposed code amendment would impact, nine of them are historic and therefore already allowed to have a MFH development. Mr. Bendon then displayed the actual proposed amendment content under the Minimum Gross Lot Area (square feet) section as ‘For Multi-Family Dwellings: Three thousand (3,000)’ to be appended to the end of the existing content. He then displayed a listing of the 24 lots that would be affected by the code change. He noted most are single family homes, a couple are duplexes and a couple are MFHs and a couple are lodge. Mr. Bendon stated the proposed code amendment is well supported by the Aspen Area Community Plan. Mr. Bendon next discussed potential impacts regarding to mass and scale. He stated clearly the development of MFH is going to be bigger than a SFH. He provided a matrix comparing the floor area (FA) and height of existing and new SFHs against multi-family for low, medium and high densities of 3,000 SF, 4,500 SF and 6,000 SF lots. He also provided 3-D rendering of the examples in the matrix. He noted the side setbacks would be the same but the front setbacks for multi-family structures is five FT and for SFHs it is 10 FT. Mr. Bendon next provided a matrix comparing the Employee mitigation for a SFH and MFH on 3,000 SF, 4,500 SF and 6,000 SF lots. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 10 of 18 He then provided a matrix comparing parking requirements for a SFH and MFH. Mr. Bendon reviewed the outreach actions and a sample of responses. He noted about 120 people answered the survey and of those responding, about 60% were in Pitkin County about 36% were outside Pitkin County. Almost 70% of the respondents live in free-market housing. About 55% of the respondents felt they were familiar with the City’s Zoning Code. An average of 19 out of 100 responded they would support for increased residential density. In regard to the types of supported residential density, the highest was no support at 60%, SFH at 50% and the remainder was 20% or lower for other options. Most of the comments provided were against supporting the proposed code amendment. He read a few examples of the comments. Mr. Bendon stated the applicant has the ability to develop a SFH by right. He displayed a map of the City with the RMF Zone Districts identified and stated from a planning perspective, these are the areas where MFH is zoned because they are accessible by multiple types of transportation. He concluded stating based on the size of the lot, he believes a SFH built would become a second home and not house someone in the local workforce. Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners for questions of the applicant. Mr. Dupps noted some comments asked for the applicant to be identified and asked Ms. Johnson if this was appropriate. Ms. Johnson does not believe there is any legal authority requiring the applicant to identify themselves other than what is required on the application. Mr. Bendon stated the applicant is Tri Dal Real Estate Ltd which owns other property in town. Mr. Marcoux stated he keeps hearing not turning Aspen into Vail. He asked what Vail did with their parking issue and when will Aspen start to treat the parking issue as a safety concern. He feels parking has been forgotten. Mr. McKnight stated the current stage of the hearing is asking questions of the applicant. Mr. Marcoux asked the if Mr. Bendon discussed the parking issues with the applicant for the property. Mr. Bendon stated they have had discussions, but not in great detail. He stated the City has parking regulations which encourage transportation other than cars and the system is the second largest in the state and has a long history of de-emphasizing the auto and emphasizing other forms of transportation. Mr. Bendon stated the applicant would be required to provide parking as any applicant is required. Ms. McGovern noted the proposed code amendments state multi-family and not affordable housing, or deed restricted multi-family. She asked if it had been discussed with the applicant to define the multi- family as some type of affordable. In her opinion if it is a free market MFH, then it only puts more empty beds instead a SFH. Mr. Bendon replied they modeled the proposed changes for MFH on what it currently is for MFH in the RMF Zone Districts. He added the requirements for adding affordable housing are pretty steep. He stated it’s not cheap to develop anything in Aspen. For an applicant to develop purely affordable housing, they would probably have to have more incentive than what exists now. Ms. Carver asked if the historic lots would be included in the 24 lots. Mr. Bendon stated the historic properties are already allowed to develop MFH. The list he displayed earlier included the historic lots. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 11 of 18 He added there would be 15 lots affected by the proposed code amendment. Ms. Carver asked if the height for the MFH was 32 FT and Mr. Bendon confirmed it as correct. At 7 pm, Ms. Carver motioned to continue the meeting for an hour. Mr. Marcoux seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call vote: Mr. Marcus, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of six (6) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Anderson stated Mr. Bendon’s presentation represents Staff’s understanding of the application except on-site parking is required on SF duplex developments. Mr. Anderson provided history of the RMF / RMF-A Residential Multi-Family zone district. The zone district has been in effect since 1964 with the permitted use of multi-family development. And since 2004 MFH has been encouraged through height and floor area incentives and SFH redevelopment has been discouraged through a floor area penalty. Mr. Anderson summarized the permitted maximum height and floor area ratio (FAR) for MFH. He stated there is