Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20240806 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2024 Commissioners in attendance: Ken Canfield, Tom Gorman, Teraissa McGovern, Christine Benedetti, Marcus Blue, Charlie Tarver. Eric Knight entered at 4:32. Staff present: Jeffrey Barnhill, Planner I Sophie Varga, Planner I Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk Commissioner Comments: Mr. Canfield asked where we are with setting up a session with Council. Ms. Johnson replied that she will work with staff to get a date on the calendar for a work session. Staff Comments: None. Public Comments: None. Minutes: Mr. Gorman motioned to approve the minutes from April 16th and the motion was seconded by Mr. Canfield. Ms. McGovern asked for a roll call vote. Roll call vote: Mr. Traver, abstained; Mr. Blue, yes: Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. Motion passes 6-0. Mr. Gorman motioned to approve the minutes from May 7th and the motion was seconded by Mr. Knight. Ms. McGovern asked for a roll call vote. Roll call vote: Mr. Tarver, abstained; Mr. Blue, yes: Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Canfield, abstained; Gorman, abstained; Ms. Benedetti, abstained; Ms. McGovern, yes. Motion passes 3-0. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: None. Submission of Public Notice for Agenda Items: Ms. Johnson said that notice remains valid on the first item and the second item required no noticing. Public Hearing: 331-338 Midland Avenue-Aspen Hills-Growth Management Quota System, Multi- Family Residential Design Standards, Transportation and Parking Review, continued from 7-16 Ms. Johnson asked for a confirmation on the record that the commissions not in attendance at the last meeting have listened to the minutes from the 7-16 meeting and have reviewed that complete packet including the agenda, power points, and public comment. Ms. Benedetti, yes; Mr. Blue, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes. Staff Presentation: Jeff Barnhill, Planner I Mr. Barnhill gave a brief overview of the project. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2024 Board Questions: Mr. Blue asked what the current units there are categorized as and are there any rules that they must be replaced in exactly the same category. Mr. Barnhill replied that in the code, replacement and demolition of multifamily housing it specifies that the applicants can do RO or a lesser category for the units that are replaced and does not specify if they have to a specific category. He said he believes that APCHA recommended that they be a lesser category than RO but the code does not specify. Mr. Knight asked if there is any price cap on the RO units. Mr. Barnhill replied that he is not 100% but as far as he knows RO means that someone works the required number of hours within the County. Mr. Knight replied that it is confusing because he lives in Smuggler Park, which is RO, and there are places for sale for three million dollars. Ms. Johnson replied that her understanding is that if it is deed restricted as RO there is not a price cap, but APCHA is not present today. There are employment restrictions. Applicant Presentation: Chris Bendon, Bendon Adams Mr. Bendon introduced Dave Lavis, Theresa May, and the design team. He gave a brief overview of the information given at the last meeting. He said to his knowledge there not a limit on what the units can sell for on the first transfer, then there is a price cap. It is probably more limiting than Eric’s experience in Smuggler as it is a RO light and has very limited set of regulations. There is a limitation on the rental rate that can be charged on rentals and occupants need to be qualified working local residents. There are eight RO units, three of the eleven Affordable units are category 4 units so those are clearly price capped and rent capped. Board Questions: Ms. Benedetti asked if Mr. Bendon is aware of any other developments in town have a 50/50 split between deed restricted and free market units. Mr. Bendon replied the the requirement is not 50/50, the requirements are that the replacement requirements are the same number of bedrooms, square footage and units. Ms. Benedetti rephrased her question stating she didn’t mean 50/50 in number of units but in ownership where there are eleven deed restricted owners and eleven free market. Mr. Bendon replied that there are and APCHA requires a separate HOA for the free market and the deed restricted units. Mr. Tarver asked if all the numbers are correct and if they have been checked. Mr. Barnhill replied yes. Mr. Canfield asked what the response to the public comment about shading at the last meeting. Mr. Bendon replied that they are not a planned development, so those matters are not on the table. They are relying on the RMF zone district and its dimensions. Public Comment: Jeff Bestick, 301 Midland Park Pl, said the commission got the letter from the Midland Park board and that covers everything they are concerned about. He said RO is not affordable housing and if they decide to approve this project, he urges them to add a completion bond, so it does not sit empty for five years like the Werning project. Ann Marie McFee, 401 Midland Park Pl, was involved in the letter given yesterday. We are an employee housing neighborhood; we have a lot of families and a lot of kids. It is a busy intersection and when you REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2024 add shading, parking and snow melt it will become more dangerous. The impacts from this will be pushed onto our neighborhood. One spot per unit is not realistic. The goals of the community plan emphasize the community, not profit, so that they fit in the neighborhood. We will feel physical and economic impact and so will the City of Aspen. Kari Brooks, 112 Midland Park Pl, said she lives directly across from the site and the density is already tight. She is concerned about adding that many more units. There is constant traffic, no sidewalks, and we are a corridor for tourists and locals and there are a lot of blind corners. She doesn’t know if there is a way of managing traffic but adding to it will not help. It is a wildlife corridor. This winter there was a short-term renter and constant downtowners in the neighborhood. She agrees with Jeff and AnnMarie as well about the Aspen Community Plan. Judy Wender, 810 Midland Park Pl, wants to reiterate that she agrees with everything said. She said even though things are to code, the impact on the neighborhood is very important. The building will be higher than anything in the neighborhood, there are glass stairwells that will be facing our units and rooftop decks. She asked that they consider the impacts of the neighborhood. Ms. Johnson read public comment into the record from Midland Park HOA. Staff Rebuttal: none Applicant Response: Mr. Bendon replied that RO is affordable housing according to the City of Aspen and APCHA. He said this is not a design review and they are obligated to meet the city’s lighting code and snow removal regulations. He said you have discretion within the criteria before you for this review and that may not be as broad of latitude the neighbors want you to have. The Aspen Area Community Plan is not a regulatory document, it is an aspirational document that set out community goals and aspirations. It sets forth a resource for P&Z and City Council to pursue legislation but is not a regulatory document. Board Questions: Mr. Tarver said when they said “plans can be changed” what does that look like. Mr. Bendon said to do that they have to provide a full set of architectural plans, if they want to change something in those plans it would be reviewed by the building department in a building review. There is a certain amount of flexibility that is expected as a project goes from conceptual to building plans that will be used in construction. Board Discussion: Mr. Canfield said his understanding of their role is to analyze this application according to the criteria on the screen. According to staff all the criteria have been met and he hasn’t heard anything from the public that shows that staff is incorrect. He said they did a good job of weaving through the design criteria to make this project. It is his view that they should approve the project. He has given serious thought to all the public comment and a lot of them are the kinds of problems we all have all the time. We should be looking at the code to deal with these problems. The one problem with this project that stands out is REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2024 parking, which is a potential mess in the making. He said they do not have the ability to require but could possibly recommend that the parking mitigation payment could be spent in the Midland corridor. He is going to approve the application with that recommendation. Mr. Gorman said thanks to everyone who came to the meetings. This highlights the big gap in the code and personal experience. It meets the code but is flawed in that it will affect the neighborhood negatively in several ways. He finds himself in the position of not being able to say no and will approve with many reservations and hopes council will take up these considerations in the code. Mr. Blue said that Ken summed it up. He has his own thoughts having walked the neighborhood. The AACP doesn’t have any teeth to it so while I may agree with the vast majority of what is in there they have to stick to the code, and it meets the code. Ms. Benedetti said she used to live in this building and is aware of the neighborhood concerns. These are hard conversations to have. She is an advocate for affordable housing so feels that she has to support more housing. These are issues affecting all neighborhoods in Aspen. She will approve. Mr. Knight said the boxes are checked and it follows code. Staff said they feel like its aligned with the AACP and feels it does not. He will vote against as it does not meet the AACP. Ms. McGovern said a lot of her issues have been voiced by other commissioners. A lot of people in this room have affordable housing and we need to give others that opportunity. It ’s hard to approve a project that feels really big, but she does not see a way to deny the project. She will vote to approve. Mr. Tarver said nobody likes their neighborhood to change. The rooftop decks are just like patios but on the roof. There is the AACP and then there is the law. Don’t leave here and not doing anything about changing the code. Back in the day it was offered to make the street one way and no one in the neighborhood wanted it. He said you’re getting your approval, be nice. Ms. McGovern asked Ms. Johnson if they can make suggestions for the spending of the mitigation money. Ms. Johnson said they can make a recommendation, but conditions of approval are conditions the applicant has to meet and you would be asking the city to do something. She would advise that staff can convey that desire. Mr. Canfield said he was not wanting a condition of approval but a recommendation to council. Ms Johnson will work on talking to city officials about that. Mr. Tarver asked if Midland is being redone in 2025 and can they express the money be used on that project. Ms. Johnson said they can express that desire to city council and city departments. Ms. McGovern asked if they could take into consideration the AACP. Ms Johnson said there is GMQS before them and the purpose of that was to align with the AACP. She cannot dictate they vote one way or the other but can disagree with staff findings. Motion: Mr. Gorman moved to approve resolution 5 series 2024; Mr. Blue seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Tarver, yes; Mr. Blue, yes; Mr. Knight, no; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Motion passes 6-1. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2024 OTHER BUSINESS: Fee in lieu payment for 1295 Red Butte Dr. Staff presentation: Sophie Varga, Planner I Ms. Varga stated that the GMQS chapter was opened by council via policy resolution last month and part of that is to examine the credits program. Tonight, there is one project requesting to pay fee in lieu for a project at 1235 Red Butte. Staff has found that the request meets criteria and recommends approval. Application presentation: Ryan Walterscheid, Forum Phi Mr. Walterscheid said they tried to acquire housing credits but were unable to find any. Board Questions: none Board Discussion: none Motion: Mr. Blue moved to approve resolution 6 series 2024; Mr. Gorman seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Tarver, yes; Mr. Blue, yes; Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Motion passes 7-0. Ms. Johnson asked if they would like to schedule a work session for September 3rd. There will be enough members for a quorum. They discussed what P&Z is allowed to do or not and some topics that may be discussed in a work session. Adjourn: Mr. Canfield motioned to adjourn; Mr. Gorman seconded. All in favor. Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk