Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19851203 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZORING COIUIISSIOR DEC.). 1985 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. with Commissioners' Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre, David white, Jim Colombo (arrived late), and Ramona Markalunas (arrived late) present. COIUIISSIORERS' COIUlENTS Hunt asked what was happening with the idea of a residential parking control plan so that streets can be cleared of snow in the daytime. Jay Hammond, Engineer, was not present, therefore, no answer was given. MIlIDTES October 22. 1985: Tygre cor rected the word "accept n on page 1 second paragraph of Commissioners' Comments. Hunt moved to approve the minutes of October 22, 1985 as corrected, Tygre seconded. All in favor; motion carried. SCHWARTZ POD EXEMPTION Steve Burstein, planner, explained the request to build a garage on the south east portion of the property, and outlined the area on the plans. Burstein said the Planning Office feels it is reasonable to exempt this from the PUD process as there are no particular growth or environmental impacts. Burstein noted the set back in the R-30 zone is 10 feet instead of 5 feet. Motion: Hunt moved to determine that the proposed development is exempt from compliance with Article VIII of the Municipal Code, Planned Unit Development, provided the set back requirements are honored; Tygre seconded. All in favor; motion carried. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING STREAM MARGIN CODE AMERDMER'I'S Chuck Roth, Engineer, explained that Ordinance '85-62 was developed in order to satisfy the Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements for Flood Hazard area development in order for the City of Aspen to maintain its participation in the National Flood Insurance program. Mr. Roth explained the changes that have been made to 3 sections of the code; Chapter 7 changing the UBC, the Subdivision section of the Municipal code, and the Stream Margin 1 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COIUIISSION DEC.3. 1985 review section of the Municipal code. Hunt commented that in the review criteria section it reads "the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following guidelines and standards" then later it says "shall impose the following conditions for permit approval". Hunt thought it should read "and shall impose the appropriate conditions for permit approval" because these are guidelines and not conditions of every project. Alan Richman, Planning Director, said the City Attorney had spent a lot of time on the language of this Ordinance to deal with the areas the FEMA people were requesting to meet their requirements. Mr. Roth explained other new additions and changes made (outlined in Ordinance '85-62). Anderson opened the public hearing. There were no comments so the public hearing was closed. Motion: Tygre moved to recommend approval of as submitted, Markal unas seconded. favor; motion carried. Ordinance #62 Series of 1985 Hunt opposed, all others in PUBLIC BEARING EMPLOYEE BODSING CODE AMENDMENTS Alan Richman, Planning Director, said he would like to address the employee housing 1 issue at a time (as outlined in the Planning Office memorandum dated December 3, 1985). Issue .1 deals with conversion of existing units. Current policy allows conversion as a way of meeting the housing requirement, and encourages that option above actual production by awarding 5 points in each of the scoring systems based on the percentage of employee housing that is provided through conversion. Mr. Richman thought it reasonable to el iminate the points that are being awarded in that area. Mr. Richman said the Housing Authority agreed. Richman added he thought it should be a project decision rather than a public policy decision even though there is a benefit, in terms of growth rate, to have conversion. The Planning Office is recommending the elimination of points but the continu- ation of the option. 2 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING ANn ZORING COIUIISSION DEC.3. 1985 , White commented he thought this was long over due. Tygre disagreed, saying there were advantages to conversions of existing units to deed restricted because in most cases it is the most expeditious way of making sure project employees are actually housed at the same time as growth impacts the project may have. Tygre said there were certain situations where it was to the advantage of the community to have free market units suitable for conversion to be made convertible. Colombo said he thought there was a disincentive here for renovation of existing structures. The equity and cost for conversion versus new construction will be high. If there are no points awarded for conversion then sometimes it will not justify the new construction which means we will end up with older units that will not be converted or remodeled. Richman said that was a concern of the Housing Authority as well. They felt that conversion was so much more attractive economically that the City would not have to push people towards that option. Conversion will still be allowed there will just be no bonus points given for it. Anderson opened the public hearing. Richman explained issue '2, the Cash in Lieu option. Richman said the County had adopted this plan earlier. Richman said it was being brought back at this time because of what had been faced with the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD. Richman said that was an indication that applicants are having a more difficult time finding successful sites in the city where employee housing programs can be done. Additionally, no one in the community has addressed the continuing need for student housing in the summer and employee housing in the winter, on a seasonal basi s. The Hous ing Author ity would 1 ike to have language to allow them to get into that type of project and they see cash in lieu as a way of doing that. The proposal being presented is essentially the same language as the county is using. Hunt said he thought the cash in lieu was what he would consider an easy cop-out for the developer of a property because they will have to invest virtually no capital to produce a unit. White agreed. Jim Mollica, Housing Authority, said this offers another option to the developer. Hunt said with this system there is a great disincentive because there are no capital costs, therefore, we will see no employee housing on site anymore. Additionally, there is no incentive to actually produce the housing. Mr. Mollica said what is gained by this option is the abil ity to use monies to meet specific community needs. Hunt asked if the Housing 3 REGULAR MEB'l'ING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COIUIISSION DEC.3. 1985 Authority was going to have 1 employee unit for every $20,000 of subsidy. Mr. Mollica replied yes. White said with cash in lieu he did not see any way units would be built unless the City builds them. In addi tion, the money paid for housing is not restricted to the building of units but goes to the Housing Authority and can be used for planning, sites, salaries, etc. White also commented that developers have not been building housing because they have continually been given some way out. White did not see any benefit in getting employee housing built with cash in lieu. Tygre agreed with white, that the cash in lieu option is so attractive that it is avoiding the idea that development should pay for itself or should mitigate its own impacts. This proposal takes the Administrative problems of providing housing and places them on the City rather than the developer. Ms. Tygre thought these problems were something that each individual developer should address. Colombo said he agreed with the concept thinking instead of having sporadic suggestions of solutions by individual developers there is an opportunity for a holistic approach to the entire problem. Colombo said he did not see a vehicle to accomplish this concept but thought it was a good idea. Richman said the Housing Authority was working on a vehicle to accomplish this right now. Mr. Mollica commented that there would not be 1 vehicle that would fit all situations. White said he did not see a benefit in taking the developer out of the employee housing business and putting government in that position. Richman said this would only be an option, which gives more choices. Markalunas said she also had a problem with government being in employee housing because they don't house their own employees. She thought the City should be in the same position as any other developer. Markalunas also questioned how the cash in lieu fund would function? Totally at the will of the Housing Authority with input from City Council? Richman responded that the Housing Authority would come forward to City Council with recommendations and City Council would be the final decision making body. Hunt said he had a problem with the wording "in lieu" because it means "instead of" which he thought conceptually was bad. He did not have a problem with a developer paying instead of building a piece of property but thought the concept it should go towards was that the payment go toward the production of housing, not in lieu of housing. Hunt thought a better mechanism to accomplish 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING ANn ZONING COIUIISSIOR DEC.3. 1985 this would be to create a pool of employers that pay for the development of an employee complex, which also entitles the developer to a bid in the development, becoming more of a cooperative. In this way the developer has to produce some of the capital money as well. Hunt said he did not like the mechanism proposed tonight because there was no incentive to produce housing on the part of the developer who is creating the need for the housing. Colombo said he agreed there was a looseness in the wording of the proposal and that there was no historical indication that this could be administered correctly but thought it was the right solution if the terminology could be brought together. Anderson agreed and commented that awful proposals had been submitted over the past few years and to have another vehicle providing flexibility would be an advantage. Tygre commented the point was not to make money f or the Ci ty but to provide employee housing in time to mitigate the impacts of development. Richman explained issue #3 (outlined in the Planning Office memorandum dated December 3, 1985) and reviewed the wording change for code. Richman said basically if there is going to be allowed off-site housing the Commission needs specifics as to what type of units are being proposed. Anderson agreed with the revi sion. Ann Bolin, Housing Authority, said they would also like to include the level of upgrade, as part of this off-site housing issue, so that the Housing Authority can require fresh paint, decent carpeting, working appliances, etc. Richman thought that was a good suggestion and White agreed. Richman explained issue #4, reduction of points. Richman said with the adoption of issue #1 there are 73 points available in residential, half of them in the areas of employee housing. By providing so many points in the area of housing the Commission is basically mandating that people buy as many points as they can in the area of housing. You end up with a Growth Management System which legally can only be sustained on the basis of services, being scored on the basis of housing. There are people winning their allotment but hurting the community in terms of services. Richman said he was convinced there were too many points being provided in the housing area. Richman added that the Housing Authority was also in favor of this issue. 5 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AIm Z ORIRG COIUIISSION DEC.3. 1985 '- Tygre asked why the requirement for residential employee housing was so much higher than for commercial or lodge. She thought one of the earlier goals was for dispersal of employee housing rather than the creation of more projects. One of the reasons the high requirement was put on residential was that was the greatest opportunity to achieve this dispersal of the employee housing. Tygre said if that in fact was the purpose then she would like to think further about it. White said he also thought the requirement was placed on residential for dispersal purposes. White said he was, however, in favor of the reduction in points. Richman explained issue #5, repeal of the Bonus FAR for employee housing. He did not have objections to the concept but thought the community should get something in return. Richman said it appeared the thing most people focus on is transportation altern- atives and ways to meet the transportation needs. The Planning Office is suggesting that the Commission consider an impleme- ntation mechanism for the transportation element now being formulated. Anderson said he thought the FAR bonus should be obtained by either providing employee housing on site or putting money into a parking fund. Tygre commented that she thought the reason for the '~. FAR bonus was to allow an applicant build a bigger building so they could incl ude employee housing. She said she would rather see the bonus allowed if the employee housing was provided on site. Additionally, she would like to see another mechanism, other than FAR, that would address the problem of oversize buildings. White said he was in favor of allowing the FAR bonus for employee housing on site and also liked the concept for transportation. Anderson continued this discussion to the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. =j(~ /U JJj~11- Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 6