a clear incentive in the zone district for high density MFH development. Mr. Anderson summarized the permitted uses of SFH development. Mr. Anderson next discussed the definition of a non-conforming lot of record (lot size less than 3,000 SF). He reviewed Section 26.312.050 of the Non-Conformities chapter. He noted subitem A identifies there is a basic right for development. He stated subitem C may be confusing as to what is allowed. He then discussed from Section 26.710.090.D RMF / RMF-A Dimensional Requirements in subitem 2 for Minimum Net Lot Area per dwelling unit (SF) subitem c. shows there are no requirements for multi- family dwellings. He feels the City has applied the language conservatively over time, but the intent of the relationship of the items is a bit unclear. Mr. Anderson then reviewed staff’s recommendation including staff’s beliefs the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Zone District(s); consistent with statements in the AACP; uncertain intent regarding the relationship between minimum gross lot area, nonconformities, and minimum net lot area per dwelling unit; certain intent in the encouragement of dense, MFH development and discouragement of new SFH and duplexes; GMQS review with P&Z will be required along with conformance with all development requirements if the proposed code is amended; and consistent with recent conversations with City Council regarding aligning the land use code and Council’s affordable housing goals. Staff’s only reservation is that Council has directed staff to look at all the zone districts for opportunities for AH. Staff is supportive of the proposed code amendments. Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 12 of 18 Ms. Carver asked for the timeline for staff to review the zoning districts. Mr. Anderson responded this is probably why Mr. Bendon is pursuing this request because staff’s review is at least a year out for having tangible proposals to identify opportunities in the zoned districts to facilitate AH. Mr. Dupps asked Mr. Anderson to go over the affordable housing requirement if someone wanted to develop a 4,500 lot for three MFH units as an example. Mr. Anderson responded if someone is demoing existing units to build new MFH, the are directed to build them on the same location. With new MFH development, they could do off-site or on-site to meet the FTE requirement or they could do credits. He stated as an example, for a project requiring six FTEs at a category four under the new rates, this would be around two million dollars versus affordable housing mitigation. Mr. Bendon requested time for a clarification. Mr. McKnight allowed for the clarification. Mr. Bendon stated he wanted to respond to a question regarding the applicant. He stated the applicant’s interest is for P&Z, staff and City Council focus on the merits of the proposed zoning change and not be distracted by the people behind it. He stated he has heard members on P&Z, HPC and Council sort of complain they got sucked into making a decision based on the people and the personalities and not really the codes and the standards, which can happen and the second reason is not to pre-judge an applicant or application before it comes in. He stated if this was something that makes sense in a direction for the community, then an application would be submitted that would be clear about how it meets the standards, is what’s going on, and renderings of what it looks like. He continued stating they wouldn’t want councilors, commissioners or staff to get in a position where there is a distraction by the people and personalities behind it or be accused of pre-judging an application. Mr. McKnight then opened public comment. Ms. McDonald, 1000 E Cooper Ave, said the application smacks of greed, Aspen is finite and One A barely passed by 26 votes. She commented on the employee mitigation for the 1020 E Cooper project. She is really discerned about the fact whether what comes first, HPC overlay or zoning. She believes where they want to build five more units will not be enjoyable living units for employees. She said her son’s friends are moving down valley because they don’t want to live in an abject unit. She feels the City needs to get families and unfortunately, second homeowners have always been a big part even though they have no vote or no representation. She cannot believe the City will try to increase the density to make money for X employees from the City government. The City hired a Park City employee to come in and work. She feels the City is destroying the goose for the golden egg that is Aspen. Ms. Merilee Bucy stated she is directly impacted by the 202 Cleveland Ave project. She objects to the request and feels her current remodeling project is held under a higher level of requirement. She is concerned the structure will be monolithic on a small lot, have 5 FT setbacks from her structure and 32 FT in height and how it will impact the complexion of the community including views. She doesn’t feel the neighbors that are extremely affected have been notified by the developers or the City. She stated she had to put together the pieces of the puzzle to be able to respond at this meeting. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 13 of 18 Mr. Buck Carlton, developer, does not believe an entity that does not own any property in Aspen and does not identify itself should be able to propose changes to a parcel. He has never seen a city legislate to create a ghetto which he defines as too many people for the land. He doesn’t believe there is talk about a lot of square foot relates to the land. He believes we are talking about a ghetto and it’s an attack on HPC, an attack on the eastern side of Aspen and a cover for affordable housing. He believes they are avoiding the rules just like are doing at 1020 Cooper. He stated applicants need to pay for a consultant to identify the impacts including police needs, transportation, schooling, traffic and crime, which always increases with density. He then discussed the 1020 Cooper project. He concluded if the guidelines are ignored, the community will get a ghetto. Ms. Diane Wuslich, wanted to point out the survey quoted earlier in the conference call when it was stated 2,000 postcards were sent out which is about 27% of 7,300 residents of Aspen and 120 responses were received which 1.6% of the 7,300 residents. She feels it would be an outrage if any of this information that was used to consider the proposed development. She stated the developers were asking for adjustments to zoning guidelines during the time Pitkin County was in a red COVID status limiting the ability for people to educate themselves and talk with City officials. She added putting through code changes during COVID is not responsible or ethical. She believes City Council must research this code change to make an educated decision that would allow 24 lots with approximately five units on each would add another 1,000 residents or an increase of 14% to this town. She doesn’t believe the appropriate research has taken place to understand the impacts to the community with the increase capacity. She doesn’t want big developers allowed to change the footprint of Aspen, change guidelines and zoning laws. She is opposed to the proposed application. Mr. Jim VeShancey, Aspen resident and construction manager, stated he is not representing any particular client, but he has represented clients in this neighborhood with renovations. He stated there are already considerable density problems in this neighborhood including parking. He feels adding to the density will make the problems substantially worse. He agrees with Ms. Wuslich’s comments. He pointed out 61% of the survey responses were opposed. He added only 19% of the responses supported an increase in the density. He does not feel this proposal is supported. He believes historically, Aspen has opposed any proposals the increase density by a significant amount. Ms. Kristy Gilliam, lives next to 1020 E Cooper, stated she experienced the impacts of higher density in Houston. She stated she cares about Su Lum’s little house and its history. She believes the high-density projects, like hers, are too big and lack the charm Aspen desperately needs to hold on to. She opposes the high-density code change along with the majority of the survey respondents which should speak volumes to the City. She believes the City should look for a way to work on the employee housing issue without further destroying the character and history of the City. She is appalled by the application and believes the City has a parking crisis. Ms. Lou Stover, 1006 E Cooper, wonders why only one property is being discussed when the code change will affect 20 other properties and feels there is something more to the application that doesn’t feel right to her. She feels the historic parts of town are no longer in vogue and is concerned about losing the charm of the town. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 14 of 18 Ms. Mary Elizabeth Geiger, Garfield and Hecht representing the Cooper Avenue Victorian Association and Riverside Condos, noted a couple of things have been brought up in both the staff report and the meeting is the City wants to look holistically at all the zone districts and potential changes that may be necessary to eliminate some confusion and streamline things. She feels this is an excellent point. She agrees with Ms. Stover’s thoughts as well. She echo’s staff’s concerns and it is probably better to go through this process and consider amendments. She pointed out for historic properties, even though it can be built out if the lot is smaller than 6,000 SF, the historic resource must be preserved, and historic design guidelines must be followed. A structure may be built up to 32 FT if found appropriate. She feels the historic smaller lot sized developments encourages the protection of those resources, but if non- historic lot size is reduced to 3,000 SF it may encourage dropping historic designations to eliminate the conditions and guidelines put in place to protect the historic properties. She thinks the parking problems will be exacerbated if multi-family structures cover their parking with CIL. Mr. Michael Smith stated he disagrees with Mr. Anderson’s statements there is a lack of clarity in the code. Mr. Smith disagrees, and believes the intent from section 26.312.10 is very clear. He stated what appears as a little change is actually a drastic change. He stated the 1020 E Cooper project is an example of how a proposal of a five-unit project was turned down because it didn’t meet the guidelines. He stated the smaller 3,000 SF lots are clearly designed to remain single family because it preserves open space and ensure housing diversity in the district. He feels if the code was changed, every 24 single- family lot would be wiped out and it would encourage the delisting of historic lots. He encourages more study on the topic. Ms. Monique Agnew stated she is a design professional and has done work in the east end. She feels the east end is incredibly congested and doesn’t see how the proposal mitigates parking. She is against the proposed code change and agrees with the other commenters. Mr. Raymond Stover feels the impacts of the code change are unknown and more study is needed. Mr. Stephen Abelman is opposed to the zoning change and agrees with his colleagues on all their points. He feels the proposed change will be too dense. Mr. Thatcher Spring, 1001 E Cooper Ave, understands the AH challenges and believes the City should continue to look for opportunities, but he is opposed to this proposal. In regard to the mass and scale renderings provided by Mr. Bendon, he feels they dramatically understate what could actually be done if built to fullest extent proposed. He also feels the preservation of the historic resources is very important. He also believes the proposed code change will affect some neighborhoods disproportionately more than others. He also believes the community needs to be more educated on the potential impacts. Ms. Tiffany Smith does not support the code change. She does not believe it is a good idea to squeeze multi-unit complexes beyond a duplex on lots smaller than 6,00 SF. She added the smaller lots are a way to control density and unwieldy development on undersized lots. She feels some of the large lot lined complexes that exist now were clearly mistakes. It is her experience there are many full-time residents and workers, both homeowners and renters, already live in her neighborhood as well as second Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 15 of 18 homeowners who spend a lot of time in Aspen and don’t rent out their homes. She believes the survey responses show there is no support for increased density or the code change. She does not believe this is a wise way to try to resolve the AH issues. She stated residents and visitors of Aspen don’t want to live in a crowded, congested city where there’s constant traffic, long lines, no parking and crowded soulless apartment complexes where illnesses spread quickly, and the streets are dark. Ms. Julie Peters lives in AH across from Su Lum’s house and she agrees with her neighbor’s comments but wanted to reiterate the parking is difficult. She is opposed to the code change. Mr. Marcoux motioned to extend the meeting for a half hour. Ms. McGovern seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call for extending the meeting: Roll Call: Mr. Marcus, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of six (6) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. McKnight closed public comment. Mr. Bendon requested time to respond to the public comments. Mr. McKnight allowed for his response. Mr. Bendon wanted to make sure everyone knows the hearing tonight is not the 1020 E Cooper project. He noted the timing is awkward, but it is not the same person. He added it is attractive to look at doing everything holistically, but the applicant will build a SFH or a MFH and doesn’t feel the applicant can wait for the code to change holistically. He added he benefitted by living in AH for 10 years and noted it wasn’t a ghetto. He appreciated folks who spoke on his behalf before he lived here. Mr. Supino stated there were a couple of comments he felt compelled to respond to as well. He stated there was a suggestion that somehow the city was supportive or complicit in allowing the applicant to use an LLC to not engage in the community conversation around this topic and he pointed out LLC laws are state and federal laws which the city complies with in respect to allowing LLC’s to own and manage property and conduct business in the City. He stated the suggestion the City is supportive allowing property owners to hide from the public process does not commensurate with any of our expectations for community members participating in a community process. Mr. Supino stated he and the City roundly reject the comment suggesting that AH and MFH development are ghettos or that the City’s development and zoning regulations would allow for a ghetto as defined in the dictionary. Mr. Supino responded to a comment there is a double standard being applied to MFH versus SFH, that there are clear regulations in the zoning code in growth management in every aspect of the City’s land use regulations that are applied in a uniform basis to every type of development the City considers anywhere in the community. He added those regulations are all approved by the boards and Council members who are community residents. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 16 of 18 Mr. Supino reiterated this application is not the 1020 E Cooper Ave application and it has a separate property owner and there is no direct relationship whatsoever between the two applications. And in regard to a possible conspiracy, he doesn’t pass the test of the integrity by which City Planning and Community Development Staff and the citizen board members conduct themselves. Mr. McKnight then opened for commissioner comments. Mr. Dupps feels the outreach for the project was fair and thorough. He stated parking is always an issue P&Z is dealing with at hearings and there is no silver bullet to fix parking and other issues that come up with high density development. He believes there is adequate infrastructure to support people to live in these units without cars which he does. He sympathizes with the public member’s parking concerns but feel it is server very well and capably. He feels this is a code clean-up to allow for lots smaller than 6,00 SF that should have been probably allowed from the beginning because of the 3,000 SF lots in Aspen. He stated the 32 FT height and densities are allowed by code and people bought into the neighborhood where the districts have been established for a very long time. Ms. Carver feels this needs a lot of clarity with the community and it will be a mistake to suggest P&Z agrees with this at this point in time. She feels the City needs more AH and stated the 1020 E Cooper Ave property is a bit of fresh air between two really big apartment buildings. She also feels every unit in town should have a parking space. She feels it should wait for the zoning to be done entirely and would like to see it prioritized to be done within the next year. She doesn’t want to see a wall of buildings as you go up to Independence. She will not support it at this time. Ms. McGovern stated at this point she is not ready to support the code change. She doesn’t feel it is about a specific lot and needs more research. If the propose change was to specify affordable multi- family or deed restricted, she would support it. Mr. Marcus feels conflicted but believes this is a neighborhood where he supports the City’s general position to needing cars. He understands this is a big ask for people. In regard to density, he is pro density. He doesn’t feel Aspen is becoming Vail, but it is important to provide opportunities for young people to have housing in town. He believes this neighborhood is ripe for rethinking of how the space can be used more efficiently. In his opinion, building a $15 million spec home provides zero benefit to the town. His biggest issue is that employee housing would not be required to be built onsite. He would not want to see more density created for more second homeowners to sit empty or become rental units. He would be interested if the other commissioners would want to add something as a condition in the recommendation. He agrees that 32 FT height and 5 FT setbacks on a 30 FT by 100 FT lot could be overwhelming. Mr. McKnight stated he agrees with the remarks made by Ms. McGovern and Mr. Marcus and feels more study is required. He appreciates the applicant making the effort but doesn’t feel the proposed change helps with AH in town. Currently, he does not support the code change. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 17 of 18 Mr. Marcoux stated he is also against the proposed code change for the same reasons identified by other commissioners. He went back and forth on it but appreciates the information provided at the hearing and discussion with the other commissioners. Ms. Carver feels density should be less on the smaller lots and require AH onsite. She doesn’t want to see more empty houses. She would like to see smaller sizes allowed on the smaller lot. Mr. Anderson stated it seems clear there is not support for the resolution as written. He stated although the commission could specify additional conditions on the resolution to change densities and require onsite AH, he doesn’t know if this is something the applicant wants to pursue. Mr. McKnight stated that having these other items in the application would have given him pause but he still feels it would not change his position that more study is needed. Mr. Bendon suggested any thought of a MFH project without AH would not happen. He stated if the AH does need to be on the property, the applicant would be fine with it. Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners if there was anything else that would change their minds. Mr. Dupps feels AH is something that needs to be cleaned up. He believes the program needs to become more attractive to encourage developers to want to do AH and these types of projects to increase density. He feels this is an opportunity to do something for AH as it is one of Council’s important directives. Mr. Marcus seconds what Mr. Dupps stated. He thinks we need to look at opportunities to get densities in areas that make sense for additional AH and incentivizing developers to provide density in appropriate areas. He feels Aspen is changing over time and have different needs. He feels Aspen has plenty of large SFH. He would support the application if the AH was required to be on site. Ms. McGovern asked Mr. Anderson how this would be written in the code because it is very specific that we're changing the minimum gross lot area allowed in the zone district. She likes what has been suggested but is concerned about the path they are going down. Mr. Anderson stated creative one-off code changes have been historically difficult to administer over time. He would hesitate to put language around the proposed change other than a general concept for Council’s consideration. He suggested framing it as the onsite AH is a desired outcome of P&Z if the code change was to be considered. Ms. McGovern still feels this small change could have ripple affects to the code. Mr. Anderson feels this could lead to a more complex code change that what is currently being proposed. He added a general support statement would be appropriate. Ms. Carver still feels there should be less density, less height and fewer units on the smaller lots. She also feels AH should be onsite. Mr. McKnight still feels it is not appropriate at this time. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2021 Page 18 of 18 Mr. McKnight asked if anyone wanted to make a motion. Mr. Bendon asked if there needs to be a consolidated statement or if the individual comments are sufficient to share with Council. Mr. Anderson stated in lieu of having a clear recommendation either in support or against this proposal, he feels it is also an option to provide the individual comments to Council. Ms. Carver moved to not approve the resolution and to provide the comments to Council. Ms. McGovern motioned to extend the meeting for 15 minutes and was seconded by Ms. Carver. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call for extending the meeting: Roll Call: Mr. Dupps, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Mr. Marcus, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of six (6) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. Marcus moved to have the commissioner’s comments provided to Council for consideration without a resolution. Mr. Marcoux seconded Mr. Marcus’s motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call for extending the meeting: Roll Call: Ms. Carver, yes; McGovern, no; Mr. Dupps, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Mr. Marcus, yes; Ms. Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of five (5) in favor – one (1) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. Dupps motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 PM. Mr. Supino thanked the commissioners for their service. OTHER BUSINESS None Cindy Klob, Records Manager