Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20170516Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2017 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the May 16, 2017 meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Ms. McNicholas Kury, Mr. Jesse Morris, Ms. Jasmine Tygre, and Mr. Mesirow present. Mr. Ryan Walterscheid and Mr. Spencer McKnight recused themselves from the hearing. Mr. Keith Goode was not present. Also present from City staff; Ms. Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney, Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director and Mr. Ben Anderson, Planner. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. Tygre asked they are doing more work in front of the Aspen Art Museum and taking away more parking spaces, including half the block on Hyman Ave and half the block on Spring St. Ms. Sara Gardner from the audience noted they are changing out the snowman sculpture with a new one and it takes a week. Ms. Tygre noted the parking bans appear to be permanent. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she was aware of a petition circulating regarding the City Offices which was reviewed by the board and asked when everyone would know if it would be on the ballot or not. Ms. Klob replied the City Clerk has received the petitions on the previous day and the City Clerk has 30 days to review them. STAFF COMMENTS: There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were none. MINUTES There were none. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she had received some unsolicited input from neighbors of the project that was forwarded to staff. Ms. Bryan noted Mr. McKnight recused himself because he lives within 300 ft of the project. Public Hearings – 404 Park Ave – Amendment to a Growth Management Development Order Request Mr. Mesirow asked if the public notice affidavits had been reviewed. Ms. Bryan replied the affidavits appears to be in order. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to staff. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2017 2 Mr. Ben Anderson, Planner, noted P&Z approved this property back in December, 2016 with P&Z Resolution 11, Series 2016. The review for tonight is for a substantial amendment to a growth management development order under the affordable housing chapter. He then reviewed what was previously approved. He noted the whole project wasn’t up for review at this hearing, only one aspect of the project. He provided a rendering of the approved project and reviewed the location of site and noted a couple of previous approvals: 1. Ordinance 20, Series 2016 approved the removal of the existing planned development (PD) for the parcel subject to the eventual redevelopment with a 100% affordable housing project. 2. P&Z Resolution 11, Series 2016 approved a 28-unit affordable housing development with a subgrade parking garage. With the removal of the PD, the project becomes subject to the multi-family residential zone district. Based on the unit density provided, the project remains significantly under the maximum floor area allowed as well as the maximum height allowed. He added the setbacks are good and noted they are not proposing any changes to the dimensions or number of units. The approved project consists of 28 units consisting of 1, 2, 3 bedroom units with most of the units having 1 or 3 bedrooms. The units would be split between Category 3 and 4 and described as owner occupied. One of the 28 units is a resident occupied unit also described in the approval as owner occupied. One parking space per unit in the subgrade garage was also included in the approval. The project is subject to receiving 64 affordable housing credits with the creation of the units. The proposed amendment to be reviewed is about the tenancy of the units. The applicant would like some flexibility as the project moves forward toward a different balance of occupancy types between owner-occupied and renter-occupied. Mr. Anderson then referenced the land use code section as noted in the Affordable Housing and Housing Credits sections which states the proposed units shall be deed restricted as for sale units, transferred to qualified purchasers according to the guidelines, or the proposed units may be rental units including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or a non-profit organization if a legal instrument in a form acceptable the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. Staff’s perspective is there is some preference in the code because of the use of the words “shall” and “may” regarding the preference to ownership units with discretion to approve rental units. Mr. Anderson noted the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) reviewed this request. Mr. Anderson noted the sections in the draft resolution in the memo include conditions directly from APCHA in response to the most recent approval. He believes they pull these from their guidelines and from their staff’s expertise of the current conditions and challenges of managing affordable housing. Mr. Anderson noted Ms. Cindy Christensen, APCHA Operations Manager, will be attending the hearing and available for questions. Mr. Anderson noted a couple of the conditions were heavily discussed by APCHA, Planning Staff and the APCHA board. Should the project be a mix of both owned and rented