HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.worksession.20090825AGENDA
JOINT WORK SESSION
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONS &
PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Courthouse Meeting Room (13~ Floor -Jury Room; Former BOCC Meeting Room)
Aspen, Colorado
August 25, 2009
4:30 PM WORKSESSION
1. Review of the Aspen Area Community Plan update
a. Review of Managing Growth
7:30 PM ADJOURN WORKSESSION
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission; Pitkin
County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ben Gagnon, City Special Projects Planner
Ellen Sassano, County Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, City Community Development Director
Cindy Houben, County Community Development
Director
DATE OF MEMO: August 20, 2009
MEETING DATE: August 25, 2009, 4:30pm in Courthouse Meeting Room
(151 Floor -Jury Room; Former BOCC Meeting Room)
RE: Managing Growth Open Discussion
SUMMARY: The joint meeting on August 18 was extremely productive in terms of the
intent and philosophy sections on Managing Growth, and we have a good head-start on
more specific issues with regard to lodging. (For a meeting summazy, see Exhibit A.)
Based on the Aug. 18 meeting, staff is adjusting the questions for P&Z to address at the
Aug. 25 and Sept. 1 meetings. With regard to an ultimate conversation about balancing
different uses and populations in the Aspen Area, staff fully understands the value of
estimating segments of the population, such as commuters, affordable housing, 2"d
homeowners, lodging etc. Staff will provide this information for the Sept. ]meeting.
Staff also heard the joint P&Zs place a strong emphasis on the long-term sustainability of
the tourism economy ("the golden goose"), and we heazd a significant concern that the
construction and real estate economy can damage the long-term prospects of "the golden
goose." It appears there is enough of a consensus that the construction and tourism
economies have grown out of balance to further delve into this topic on Aug. 25. More
specifically, the P&Zs reached consensus in February that the pace of construction should
be addressed (this was reiterated on Aug. 18), and that the question of house size should
be addressed as well.
We understand there is a short turnaround, but it would be helpful to prepare for the Aug.
25 meeting by reviewing some of the findings of The Aspen Economy white paper, and
the Managing Growth chapter in the State of the Aspen Area Report: 2000-2008. The
white paper focused largely on the growth of the development economy, compared to the
more traditional tourist economy (pgs 2-10), while the Managing Growth chapter of the
State of the Aspen Area Report includes extensive information on construction activity as
well as build-out information that was compiled by staff last year.
Considering that city and county budgets aze growing tighter each quarter, we were very
fortunate to have extensive funding to produce these two reports. We understand that it
may have been many months since P&Z members reviewed these reports, and strongly
encourage you to take a look through them in prepazation for the Aug. 25 meeting.
(Please see Exhibits B and C: Provided electronically only.) The reports are also available
at www.aspencommunityvision.com, but please don't hesitate to contact staff if you need
another hard copy.)
In addition to the build-out information in the State of the Aspen Area Report, staff has
recently completed important new reseazch on the potential for residential redevelopment
in the future (please see Exhibit D).
There is also extensive public feedback on these subjects from both the "Core Beliefs"
"clicker" sessions in July 2006 and as part of the AACP update process. (This was part of
the packet for the Aug. 18 meeting.)
AUGUST 25: Questions for the P&Zs to address include:
The 1976 Growth Management Plan, the 1993 AACP and the 2000 AACP
identified pacing annual development through some kind of building permit quota
system, yet such a system has never been implemented. Why do you think this
goal has never become a reality? If the P&Zs wish to pursue such a goal, how can
the AACP update provide a strong and compelling rationale?
• A proposed new chapter of the city land use code called "Development Pacing
System" was drafted in 2007, reviewed by Council but not adopted. The
"Purpose" section of this chapter may be a helpful starting point for the P&Zs to
discuss a rationale for a pacing system (please see Exhibit E).
Both the City and the County have required mitigation for redevelopment projects
for many yeazs. The City offers options such as payment-in-lieu for affordable
housing or construction of an ADU as well as numerous impact fees, and the
County requires a variety of mitigation as part of the building permit process.
Should the City and County increase mitigation requirements for redevelopment?
Why?
• Should there be changes to house size limits in the City? In the County? Why?
SEPTEMBER 1: Although the P&Zs have already begun a productive discussion on the
lodging sector, staff is asking that this discussion - and a discussion on the retail sector -
take place on September 1. This will allow staff the time to compile more background
material on both lodging and retail.
Also for the Sept. 1 meeting, staff will have compiled population estimates for various
segments of the Aspen Area population, as noted at the top of this memo. Questions to
address on September 1 include:
• Within the category of a lodge use, there are different types of lodging. For
example, the city land use code was amended twice in the last five years to
provides a sliding scale of incentives for lodge projects with small rooms (as
small as 300 square feet). Should we attempt to further define types of lodging,
such as high-amenity lodging versus low-amenity lodging?
• Are there appropriate locations for luxury lodging versus moderate or economy
lodging?
• Public-private partnerships and/or public financing of new hotels has become
increasingly common in the United States. Should we consider such partnerships
in an effort to provide a more diverse lodging base?
• Within the category of retail stores, there are different types of retail. Should we
attempt -for the first time in the City of Aspen - to define different types of
retail, such as "local-serving retail" versus "tourist-oriented retail," or
"international designer brand luxury merchandise chains"?
After reviewing population estimates by segments of population at the Sept. 1 meeting,
such as commuters, lodging populations, people who live and work in the Aspen Area,
2"a homeowners etc., the P&Zs should be in a strong position xo answer the questions that
are critical to subsequent amendments to the Growth Management Quota System:
• What types of uses do we want to encourage, and why?
• What types of uses do we want to limit, and why?
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Summary of Aug. 18 meeting.
Exhibit B: The Aspen Economy white paper (provided electronically
via PDF)
Exhibit C: Managing Growth chapter of State of the Aspen Area
Report (provided electronically via PDF)
Exhibit D: "City of Aspen: Potential for Future Residential
Redevelopment"
Exhibit E: "Development Pacing System," Purpose section. (2007)
Exhibit A
Summary of Joint Planning and Zoning Commissions Meeting
Courthouse Meeting Room /August 18, 2009
The following is not intended to serve as minutes, but to summarize discussion on major
issues. Under each topic, this bullet- summary attempts to reflect consensus in some
areas, as well as areas where consensus has not yet been reached.
Purpose of Managing Growth.
• Maintain quality of life.
• Preserve high quality of recreation, including backcountry opportunities.
• Maintain a "metropolitan" level of cultural amenities.
• Preserve a built environment that reflects small town character.
• Maintain and rebuild a real sense of year-round community.
• Development as an industry is unsustainable.
• Tourism is sustainable.
• Too much development can degrade long-term sustainability of tourism.
• Grow[h/redevelopment should be environmentally sustainable.
• Pacing construction maintains quality of life for residents and visitors.
• A balanced economy is sustained by a broad and diverse economic base.
• By maintaining high quality of life, we create the challenges of attracting many
people and the pressure of growth.
• There is consensus that we are not opposed to all free mazket growth.
Defining `Character' and `Quality of Life.'
• Carrying capacity can always be increased by expanding infrastructure. But just
because we could expand infrastructure and accommodate a much higher
population, that doesn't mean we should do that.
• We need to determine when quality of life starts to deteriorate for us and our
guests as well.
• We should talk about maintaining certain characteristics. It's important that it is
somewhat subjective. Carrying capacity could be a statement like, "we have
enough people in town."
• This plan is about chaaacter and not necessarily an ultimate number.
• An ultimate population ceiling has to be flexible, but we could identify a number
that is not going to be exceeded.
• When have we used up our natural capital?
A Balanced Population.
• We need to pay attention to the components that comprise the population ... what
is the reasonable amount of commuters, of people in lodging, of people visiting
2"d homes, of people living in affordable housing?
• We need balance, but we need to have at least good estimates of these numbers.
Population should include a balanced, diverse group, including the middle class.
Demogranhic Mix & Lodeina.
• We've converted 27% of our lodges to other uses. Most of what was lost were
economy lodge units.
• Do we need more hotel rooms at all? If we build more will they come?
• What do we want to encourage to achieve "balance?"
• Low-priced lodging will bring in a greater diversity of people.
• We aze surrounded by government land, and that's public land - it should not be
reserved just for the top 5% of people, it should be for everyone. There is a way
for people to come into town and not have to spend a huge amount of money. We
need broaden the attraction.
• The less super wealthy guests help the type of business that the locals (we) want
to go to.
• There is an opportunity to bring diverse lodging, but not on Aspen Mountain.
• You have to respond to the demand that's out there.
• If you want more middle class people, are you willing to put a KOA at Cozy
Point?
• Which choice do we want to make: More people in the middle or upper middle
class who spend less money, or fewer people who spend more money? What's the
quality of life decision there?
• It's impractical to engineer visitor-ship, we just don't have much control over
that.
Demogr~hic Mix & Residential Units.
• We need to separate the resident from the visitor.
• It's not practical to engineer our visitor-ship. This is an expensive place, it's a
destination resort that costs money to get to, and there is little we can do about
that.
We need to keep focusing on keeping our year-round community alive, keep the
vitality. If we aze to do any sort of social engineering we need to do so that
people can live here.
There aze at least two motivations behind the influx of wealth into the Aspen
Area: There are people who share the values of enjoying scenic beauty,
recreation, cultural amenities and a built environment that reflects a small town;
as well as those who view a home in Aspen as a smart investment, as a
commodity. There aze probably many people who have some mixture of both
motivations.
• One longstanding conflict is the desire of some who wish to maximize their
investment through building large homes, with the desire of others who want to
retain a built environment that retains small town chazacter. When do we say,
"How big of a house is too big? This is a castle, and it doesn't feel like a small
town?"
Infrastructwe.
• If we grow, we need the infrastructure to sustain it.
• Managing growth should require an accounting for and mitigation of the impacts
from that growth.
• Infrastructure should not just include things like transportation, water and sewer -
affordable housing should be seen as required infrastructure.
• The tools needed to protect our environment should be seen as required
infrastructwe.
Changes to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
• The UGB should remain largely the same, although we can address small areas
where there is an anomaly.
Exhibit D
Potential for Future Residential Redevelopment: City of Aspen
In order to estimate future residential redevelopment in the City of Aspen, Community
Development Department staff conducted a sampling study in the summer of 2009, relying on
records from the Pitkin County Assessor's Office.
The study identified two criteria to determine the existing residential structures that aze most
likely to be redeveloped and expanded. The two criteria were: the age of the existing structure
and the amount of un-built squaze footage allowed by the current Land Use Code.
Sampling Method & Margin of Error
Due to time constraints, staff was unable to evaluate each existing residential structure in the
City of Aspen, and instead relied on a sampling of single family residential parcels in the City of
Aspen. The single-family homes in the sampling study came from five zone districts: R-6, R-15,
R-15A, R-15B and R-30. (Staff had previously evaluated the build-out potential of residential
units in the commercial and lodging zone districts; this separate information can be found in the
Managing Growth chapter in the State of the Aspen Area Report.)
Due to time constraints, staff was unable to evaluate each existing single-family home in the City
of Aspen, and instead relied on a sampling of approximately fifty-percent (50%). This sampling
can be used to extrapolate an accurate estimate for the potential redevelopment of all single
family homes in the city with a 3.5% mazgin of error, according to Venturoni Surveys and
Research, based in Dillon, Colo. The study sample was collected using a randomizing function
of the Excel computer program.
Potential for Duplexes
With the exception of R-15B, all residential zone districts allow for the redevelopment of single-
family homes into duplexes, if the size of the residential lot in question meets eligibility
requirements. The tables in this study include redevelopment and expansion potential for single-
family lots, as well as the potential for converting and expanding single-family homes into
duplexes. When there was potential for an existing single-Family structure to redevelop into a
larger single family home or a duplex, it was assumed the building would be redeveloped as a
duplex. This assumption was made because the allowable floor area for duplexes is larger than
single Family buildings, and because this has historically been the trend.
Local and Non-Local
In order to provide other relevant information, the study also identifies residential structures
according to local or non-local ownership. This distinction was made based on the mailing
address of each parcel in the study, as identified in Assessor's Office records. This is not an
exact data set, as some local owners may have tax bills mailed to out-of--area accountants, and
some non-local owners may have tax bills mailed to in-town accountants. However, this has been
used in surveys in the past and has a 5% margin of error, according to Venturoni Surveys and
Research.
Analysis by Neighborhood
In order to compare the results with past residential redevelopment trends, the study also
identifies the residential structures by neighborhood. The neighborhood boundaries are identical
to those identified in the Managing Growth Chapter of the State of the Aspen Area Report,
which includes residential redevelopment data on aneighborhood-by-neighborhood basis since
2000.
Historic Properties
The study includes a number of homes that are designated by the City of Aspen as historic,
meaning they can't be demolished. However, properties designated historic can obtain approval
for additions, and some can split their lots and build a new home. While existing historic
structures can't be totally redeveloped, this study calculates the square footage that is available
for expansion on-site or in the case of a lot split.
Study Results
The study results begin with a table showing the number of single-family homes with no square
footage available for expansion versus the number of single-family homes that do have square
footage available for expansion. The total sample size is 326 homes, with over seventy-five
percent (75%) with floor area available for redevelopment/expansion.
