Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.gmc.19951205 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 Heeting was called to order by Cindy Houben, Community Development Department staff, at 5:00 p.m. Houben asked Sara Garton, Chairperson of the City Planning & Zoning Commission, to lead the joint meeting of Planning Commissions. Present were: Sara Garton, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, Marta Chaikovska and Steve Buettow of the City. Excused was Robert Blaich of the City. Present were: Suzanne Caskey, David Guthrie, G. Steve Whipple, and Jake Vickery of the County. Excused were Kathy Tripodi, Ben Dorman, Shellie Harper, George Krazoff and Jack Hatfield of the County. Houben requested to change the agenda and move the Worksession first on the agenda. The Commission agreed. WORK SESSION The worksession was the Metro Area Growth Management Commission Responsibilities and Review Process and Discussion of Transfer of Development Rights. The responsibilities and review process were discussed but due to time limitation the Discussion of Transfer of Development Rights was deferred to a later time. The tape of the worksession discussion is kept in the City Clerk's Office. ISIS THEATRE GMQS EXEMPTION Garton opened the public hearing and Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, for Proof of Notification Affidavit. Vann presented the affidavit and it is attached in record. Dave Hichaelson represented the City and County. Hichaelson stated it was required that the Joint Growth Hanagement Commission provide a recommendation to City Council regarding the affordable housing alternatives in relation to the Isis Theatre. The applicant proposed two three bedroom affordable units and a free market unit on the same floor which is not subject to GHQS review. Hichaelson provided site plans to the Commission for reference and said the project was in the commercial core and a historical overlay district. The applicants intend on deed restricting the two Category 2 units to income and occupancy guidelines; Category 3 is required by the code, but Category 2 units will allow a reduction in mass consistent with HPC recommendations, and the Housing Office is in support of the Category 2 units. The units are placed on the rooftop of Isis, adjacent to the single free market unit. GROWTH 5~%lqAGEHENT COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 Michaelson stated he was not at the HPC meetings, but Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer, was present to answer any questions reqarding the HPC recommendations. Hichaelson stated the criteria included on the GHSQ are very specific; the first dealt with is there an affordable housing program in place and there is; Secondly, has the site been identified as appropriate for affordable housing; staff has indicated the City has not identified the specific site due to uncertainty regarding the redevelopment of the Isis. Staff included a summary of how the historic landmark process dealt with the additional FAR on the roof level. The third criteria dealt with whether the site was well-suited for affordable housing. Hichaelson said he had discussions with Houben about what the intent was and staff concluded that it dealt with relationship to other things in the City associated with affordable housing such as transit, and employment opportunities. Hichaelson stated Houben alluded to it was clearly consistent with the Aspen Community Plan in providing as much housing in the central core as possible. The last two criteria; first, would it be produced at the same time that the need for employee housing would arise and the project be constructed in conjuction with the expansion of the theatre and lastly; whether the development requires the provision of affordable housing on-site to meet its service needs. Hichaelson concluded staff recommended a recommendation of approval to City Council clearly recognizing there are some site design issues that staff would suggest as more appropriate within the guidelines of the review that would take place by the City Planning & Zoning Commission after the Growth Management Commission meeting this same evening. Vickery asked the options the applicant had for the housing of the project. Hichaelson responded the applicant had three options for the housing; put the housing on-site, buy down units, or pay cash- in-lieu. Hichaelson said one of the issues that came up during the HPC review and built into the code, is that to request the FAR the applicant is requesting, about 1.8 to 1, that additional FAR has to be used for on-site. Vickery asked if the Commission should be looking, in terms of criteria, if it would be preferable for the applicant to pay housing impact fees or pursue another option. Hichaelson responded it would not be preferable for the applicant to pay housing impact fees or pursue another option based on his conversations with Houben and how the criteria relates to an overall affordable 2 GROWTH 5~%lqAGEHENT COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 housing perspective in terms of units in the central core. Hichaelson stated staff's position was there was specific criteria, particularly in the FAR bonus review that goes right to that point; it is specific, it is a design issue. Hichaelson stated all the criteria went around the issue, although someone did point out that Criteria C related, and that the criteria, with the exception of HPC concerns and conceptual approval with reservations, was the only criteria the Commission had to go on. Guthrie asked when Hichaelson said that Category 3 units were required in the City code, where was that required and how flexible was it? Hichaelson replied the sliding scale was 1 to 4; 1 being the smallest unit, the most