units, there are some Federal Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2017 3 Housing requirements that deal with condominimized multi-family residences. Should the balance of rental units become the majority of the units in the complex or if a single entity owns more than 10% of the units in a complex, the applicants for mortgages will have difficulty successfully applying for conventional mortgage products. He stated the list of conditions are important for the board to consider in their review of a possible mixed project of both rental and owned units. Mr. Anderson stated several comments have been received from neighbors in addition to those included in the packet. He has also received one phone call from a neighbor. He stated the comments have been varied. Some are supportive of the ownership project as presented and are concerned of a transition to rental units in whole or in part. There were also letter which raised questions about the original approval in December, 2016. Others raised issues regarding parking and other issues that have already been approved which are not necessarily in consideration of this hearing’s request. He stated the overall tone shows general support of the project and pretty clear support of ownership of the units, but some reluctance towards changing to rental units. Mr. Anderson wanted to identify one minor correction to the draft resolution in Section 4 regarding the vested rights. He stated the vesting period is actually January 5, 2017 to January 5, 2020. Mr. Anderson also wanted to clarify Sections 8 and 9, both relate to the parking question. He reiterated the recommended conditions submitted to the Community Development Department from APCHA were included as-is, but tonight’s hearing does not involve parking. Mr. Anderson stated staff is supportive of the applicant’s request for flexibility in the tenancy for the approved units. If P&Z approves the request, the proposed conditions are recommended to ensure permanent affordability and help APCHA avoid unintended enforcement issues with the units. The conditions will be included in the deed restriction created at the completion of the project. Mr. Anderson closed stating Ms. Christensen was available for questions. Mr. Mesirow asked if there were questions of staff. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Ms. Christensen if APCHA uses any metrics for parking of deed restricted versus own occupied to which she replied they do not and most of the recent projects have been ownership projects, not necessarily rental projects. She added for owned properties, they require the car to be registered in Pitkin County but not for other types of property. She added they have this condition only for properties managed by APCHA and is not sure they can add it as a condition. Mr. Mesirow asked if there is an optimal mix from APCHA’s perspective to which Ms. Christensen replied it would be what had been approved. She continued stating APCHA recognizes there is a need for both rental and ownership projects. APCHA is concerned with a mixed project. She added most of the rental projects are owned by one owner and easier to deal with, but this is unknown with this project and APCHA anticipates it being more challenging from an administration viewpoint. Mr. Mesirow asked if the need for one type is higher than the other. Ms. Christensen replied there will be people lined up no matter which type. Mr. Mesirow asked her to explain the management structure for this project. Ms. Christensen replied APCHA qualifies everyone for all the units. APCHA works with the landlords to make sure tenants are Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2017 4 qualified. Currently, renters must qualify every two years and this will be changed to every year. APCHA requires those bidding on units to requalify on a yearly basis. Mr. Morris asked staff if they can identify the conditions to apply based on the type of ownership. Ms. Phelan confirmed the conditions approved would be applied upon completion of the project when the deed restriction is put in place. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant. Ms. Sara Adams, BendonAdams, introduced herself and the applicant, Mr. Peter Fornell. Ms. Adams reviewed the existing structure onsite as well as the approved project noting to-date, Mr. Fornell has housed 37 families through the award winning affordable housing credit program. She stated their request is to amend the approval to allow for flexibility between a possible mix of rental units and owned or 100% of either rental or owned. The flexibility will allow the market to dictate what the demand is for affordable housing. After receiving the approval, Mr. Fornell heard from the community and lodge owners regarding their needs which shifted his thinking regarding the project. Ms. Adams noted the code provides allows for along with review criteria for the requested flexibility. She read a portion of the code stating the City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. She stated Mr. Fornell has been speaking with a lot of lodge operators and the troubles they have keeping employees in town. Ms. Adams stated they appreciate APCHA’s time to write the conditions of approval as well as their patience as the applicant reached out to the lending community to figure out potential financing issues. The applicant does not wish to create hurdles for potential unit owners and are in favor of the proposed conditions in the resolution. She added they are committed to meeting the adopted housing guidelines noted in the draft resolution. They believe allowing for rental units within the project provides an opportunity to meet more than one city and community goal in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Ms. Adams then addressed the three concerns raised by staff in their memo (p 3 of the agenda packet). Her response to each is as follows. 