Availability of additional FAR on all Cases
No FAR Left Single Family and
no Duplex
Available FAR
Duplex
Available FAR
Totals
Total Number 76 118 132 326
Percent of Total 23.31% 36.20% 40.49% 100.00%
In order to identify the single-family homes with the highest potential for future redevelopment
and expansion, the subsequent tables show the number of homes that have remaining allowable
square footage in the following categories:
- 1,001-1,500 square feet
- 1,501-2000 square feet
- More than 2,001 square feet
This narrowed the number of cases to 151. Just over fifty percent (50%) of these cases have
more than 2,000 square feet of available floor area.
Total # of Cases with Single Family FAR available
1001 - 1500 Sq
Ft 1501 - 2000 Sq
Ft >2001 Sq
Ft
Totals
Total Number 20 20 17 57
Percent of
Total
35.09%
35.09%
29.82%
100.00%
2
Total # of Cases with Duplex FAR available
1001 - 1500 Sq
Ft 1501 - 2000 Sq
Ft >2001 Sq
Ft
Totals
Total Number 14 21 59 94
Percent of
Total
14.89%
22.34%
62.774'°
100.00%
To further define the single-family homes with the highest potential for future redevelopment
and expansion, existing homes with more than 1,001 square feet of allowable expansion were
cross-referenced with the "Effective Year Built" of each home in the study. The "Effective Year
Built" categories are:
- Pre-1960
- 1961-1970
- 1971-1980
- 1981-1990
This narrowed the cases to 118. Fifty-five percent (55%) of these cases have more than 2,000
squaze feet of un-built floor azea.
Total # of Cases with more than 1000 sq. ft. of Single Family FAR Left Cross-Referenced with
Effective Year Built
Pre-1960 1961- 1970 1971 - 1980 1981- 1990 Total
1001 - 1500 Sq Ft 0 1 6 8 15
1501 - 2000 Sq Ft 1 1 9 8 19
>2001 Sq Ft 0 4 7 5 16
Totals 1 6 22 21 50
Total # of Cases with more than 1000 sq. ft. of Duplex FAR Left Cross-Referenced with Effective Year
Built
Pre-1960 1961 - 1970 1971- 1980 1981 - 1990 Total
1001 - 1500 Sq Ft 0 1 1 2 4
1501 - 2000 Sq Ft 1 2 5 7 15
>2001 Sq Ft 2 7 17 23 49
Totals 3 10 23 32 68
"Effective Year Built" is identified by the Assessor's Office by taking into account the date of
the last renovation of the house as well as the general condition of the house, including the age of
infrastructure such as foundations, HVAC systems etc.
3
The study also identified the final 118 cases by ownership (local vs. non-local) and by
neighborhood. Approximately forty percent (40%) of the cases list non-local addresses.
Total # of Cases with more
than 1000 sq. ft. of Single
Family FAR Left and Effective
Year Built pre-1991 Cross-
Referenced with Local or
Non-local Ownership
Local 31
Non-Local 19
Total 50
Total # of Cases with more than
1000 sq. ft. of Duplex FAR Left
and Effective Year Built pre-1991
Cross-Referenced with Local or
Non-Local Ownership
Local 39
Non-Local 29
Total 68
Cemetery Lane was the neighborhood with the most potential for future
redevelopment/expansion, with thirty-two percent (32%) of the cases. The West End was the
second highest, with almost twenty-three percent (23%) of the cases.
Total # of Cases with more
than 1000 sq. ft. of Single
Family FAR Left and Effective
Year Built pre-1991 Cross-
Referenced with
Neighborhood
Aspen Mountain 5
Cemetery Lane 2
East End 0
Main & Mill 2
Meadowood 0
Midland and Park 9
Mountain Valley 17
Riverside 3
Shadow Mountain 3
West End 9
Total 50
Total # of Cases with more than
1000 sq. ft. of Duplex FAR left
and Effective Year Built pre-1991
Cross-Referenced with
Neighborhood
Aspen Mountain 0
Cemetery Lane 36
East End 0
Main & Mill 0
Meadowood 3
Midland and Park 4
Mountain Valley 0
Riverside 5
Shadow Mountain 2
West End 18
Total 68
4
Finally, the study contains the total square footage allowable under current zoning. For the final
118 cases, there is 287,810 square feet of un-built floor area.
Total Square Footage Available
Both Single Family &
Duplex
R-6 66,897
R-15 143,760
R-15A 5,149
R-16B 31,604
R-30 40,400
All 287,810
Single Family
R-6 29,367
R-16 24,542
R-16A 2,189
R-15B 31,604
R-30 4,097
All 91,799
Extrapolating Study Results
The original number of cases in the sample was approximately fifty percent (50%) of existing
single family homes in the city. Therefore, the estimate of total square footage available for
redevelopment/expansion in single family homes in the five residential zone districts is
approximately 575,620. A similar calculation shows the potential for 236 single family homes to
be redeveloped and expanded.
For perspective, the city experienced the highest number of residential redevelopment/expansion
projects (also known as scrape and replace) in 2005, when 45 homes were replaced and
expanded. The conclusion of this sampling study is that there remains a very substantial potential
for redevelopment and expansion of single-family homes in the City of Aspen.
Duplex
R-6 37,530
R-16 119,218
R-15A 2,960
R-16B 0
R-30 36,303
All 196,011
r_ __.. _. _... -_..___.
Exhibit E
Chapter 26.475
DEVELOPMENT PACING SYSTEM
Sections:
26.475.010 Purpose.
26.475.020 Authority
26.475.030 Applicability.
26.475.040 General
26.475.050 Quarterly Reservation Limits - Single-Family and Duplex
Development
26.475.060 Quarterly Reservation Limits -Commercial, Mixed-Use, Lodging,
Multi-Famity, and Public Facility Development
26.475.070 Accounting Procedure
26.475.080 Reservation Application Procedures
26.475.090 Reservation Issuance
26.475.100 Appeals
26.475.010 Purpose.
This Chapter is designed to ensure that the rate at which. new development and
redevelopment occurs does not exceed the community's ability to cope with associated
public facility and service demands, the level of disruption within existing established
neighborhoods, and accompanying changes to community chazacter. The City finds and
determines that the pace of construction has a significant impact on neighborhoods. T'he
impacts of excessive new construction activity include:
A. Increases in traffic and congestion on local and.arterial streets;
B. Increased demands for emergency services and fue protection, resulting in slower
response times for emergency and fire services; and
C. Reductions in air quality resulting from increases in traffic, construction activities,
and dust; and
D. Increases in noise and disturbances in local neighborhoods; and
E. A reduction in the quality of life and visual chazacter of local neighborhoods
resulting from the storage and disposal of construction materials, heavy truck
pazking, and increases in human activity; and
F. Increases in stormwater generation, erosion and sedimentation
The City further fmds that controlling the pace of construction activity will minimize the
impacts described above, balance the impacts of construction between the City's
neighborhoods, and accommodate reasonable development and construction activities in
January 29a' & 30's Development Pacing System Draft -Page I
a manner that is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and other established
City land use policies.
26.475.020 Authority.
The Community Development Director, in accordance with the procedures, standazds,
and limitations of this Chapter and of Common Development Review Procedures,
Section 26.304, shall review and approve or disapprove a land use application for a
Development Reservation.
The land use application requesting a Redevelopment Reservation may not be
consolidated with other land use requests.
26.475.030 Applicability.
A. Sinele-Family and Duplex Development. This Chapter shall apply to the
following types of development involving asingle-family or duplex residence
within the City of Aspen:
1. The replacement after demolition of an existing single-family
dwelling, multiple detached residential-units on one parcel, or a
s u ~5 duplex dwelling, regazdless of when the lot was subdivided or
`~1~ legally described. (Also see defmition of Demolition -Section
` `E' 26.104.100.)
2. The development of a new single-family dwelling, multiple
detached residential units or a duplex dwelling on a vacant lot that
v/as subdivided or was a legally described pazcel prior to
November 14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Section
26.480.020(E) Aspen Townsite Lots.
3. The development of a new single-family dwelling, multiple
detached residential units on one pazcel, or a duplex dwelling; or a
dwelling unit on a on a lot created by a Lot Split or Historic
Landmark Lot Split approved pursuant to Chapter 26.480 -
Subdivision.
+~.~~ 4. The development of a new single-family dwelling, multiple
k,~'~; detached residential. units on one parcel, or a duplex dwelling on a
vacant lot, regardless of when the lot was subdivided or legally
described.
~, 5. The Significant Remodel (need to define) of asingle-family
.~ dwelling, multiple detached residential units on one parcel, or a
duplex dwelling, regazdless of when the lot was subdivided or
legally described.
B. Multi-Family Development. This Chapter shall apply to the following types of
multi-family residential development:
January 29`" & 30a' Development Pacing System Draft -Page 2