affordable and least restrictive in income. Guthrie asked who picked the Category 3. Hichaelson responded he did not know who generated the idea, but suspected perhaps the Housing Office. Sunny Vann responded City Hall tried to create some incentives for the preservation of historic structures, one of which was to exempt expansion historic landmarks from competition under the process; not from the quota, but from the competitive process. Vann stated part of that, and part of a packet of other incentives, one way was one is not exempt from mitigation of any affordable housing requirements from the expansion, but the City would give one the ability to rent or sell the mitigation, the housing that is provided at a higher income category to help offset the cost of the reconstruction or renovation of historic landmarks. Vann said the way it is written one may rent at Category 3; which gives one more income and helps defray some of the costs for providing housing. Vann stated he read it to say, one was not absolutely required to rent at Category 3 if one volunteered to rent at it at a category less than 3, one could do so. The applicant offered, in trying to address some of the HPC concerns, to rent at Category 2. Caskey asked regarding the restucturing of the new and the old of the building and if there was any consideration given by HPC to making the new additions extremely different and if HPC, in the work that it does, generally makes decisions that are well thought out. Amidon responded the issue was a basic principle of historic preservation and when one adds onto something old one wants clear differentiation between what is old and what is new. Amidon mentioned the Commission had small drawings which did not give true sense of the overall design of the project, but HPC did want the restructuring to be compatible, changes in material with subtle differentiations, but did not want something wildly different than 3 GROWTH ~LANAGE~ENT COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 the historic structure because there would be lose of attention to the old building. Garton added Caskey did not have the packet of the City Planning & Zoning Commission which contained all the requested minutes of HPC's reviews and reiterated the Commission was just being asked to forward a recommendation to City Council whether affordable housing units associated with the proposed renovation of the Isis Theatre was appropriate. Garton asked why would it not be appropriate? Vann stated the applicant had the ability to offer a solution to the affordable housing issue associated with the expansion of the Isis Theatre. The Housing Office makes a referral comment whether it thinks the solution is appropriate, the HPC may comment on terms of the historic expansion of the structure, and the staff criteria require the Commission to make a recommendation whether or not the proposal meets the criteria. Vann stated there was not a lot of inconsistency with the criteria for the Commission to rule on. Garton asked for public comment and there were no public comments. MOTION Tygre moved to forward a postive recommendation to City Council from the Growth Hanagement Commission for the affordable housing units associated with the proposed renovation of the Isis Theatre; Vickey seconded. AMENDED MOTION Tygre moved to amend the motion to forward a positive recommendation to City Council from the Growth Management Commission for the affordable housing units associated with the proposed renovation of the Isis Theatre; the two three-bedroom units of 1,050 square footage would be deed restructed to Category 2, in rental and sales guidelines. The units are intended to be rented, but will be deed restricted under the guidelines effective the time of issuance of the building permit. Guthrie seconded. Vote was Garton, yes; Tygre, yes; Hunt, yes; Mooney, yes; Chaikovska, no; Buettow, yes; Caskey, yes; Guthrie, yes; Whipple, yes; Vickery, no; 8 approved, 2 opposed, motion carried. Discussion of Motion 4 GROWTH 5~%lqAGEHENT COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 Garton stated there was no number associated with the affordable housing unit nor Catetory specification in the motion. Vann answered he thought it was based on the representation the applicant put forward in the application. Vann stated for the record the application proposed two three-bedroom units of 1,050 square feet of net liveable square footage that would be deed restricted to Category 2, in rental and sales guidelines. Vann stated it was the applicant's intent to rent the units, but the units will be deed restricted under the guidelines effective the time of issuance of the building permit. Tygre stated she would amend the motion to include the language just uttered by Sunny Vann, the applicant's representative. Hooney stated he would like to hear from the Housing Authority why it felt the two units were appropriate for his own background. Hooney said he read the calculations in order to mitigate the employee units for the size of expansion, and 11.45 employees should be mitigated. Hooney said it was requested to reduce that number to 5 and the accommodations seemed to be unique configurations to get 5 in such space. Vann responded the code provided the ability for one of two things; there is a formula for calculation of employee generation used typically for commercial space such as restaurants and retail shops where there is a lot of experience on the number of employees that are generated by commercial operations like offices and retail. In the alternative an actual generation is proposed, not a theoretical generation based on some calculation, but the actual generation required to operate the commercial. Vann said the code requires that 60 percent of whatever