Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20150818Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jason Elliot, Skippy Mesirow, Kelly McNicholas, Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis, Keith Goode and Spencer McKnight. Also present from City staff; James True, Chris Bendon and Jessica Garrow. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes for August 4th, seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Mesirow stated he would need to recuse himself from the public hearing because he has been involved in a supportive advisory role for the applicant. Mr. Bendon noted he will also leaving for the public hearing because his spouse is associated with the development team. 709 E Durant Ave – Sky Hotel – PD Detailed Review, Final Commercial Design Review – Public Hearing Mr. Walterscheid opened the public hearing for 709 E Durant Ave – Sky Hotel and turned the floor over to the Staff. Mr. True reviewed the affidavits, which appeared to be appropriate and entered them as Exhibit H. Ms. Garrow, Community Development Long Range Planner, opened with a review of the application. P&Z is asked to review the final commercial design and the planned development (PD) detail review. Before proceeding, Ms. Garrow identified a couple of errors in the agenda packet materials. One is a typo in the memo within the Dimensional Data Table on p 7 of the agenda packet. It lists the below grade setback for the east side is listed at 10 ft and it should be five ft. The values are correct within the staff findings as well as within the proposed resolution. The second error is in DRC comments exhibit which is labeled as Exhibit B in the agenda packet, but is actually Exhibit E. 1 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 Ms. Garrow stated P&Z is being asked to review and approve the final details of the Sky Hotel project which includes items such as any phasing (which are not proposed), finalizing landscape plans, final materials as well as fenestration. City Council approved the project in February, 2014 through Ordinance 39, Series 2014 which established the use mix, dimensions, massing and the general site plan. There were no dimensional variations approved. The project met all of the dimensional requirements for the Lodge (L) Zone district which is the underlying zone district. The ordinance did allow minor changes to be approved administratively and by P&Z after the Council approval. In summary, Council approved the following: • 104 lodge units including • 117 lodge bedrooms • 2 affordable housing units • 3,450 sf of net leasable area • Sub grade parking garage including 54 spaces In July, 2015 there was an administrative amendment to correct a clerical error on the setbacks. The dimensional table in the Ordinance (039-15) did not correct the fact that the applicant did meet all the setback requirements. She reiterated all the proposed setbacks and floor area meet the underlying lodge requirements. As part of the PD review, the applicant is requesting an amendment to correct the amount of floor area and update the public amenity sf values. In terms of floor area, the applicant has updated the calculations based on the current calculation methods which resulted in a decrease of about 5,000 sf of floor area. She noted this is a technical correction to address a subgrade portion of the first level along the Aspen Alps side of the building which impacts the floor area calculation. The actual mass of the building is not changing and the amounts approved by City Council remain in place. In regards to the public amenity space, the applicant is proposing an overall decrease in the public amenity space by about 430 sf as a result of a refined roof plan, changes to the planters, changes to the roof pool as well as a miscalculated setback on the upper level. Staff is supportive of both changes. The floor area change is only technical and doesn’t change the overall project mass or the building uses. In regards to the public amenity spaces, Staff supports the change because the project continues to exceed the requirements of the zone district. The Lodge zone district requires public amenity space of 25% of the lot and the project proposes 47.4%. In addition, the project includes an agreement by the applicant to allow permanent, public access to the roof deck. Staff feels the project meets all the PD review criteria, all plantings are being coordinated with the Parks and Engineering Departments, and all requirements are met in regards to tree mitigation and stormwater. The project is located within a mudflow zone and Engineering has confirmed the proposed mitigation techniques meet all the requirements. The project has a number of pedestrian and bicycle approvals meeting all the City requirements for transportation mitigation. The applicant is over mitigating the generated 5.3 trips with 25 net new vehicle trips mitigated with increased sidewalks, plantings, bike racks as well as some end of trip facilities for workers who may bike to work and need to shower before starting work. In terms of design, Staff is recommending approval. There were some minor changes to roof forms and window placement, but there is no changes to the massing. They have reworked the entryway to incorporate an ADA access ramp inside the building along with an entry airlock and planters. 2 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 In terms of materials, Staff is recommending a change. The proposed materials include three different types of wood siding, stone veneer and stucco. She then displayed a picture of a mock-up provided by the applicant which included one of the types of wood, stone and stucco. Staff feels in terms of cohesive design, it makes more sense to continue the wood material all the way to the roof line and eliminate the stucco. The stucco is not as high quality as the wood and stone veneer. She noted Staff has added this a condition of the approval in the draft resolution to eliminate the stucco and use the wood to the roofline. She then entered two items into record. The first, F.1, is a public comment from John Corcoran, the General Manager of the Aspen Alps. He has written that overall the Aspen Alps Condominium Association has no objection to and is generally supportive of the application as presented. The second entry, Exhibit G, is a letter from the applicant’s attorney, Gideon Kaufman, responding to some of the statements in a letter from Jody Edwards who is representing the Chateau Chaumont. This letter was also emailed to the commissioners earlier in the day. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of Staff. Mr. McNellis asked if there were any variances requested by the applicant at the time of the meeting at which Ms. Garrow replied there are none. He then asked if the application qualified as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Ms. Garrow replied it is required to be reviewed as a Planned Development (PD) because some of the lodge units are timeshare. The timeshare use was reviewed and approved by City Council. He then asked other than the timeshare use, if everything follows the parameters of the code at which she replied it does. Mr. Walterscheid asked for confirmation regarding the approval process. He noted tonight’s meeting and the next scheduled meeting which also includes the Sky Hotel. She stated the next meeting was reserved for a continued review of the Sky Hotel application if necessary, but P&Z’s decision is final. She noted the continuation date is on the schedule in case the commission needed additional information or if a decision could not be reached at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. John Sarpa, Sarpa Development, stated they have been busy the past six months since the approval of the ordinance working extensively with Staff on the engineering, architectural, landscaping details. Mr. Sarpa also stated they have been working with their neighbors and the vast majority are very supportive. The applicant team realizes they are in a tight neighborhood and aware they need to be sensitive to interacting with their neighbors which they realize will be an ongoing interaction. He noted there are still some concerns and they will continue to work with them. In regards to the schedule, Mr. Sarpa stated they are trying to be as sensitive as possible to the community and to their neighbors regarding the start of the project. He stated the biggest impact will be the demolition of the existing building and excavation for the new building. He feels the best time in Aspen to accomplish this is April after the ski season. Ms. Sara Broughton, Rowland and Broughton Architecture and Urban Design, is the architect for the project. She wanted to remind P&Z of the precedent for the architecture and design of the new Sky Hotel. She provided pictures of examples of the chalet style which were prevalent in Aspen from 1945 to 3 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 the 1960’s. The features of the chalet style include prominent wood balconies, sloping roofs, horizontal design features, and the use of stucco and wood siding. She provided both historic and modern examples of the chalet style both here and from Europe. She then displayed elevation examples of each side of the new hotel from the following aspects. a. Corner of Durant and S Spring St – demonstrates the chalet style with the three types of wood, b. S Spring St – utilizes wood, stucco on the upper level to break up the mass c. Corner of S Spring ST and Ute Ave – predominate use is stone and wood with stucco on the upper level d. Dean Alley – includes the use of wood, stone and the stucco She noted they also have samples of the materials on hand for the commission to view if they wish. She wanted to point out the stucco will be off-white in color and heavily textured and the sun will cast a nice shape and shadow on the stucco. She then displayed a picture showing the various materials. Ms. Broughton then displayed a map depicting a new location of the bike rack. She stated in the application, the bike rack was located closer to the entrance near the Alps. In conversations with the Alps, they suggested the bike rack would be better in the depicted location which is more in the public right-of-way. They have received approval from the Engineering Department for an encroachment license to move the location of the bike rack. Mr. Sarpa stated the new location reduces the impact on the Alps and is more visible. Regarding the setback values in the table, Ms. Broughton noted the table now reflects what was represented in the drawings approved by City Council. Regarding the public amenity, Ms. Broughton noted there was a small reduction from what was approved by City Council which was 49.2%. The reduced amount is now at 47.4% which still substantially exceeds the 25% requirement. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Mr. Goode asked of any changes impacting the valet parking. Mr. Sarpa stated they had previously discussed a bump out with the Engineering Department, but it has since been cleaned up and Engineering has signed off on the plans included the packet. Mr. Elliott asked if the line of stucco continues through the balcony. Ms. Broughton replied it would be continued through the balcony. Mr. Walterscheid then opened for public comment. Ms. Jo Ann Silverstein, has owned 104 Aspen Alps for 43 years. She recognizes this as a long process and wanted to thank John Sarpa and his team who have been patient, diligent, thoughtful and considerate when dealing with the members of the Alps. She stated their unit will be most impacted by the destruction and construction of the project. She acknowledged the agreement they had hoped would go 4 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 through, but unfortunately required all 16 members of the 100 building to sign off and three owners refused to sign the agreement. She does look forward to working John and his team on a continual basis. Mr. Jody Edwards, represents the Chateau Chaumont Condominium Association. He noted the letter he sent which was included in the agenda packet. He wanted to reiterate they have no objections to the final building plans as submitted and they are neutral on the project review application. Their only real concern is the Construction Management Plan (CMP). He stated he has had conversations with Jessica (Garrow) and has read Gideon’s (Kaufman) letter and feels they will argue that this meeting is not the time and it is the City Engineer’s purview to look at the CMP. He feels Ordinance 039-15 specifically requested the applicant put a draft CMP in this application. He feels this arose from the fact that everybody was concerned how they were going to have access through block 107 alley or Dean St in order for the Chateau Chaumont unit owners and the Chateau Dumont unit owners to get to their units. He feels it will be a very difficult construction process and everyone is going to have to work together. They think the CMP, as proposed, is not even a reasonable proposal for access. He then submitted a copy of a traffic engineers report (Exhibit F.2) he received earlier in the day which basically supports his submitted letter. He stated there are four issues he points out in his letter. One is the proposed access under the CMP that is not reasonable in these circumstances. Another is the proposed tower crane which would constitute a trespass over their airspace. Ordinance 039-15 talks specifically about the direction of traffic flow in the CMP and they are talking about reversing the direction. And there is no schedule in the proposed CMP which he feels they need in order to see if they complied with the ordinance. Without this additional information, he feels it is beyond P&Z’s ability to approve the application at today’s meeting. Mr. Richard Antopol is not an owner, but is a frequent visitor. He was in Aspen last Saturday night and there was a Grammy winning band playing at a party on the upper deck of the Aspen Art Museum. The party was four blocks away from the Chateau Dumont and they couldn’t hear themselves think. It made him think a roof top bar with the new Sky Hotel will magnify that problem. He feels it will affect people on the surrounding four to five blocks of the Sky Hotel every night. Mr. Mick Ireland represents the Chateau Dumont homeowners. He stated the owners favor the project and noted there is an acknowledgment letter. He stated the owners feel the traffic management and construction management plan are properly addressed by the City Engineer who is fully apprised of the issues. They hope P&Z will go forward with the project and look forward to working with the City Engineer on the CMP that works for all the neighbors. Mr. Cory Enloe, formally the general manager of the Sky Hotel, wanted to respond to the earlier comment regarding the sound from the Art Museum. He was very involved with the process and feels the Sky team has made extensive efforts to manage the sound. The event at the Art Museum had external speakers brought in for the event and this will not happen at the Sky Hotel. There will be a very integrated sound system and they plan to take advantage of the latest technology. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions or rebuttal from the commissioners. Ms. Tygre asked for clarification of the guarantees or assurances that the public space will remain public. Ms. Garrow referred to Section 18 of Ordinance 039-15 on p 283 & 284 of the packet stating the spaces shall be permanently accessible by the public through stairs and/or elevators and the spaces cannot be enclosed accept for some noise barriers which are required and the approved public amenity space on 5 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 the roof is subject to a public easement. The easement will be recorded as part of their plat as well as incorporated in their subdivision improvement agreement. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Walterscheid asked for Staff rebuttal. Ms. Garrow asked to clarify a couple of items. The first is related to noise. Section 13.4 on p 282 of the approval ordinance includes a very detailed requirement for the Sky Hotel to make sure they comply with all the City’s noise ordinances and a requirement for an engineered solution related to speakers as well as the ability to include noise barrier walls during periods of special events. She stated this is much more detailed than what is typically seen for projects. She also wanted to note the Engineering Department requested a draft CMP as part of the detail review to start a conversation between the applicant and the Engineering Department to make sure the applicant was thinking about the tough issues existing with this site. From the Engineering Department’s perspective as well as the Planning Department, the applicant has met this obligation. The applicant has met the ordinance requirement to submit a draft plan. All the issues raised in Mr. Edward’s letter will be addressed as part of Engineering’s final review of the CMP that occurs during the building permit review. All CMPs are reviewed during the building permit process and are required for any construction project within the City of Aspen, not just the big projects seen by P&Z and City Council. The Engineering Department is aware and working with the applicant. P&Z does not have purview of the CMP. The Engineering Department is required to administer the CMP and ensure the requirements are met. Much like a tree mitigation plan, the Parks Department ensures the requirements are met, not P&Z. Mr. Walterscheid then opened for commissioner comments and discussion. Ms. Kelly McNicholas stated given the proposal as proposed meets all the code requirements and reflects a robust input process with affected neighbors and stakeholders, she supports it as proposed. Mr. Goode agreed and feels the applicant has done a great job reaching out to the neighbors. Mr. McNellis stated he found no language in the resolution specific to making sure the applicant addresses these issues in the CMP. He wondered if the commission wanted to add some clarifying language in regards to addressing some of the concerns brought up by Mr. Edwards to make sure the applicant will be working with the Engineering Department to go beyond a draft CMP that meets all the standards. Ms. McNicholas feels this was reflected in the ordinance. Ms. Garrow stated the reason there is no language in the draft resolution is that it is a City requirement and the applicant does not get to vary the requirement. The applicant has to meet the City requirement for CMP. Staff felt it was redundant to add language in the resolution stating the applicant must comply with CMP standards. In addition, there is a condition within the ordinance in Section 9.4 on p 279 of the packet requiring the applicant to have one point of contact to work with the neighbors. She added their CMP commitment within the ordinance goes beyond what City requirements state. Mr. McNellis responded there isn’t a need in every instance to add redundancy in regard to complying with every requirement and every standard for every department. In this case, given the standing concerns of some of the adjacent neighbors, he requested some language be added to the resolution. 6 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 Mr. Elliott asked if the commission wanted to further discuss if the resolution should approve the use of stucco and stated he is okay with the use of the stucco. Mr. Goode stated he accepts the use of stucco. Ms. McNicholas agreed and likes how it breaks up the massing. Ms. Tygre agreed with the others. Mr. McNight feels the proposal is great and doesn’t see the need to change anything approved by City Council. Mr. Walterscheid also felt the applicant has done an outstanding job reaching out to their neighbors. He understands they are still working on concerns. He also understands the process working with Engineering and is not too concerned. He looks forward to seeing the project. Mr. McNellis motioned to approve Resolution 17, Series 2015 as drafted by Staff with additional information be added for the applicant to comply with all Engineering standards in regards to the CMP. Ms. Garrow stated if the motion is seconded, Staff proposes adding sub section 6.5 Construction Management Plan stating the applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to ensure the final CMP meets all City requirements. Mr. McNellis was acceptable to Staff’s proposal. Mr. McNellis also added that any language referring to the removal of stucco should be removed from the resolution. Ms. Tygre seconded the motion. Mr. Walterscheid asked for a roll call: Ms. McNicholas, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Elliot, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; and Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a six to zero (6-0) vote. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public hearing. Housing Credits Code Amendment Check-In – Other Business Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Garrow stated this is not a public hearing and Staff will periodically meet with P&Z to review proposed code amendments. She stated this was a second check-in regarding housing credits. In the previous week, City Council approved a policy resolution directing Staff to move forward with code amendments to the certificates of affordable housing credit chapter. Previously, P&Z as well as the Aspen \ Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) Board had weighed in potential code amendments. The potential amendments are the result of evaluating the program over the past two to three years and included amendments related to category limitations, location limitations, sales or rental limitations. The feedback received earlier from P&Z and APCHA was presented to Council who then asked Staff to move forward with the code amendment. Council also requested Staff obtain additional comments from both boards regarding category limitations. At the previous meeting with P&Z, Staff had recommended the credits chapter be limited to categories one through four for two reasons. 7 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 1) There are no cash-in-lieu figures for the higher categories, five through seven and it is needed in order to convert the certificates between the different categories. Often a developer will build affordable housing at a category two or three level and then convert them to credits to sell them to developers who need to satisfy their mitigation requirements. For example, a developer’s mitigation requirement may be at a category four, so if the housing credit holder has category two certificates, there needs to be a way to convert them to category four so the developer can satisfy their mitigation requirement. 2) If the code mitigation is required for a category four, there may be a policy tie in. The Next Generation Commission had submitted comments to Council during the previous hearing requesting the higher categories be included within the housing credits program to allow a developer of housing credits to pick whatever category they want to build. She noted their research indicates there is some need for the higher categories for the 18-40 demographic. She stated APCHA is planning to discuss this at a meeting on August 19th. She noted their stance currently is that APCHA Staff recognizes the City’s Land Use Code limits certificates of affordable housing credits to categories four and lower. However, APCHA Staff believes there could and should be further policy discussion allowing certificates of affordable housing credit for categories five through seven for housing mitigation purposes. Staff is requesting P&Z to respond regarding their level of comfort with allowing certificates to be created at any category level or would they prefer those be created for categories one through four only. Because Planning Staff considers the issue to be technical in nature, they are proposing the code amendment include language stating categories are limited to those with established cash-in-lieu numbers. That leaves a policy discussion for APCHA to consider and addresses the technical issue. She asked P&Z for feedback and recommendations for City Council on this item to be considered in the public hearing scheduled in September. Mr. Walterscheid asked for the current cap on category four income. Ms. Garrow did not have them readily available but provided them later in the meeting. They are as stated in the following table. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the only thing needed is a metric to convert the higher categories. Ms. Garrow stated he is correct, so instead Staff’s proposal is to allow for housing credits to be created for any unit where cash-in-lieu numbers exist in the APCHA Guidelines. This will allow for APCHA to have the policy discussion. Maximum Incomes 0 dependents 3 or more dependents Category four $145,000 $167,500 Categories five-seven $155,000 $208,000 Ms. Tygre noted category four has the largest number of owners followed by category three owners per the APCHA Inventory Stats table included as part of Exhibit A. She is concerned there are only 15 units in category one. She feels the policy discussion needs to be looked into more deeply than what can be done at tonight’s meeting so she agrees with Staff’s proposed solution to continue the policy portion and implement only the technical portion at this time. Ms. McNicholas agreed with Ms. Tygre and is sensitive to APCHA driving the policy discussion more than P&Z. 8 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 Mr. Mesirow acknowledged he sits on both P&Z as well as the Next Generation Advisory Commission (NextGen) that conducted polling sessions regarding housing in the Aspen Area. He stated housing is seen as one of the biggest inhibitors for young people to sustain a life in Aspen. The housing committee conducted four housing summits including discussion groups, clicker sessions and white board sessions in which 48 people between the ages of 18 and 40 participated. To Mr. Mesirow’s surprise, the number one concern was the lack of units in certain categories. Ms. Kimbo Brown-Schiratto and Ms. Lindsey Palardy, NextGen members, requested to add input on the conversation. Mr. Walterscheid stated he would allow her input as long as other commissioners were not concerned. None spoke of any concerns. In regards to the top challenges, Ms. Palardy stated the number one concern based on feedback from the participants was that there were not enough units in certain categories. The white board sessions identified concerns of available units in higher categories as well as the lower categories. Ms. Brown- Schiratto felt the income levels of the participants skewed to the higher category units. Mr. Mesirow feels clearly there is demand in the higher categories and it is important to address the demand in all categories. He feels it is politically more difficult to justify the higher category units so they don’t tend to get built. In terms of the tonight’s discussion, the policy should not favor any one category and feels the current limits of categories one through four creates an artificial ceiling. Mr. Walterscheid then acknowledged Mr. Peter Fornell to speak. Mr. Fornell stated building for higher categories is not necessarily a bad idea and allowing certificates to be created for higher categories is not a bad idea. He described scenarios for using credits to build affordable housing and noted you currently can put more money in your pocket with the category two units. The majority of the money derived from the production of the units comes from the certificate sales which takes time. If there were a cash-in-lieu number for category seven, the majority of a money to a developer is going to come at the closing table and a small part of the overall development pro forma is going to come from the certificate sales. It will pave the road for developers to want to build at the higher category levels. For him, demand at the lower categories is tremendous. He stated there were 242 applicants for 10 units at 518 Main St. He is concerned that care needs to be taken so that it does not become advantageous to only build higher category units. The City wants to build units with the least subsidy (higher categories) so they can get more front doors. He noted they lowered some of the categories at Burlingame. He understands NextGen’s concerns but he wants to make sure the certificate program is not turned into something that only serves a smaller demand level. Ms. Garrow stated another issue to keep in mind is the code requires mitigation at a category four level and the certificates are used to mitigate developer’s requirement. In other words, mitigation is allowed at the higher categories, like the Sky Hotel for instance. They currently are required to mitigate at category four or lower. Mr. Walterscheid asked why the policy was set this way. Ms. Garrow stated the housing program has been around for many years and when it first began, it focused on moderate income and that translated to categories, specifically categories three and four. She did not know why APCHA does not have cash-in-lieu numbers for the higher categories. Ms. Tygre stated in regards to mitigating, any new hotel being built is not going to pay its employees over $100,000 for the most part. She feels it makes sense to have the mitigation match the type of employees needed and she also recognizes the category for young professionals is completely different category. 9 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 Mr. Walterscheid asked about the City’s stance in regards to the value of the certificate. Ms. Garrow stated the City does not place a value on the certificates. They are bought and sold on the free market and the City has no involvement whatsoever. Mr. Walterscheid then asked about the City’s stance in regards to the valuation of the cash-in-lieu fee. Ms. Garrow stated the cash-in-lieu fee is under discussion currently and believes it will be going before Council within the next few weeks. She feels the number is likely to change and looks like it will be going down. Mr. McNellis asked if P&Z was part of this discussion at which Ms. Garrow replied no. She added there was a detailed study completed by a third party company to study real employment figures related to areas including construction and the operation of homes. The study revealed the cash-in-lieu numbers are higher than they should be. Ms. McNicholas noted that Mr. Chris Bendon had previously discussed the study with P&Z. Mr. Walterscheid asked in addition to the value, was the number of full time employees (FTEs) created by development part of the study. Ms. Garrow stated it was part of the methodology used. Ms. Garrow stated Council wants to know if P&Z have a strong feeling on any kind of category limitation for credits. Should they be limited to category four and lower or should the land use code be agnostic and state it is limited to whatever categories have cash-in-lieu figures within the APCHA guidelines. Mr. McNellis stated a third option would be to create a number for all categories. APCHA would have to determine the values for categories above category four. Mr. McNellis stated he agrees with Staff’s language and supports it being driven by APCHA who should determine the need to define numbers for categories five through seven. Ms. McNicholas asked if Council will adopt the conversion figure as part of the code amendment. Ms. Garrow stated it is already in the land use code now. The code amendment is focused on how the certificates are created. For instance, it could only be created from housing within the City of Aspen or it can only be for sale if part of a mixed use building. Ms. McNicholas asked if you could take credits created by a category two or three. Ms. Garrow stated there are already cash-in-lieu numbers for categories one through four which allows staff to determine the value for FTEs at category one for a category four. Mr. Walterscheid was curious if there were advantages to a category seven than a lower category and should the metric be determined to favor the middle level categories. Ms. Garrow stated it is possible to state certificates at a higher level are worth few FTEs. She added this is a much larger policy discussion and would require more input from both P&Z and