1) The applicant is sympathetic to the issue and believes APCHA would benefit from additional staff and they do not want to make it worse. They agree to the conditions of the approval and want to respond to the market needs. 2) The applicant proposes one home owner association (HOA) and the owners of the units would be part of the HOA. She referred to the AACP policy 4.6 and notes it provides guidance regarding consistency within a neighborhood despite the mix of residents. 3) The applicant is happy to meet the percentages. Ms. Adams wanted to point out the APCHA Board gave a unanimous approval with the previously discussed conditions and meeting the needs of the market. Ms. Adams then pointed out a couple of items to be addressed in the draft resolution. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2017 5 1) She wanted to ensure the criteria listed in number 4 in under the 100% ownership project (Section 3) follows the housing guidelines as adopted. 2) Under the 100% rental project (Section 3), she wanted to point out number 9 which discusses the notice of enforcement including a fine of $500 per day. She stated this is not in the guidelines, but the applicant is fine with it being included in the resolution as long as the fines are assessed with the adopted guidelines. She closed stating they had read the letters from the neighbors and sent a letter to Midland Park stating would be sharing additional information once they have it available. Mr. Peter Fornell feels the certificate program is still maturing. He said he has been approached by a lot of people to purchase the affordable housing certificates for the project in particularly hotel developers. He notes two of the three hotel projects would need his entire project in order to mitigate their requirements. For them to only purchase the certificates serves them far less than if they can purchase and have units available for staff. He believes having some for rent units will benefit the community. Mr. Mesirow asked for questions for the applicant. Mr. Mesirow asked in this case would the hotels purchase the units and then rent them out to their employees. Mr. Fornell confirmed this is the case and noted APCHA has protections in place to ensure the owners are in Pitkin County. He also feels if the market shows we need more rental units and the city wants to manage them, they need additional staff to manage them. Ms. McNicholas Kury noted as the conditions currently read, Mr. Fornell could own two of the units. Mr. Fornell replied if it was 100%, he would own all. He said the 10% rule is for Freddie and Fannie. If it was all rental properties, the Freddie and Fannie rules would not apply. Mr. Mesirow asked if the 49% and 10% number could move and Ms. Christensen replied no they would not. Mr. Fornell stated if you want to borrow from Freddie or Fannie, the building must conform to those two rules. Mr. Morris asked with all the detailed conditions in the approval, what happens if something needs to be changed. Ms. Phelan replied if it was something defined in the resolution, then it would have to be amended. Mr. Mesirow then closed that portion of the hearing. Mr. Mesirow opened the public comment and asked them to limit the comments to items pertaining to the current request, not previous hearings. Ms. Sara Garton, Midland Park Resident, reiterated the letters received lean toward 100% ownership. She asked if it is 100% ownership, could there be any rentals and Ms. Christensen replied no. She noted the conditions requiring a closet and appliances appears to have been dropped on the 100% Rental Project section. She asked if there is a maximum number of residents per unit. Ms. Christensen stated even the building code does not specify a maximum. Ms. Phelan added the City land use code states you can have up to five unrelated people in a dwelling unit. Mr. Fornell stated he would be willing to have something in the rules and regulations preventing this situation. Ms. Judy Kolberg, Midland Park Resident, is concerned the project keeps changing. She believes tying employment to renting the units is a bad idea. She does not feel turnover is a good thing. She is Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2017 6 concerned a mixed approach will lead to higher turnover and possibly absentee landlords. If there are to be rentals, she would prefer they be controlled by APCHA. Mr. Mesirow asked what the impact would be to the community if there were rentals. She feels there will be higher turnover which means the residents don’t buy into the neighborhood. She feels the nearby Aspen Hills and Park Circle projects could take care of some of the rental needs. Ms. Kolberg would like to see some maintenance on the existing building. Mr. Bryan Semel stated he