the number is and Vann said he provided the calculation based on the theoretical generation number and also proposed what was felt was going to be the actual generation of 5 employees. The Housing Office felt the calculation to be appropriate and the applicant is mitigating 100 percent of what the actual generation is, not 60 percent of some theoretical number. Vann stated in case of underestimation, the conditions suggest, and the applicant has agreed, the applicant will agree to an audit for the specified period of time to see if he is correct in the number of employees it takes to operate the facility; if incorrect the applicant is obligated to provide additional affordable housing. Vann stated if the use changes from a theatre to a more intensive commercial use, such as a restaurant, boutique, or retail shops, the permission to do so is also subject to additional affordable housing mitigation. Vann said the Housing Authority was willing to 5 GROWTH 5~%lqAGEHENT COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 accept an actual employee generation as opposed to a theoretical employee generation because the concept under growth management is that one mitigate the percentage of the employees used. Hichaelson stated he had the same concern as it was a theoretical number that could go through the process, but it should be represented as a theoretical number and the Housing Office should have the ability to audit and any change in use would force them to go back through employee mitigation. Guthrie stated the Commission was used to a motion with certain conditions. Hichaelson responded unfortunately there was nothing in GHQS that allowed him to recommend conditions for the Commission's recommendation. Vann replied the situation was as awkward for the applicant as for the Commission and as part of the application the applicant has represented the audit be a condition of approval, and if a change in use it may trigger additional affordable housing; considered to be representations that are part of the parcel of the proposal to do two three-bedroom, on-site housing units. Vann stated that is the proposal the Commission was reviewing and he considered the presentations to be implicit in the recommendations. Garton stated part of the motion should be based on if the City Planning & Zoning Commission finds it acceptable in their review as if the City P&Z does not find the representations acceptable the whole Growth Hanagement Commission procedure is negated. Michaelson added Garton was correct if The Growth Management Commission recommended to City Council to accept the affordable housing units and at the same time the City P&Z denies the FAR bonus or any of the other special reviews. Hooney stated if the Growth Hanagement Commission voted positively on the recommendation it would not mean at the time acceptance of the design, configurations, and mitigation. Hooney stated what the Commission would be saying is that it felt approval of the on-site location. Vann responded he did not feel that is what the Commission would be saying; it would be saying the proposal, as put forward, complied with the staff criteria and there was a different set of criteria to be considered as the City Planning & Zoning Commission following the meeting. Vickery asked clarification in the Planning Office memorandum, Criteria e) "Whether the development itself requires the provision of affordable housing on-site to meet its service needs". The response was: The applicant fully intends on housing theater GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 employees on-site. Vickery asked if the emphasis was on theatre employees. Vann responded the applicant had proposed on-site housing for a number of reasons, only of which one was germane. Vann said the applicant had a need to house his employees and intends to house key individuals on-site such as projectionists. Vann stated by housing on-site it also allowed to obtain economy of scale in terms of the number of employees and paying cash-in-lieu did not solve the applicant's problem. Vann said as he read the Criteria e). section one of the considerations was whether or not the site required on-site residences and Vann believed the site did require on-site residences. Vickery stated he could not support the proposal as he found it did not conform with Criteria B). and C). Vickery said particularly in C). it made specific reference to historic preservation concerns and referred to Amy Amidon's memorandum attached in the packets that stated it was HPC's "strong preference the affordable housing units not be located on-site" and "HPC feels in the case of some historic buildings, the requirement for on-site housing puts an additional burden on the building which may lead to a less than desirable result" Vickery stated until the issues are clearly resolved he could not support application. Vann responded one thing Vickery did not point out was that HPC had already considered the issues and stated a preference, but had given the project conceptual approval for on-site housing and what Vickery stated was a dead issue. HPC asked the applicant to reconsider whether he can provide a solution off-site and the applicant has indicated a willingness to do so, but if the applicant is not able to do so or chose not to do so, as far as the applicant is concerned HPC has already granted conceptual approval for the project's on-site housing component and it is clearly stated in the memorandum from which Vickery quoted. Garton stated as a recommendation to staff when writing motions, criteria be mentioned; finding that the criteria has been met. Garton adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk GROWTH 5~%lqAGES~ENT COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995