APCHA. Mr. Fornell asked Ms. Garrow about Council’s recent discussion regarding remainder or fractional certificates. Ms. Garrow stated Council’s direction is that if a developer over mitigates their project and they have a fraction or full unit remaining, they can be turned into credits if they are for sale units or there some other deed restriction agreement in place to ensure they will permanently be in the inventory. Mr. Fornell stated the certificate program is currently in dire straits. It’s on the verge of collapse because they are about to change the cash-in-lieu number to a number that no one can afford to use to build 10 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 affordable housing including the City and other developers. Almost four years ago, Council directed APCHA to conduct a study of what it takes to produce a FTE within the city limits. The 11 month study determined they are collecting approximately half of what it takes to produce the unit currently. The direction coming to Council recently requests they lower the cash-in-lieu number based on the notion the City can take the money and someday forward can build 400 units at the lumberyard. They are basing their calculation of the future possibility. When a developer has to mitigate housing, they don’t have a choice of walking six miles outside of town to build their housing. He feels they are not comparing apples to apples. There are currently no competitors in the market for the development of housing for certificates out of fear the City is going to drop the number and collect all the money. The recent study was not an independent study. It was done by Barry Crook internally and is a bad deal for the Next Generation people and for the community. He encouraged P&Z to support the certificate program. Mr. Mesirow asked if Mr. Fornell’s concerns impact tonight’s question at which Ms. Garrow stated it does not. Mr. Fornell stated the recent discussion regarding fractional certificates impact potential competition. Ms. Brown-Schiratto added NextGen has come to the conclusion the City is most likely not going to build the higher category units. She referred to the APCHA Inventory Stats table in Exhibit A of the agenda which shows those looking for housing categorized five or higher must rely on private developers and the housing credit program to house people. She also noted from their commission, there are only two people that live in the City of Aspen. Everyone else lives outside the city. She added there are young professionals who are willing to be part of this community but who actually are unable to live in Aspen. Mr. McNight likes Staff’s approach, but feels there could be a much easier and scientific approach. Letting the developers decide rather than APCHA and the City deciding our needs and where demand exists. He would like to see APCHA’s numbers on people who have submitted applications and for what category they are eligible. Ms. Garrow stated the information she has from APCHA states the most need is categories two and three. When APCHA has had a higher category unit, they have had difficulty selling it and the unit typically does not get sold in the lottery process. Mr. McNight believed there were a lot of category five units at Burlingame that ended up as category four in order to sell them. Ms. Garrow confirmed this as true as well as some units with a category six and seven that had be adjusted down to three and four. He feels there should be a more fluid process to identify the current category needs. Mr. Mesirow stated the credit program is separate from what APCHA is building. He thought if a developer does not feel he could sell a category six, he would not build it. Mr. Fornell stated the higher category units built were by and large in an inferior location to a person with that level of income. He said he would build category five and six on Park Ave if the was a cash-in- lieu number today. Ms. McNicholas feels this is APCHA’s realm because your advocacy is more important because they decide the value is determined within categories. The history and the basis of the program is for lower income workers in the town. Not to say professional workers are not, but to put a higher priority on 11 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission August 18, 2015 providing housing to the lower income employees. She stated that is a cultural value expressed within the town and advocated by those that live here participate in APCHA. She is supportive of Staff’s suggested amendment and feels it is better served by APCHA. Mr. McNellis added this approach allows APCHA to have the conversation. He suggested NextGen continue their dialogue with APCHA. Mr. Goode also felt it would be helpful for NextGen to suggest APCHA to look into it further. Mr. Walterscheid feels the metric should be created and then let APCHA control a system for identifying where the need is based on market fluctuations. He feels this is something APCHA needs to institute and control. Ms. Garrow stated she heard consensus to move forward to tie it to cash-in-lieu and asking APCHA to look at the cash-in-lieu for the higher categories. She thanked P&Z for their feedback. Mr. Goode asked if there was anything P&Z could do to highlight Mr. Fornell’s concerns. Ms. Garrow and Mr. McNellis encouraged members to speak during public comment to Council. Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 12