supports the project no matter the mix. Ms. Heidi Hoffman agrees with what Ms. Cindy Houben and Ms. Judy Kolberg included in their letters. She does not want any rentals. Mr. Mesirow noted the letters received raising concerns regarding the rentals. Mr. Mesirow then closed the public comment period. Mr. Morris asked Ms. Christensen about the current mix of rentals vs owned units in the APCHA program. She replied there are 2,900 units with approximately 1,600 ownership and 1,300 rentals. Mr. Mesirow then opened for commissioner discussion. Ms. Tygre believes it is actually better to have a rental project because if you have a bad renter, you can get them out at the end of the lease. If you have a bad owner, you are stuck. She does not object to ownership or rental units and believes they can be mixed. Her sticking point is the employer being the landlord. She has had experiences where a business owner gouged their tenants. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Christensen if there are restrictions on what rent can be charged. She replied APCHA requires copies of leases. Ms. Tygre stated there could be a double lease. Mr. Morris remarked he has gone through the process twice, once being an APCHA housing through employer controlled housing and also the sublease program and felt it was pretty robust. Ms. Tygre stated she witnessed issues in the free market, but imagines managing the units will be a challenge for APCHA. Mr. Morris feels APCHA can handle it. Ms. McNicholas Kury does not feel personally qualified to make decisions on affordable housing for the community. She prefers if APCHA makes a clear recommendation to the board. She feels there have been concessions made for the project already and is perhaps making her more sensitive to this request. Mr. Mesirow asked the board members if they have a strong distinction in terms of a livable community environment based on owning vs renting. Ms. Tygre stated where she lives the residents are long-term and it’s not employer controlled so there isn’t a lot of movement. She believes there is a difference between seasonal vs long-term renters. Mr. Morris is supportive of the proposal as it is now including the amendments for the appliances. He believes the request for flexibility makes sense. Mr. Mesirow agrees and sees APCHA working on their enforcement efforts. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she is uncomfortable assessing APCHA’s enforcement capacity. Mr. Mesirow feels both rentals and owned units are needed and APCHA can do their job. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission May 16, 2017 7 Ms. Tygre is uncomfortable with the possible multiple employer owned scenarios. Mr. Morris asked Ms. Christensen for examples of employer owned rentals in the same project currently. She replied there are none at this time. She stated APCHA received approval for a full-time compliance officer and working to put fines and penalties in place within their guidelines. They are working on additional processes of notification and enforcement of land lords who are out of compliance. A new requirement for the deed restriction will state if they are out of compliance for a certain period of time, they will turn over the management of the units to APCHA. If it is a mix, APCHA will tell the owner they must sell the unit and if it is 100% rental, APCHA will take over the management with a fee set in the guidelines. APCHA is putting more mechanisms in place to control rental products. Mr. Fornell noted the Ullr Lodge is owned by multiple owners and is a rental property to which Ms. Christensen agreed. Mr. Anderson believes the content for condition number 4 in the 100% ownership project is a bit murky when the applicant is selected by the developer. Ms. Phelan disagreed and believes APCHA is making a specific recommendation and it should either get approved or not or the board can ask for a change. Mr. Fornell stated the primary reason he is asking for this change so he can place his daughter in one of the units. Ms. Christensen noted it is nice when an applicant can get a brand new unit. She suggested one change could clarify what happens if a unit promised by the developer does not become available. Mr. Fornell replied that addition makes sense. Ms. Adams suggested modifying the content of condition number 4 on p 3 of the draft resolution. Mr. Anderson, Ms. Phelan and Ms. Christensen discussed possible changes to the condition and suggested stating an existing affordable housing unit is owned by the developer selected buyer, the owner must place their unit in the lottery once they are under contract. Ms. Adams suggested clarifying this in the development agreement. Ms. Phelan believes it should be listed prior to closing. Mr. Morris motioned to approve Resolution 9, 2017 as drafted and including the two amendments described at this hearing. Ms. Tygre seconded the motion. Mr. Mesirow requested a roll call. Roll call: Mr. Morris, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes, Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; and Mr. Mesirow, yes for a total four yes and zero no (4-0). The motion was approved. Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. A motion was made to adjourn and seconded. All in favor, motion passed. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager