HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.worksession.20090908AGENDA
JOINT WORK SESSION
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONS &
PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Rio Grande Meeting Room
Aspen, Colorado
September 8, 2009
4:30 PM WORKSESSION
1. Review of the Aspen Area Community Plan update
a. Review of Managing Growth -Vision & Philosophy
b. Review of Managing Growth -Cliff Weiss Presentation
7:30 PM ADJOURN WORKSESSION
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission; Pitkin
County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jessica Garrow, City Long Range Planner
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: September 3, 2009
MEETING DATE: September 8, 2009, 4:30pm in Rio Grande
RE; Managing Growth Open Discussion 4
SUMMARY: Following the joint meeting on September ls`, staff met and discussed the
feedback we've heard from the P&Zs at the past three meetings. We believe there has been
enough discussion around the Vision/Intent and Philosophy of Managing Growth for us to begin
drafting those sections. Staff will send a draft of the Vision/Intent and Philosophy sections
regarding Managing Growth and a Sustainable Economy to the P&Zs as a supplement to this
packet.
However, there is one area of discussion regarding Vision/Intent and Philosophy that remains for
the P&Zs, and that is regarding managing growth in AABC area which includes the AABC and
properties west of the Maroon Creek Bridge, including the Inn at Aspen, Base of Buttermilk, the
Airport, CMC and several others. This will be the first AACP to focus on the AABC area and its
role in the future of the Aspen Area. There was extensive public feedback on what kind of
growth should occur in the AABC area as part of the Community Survey and clicker meetings.
(This was part of the packet for the Aug. 18 meeting -please contact staff if you need another
copy.)
SEPTEMBER 8: Staff is suggesting that the first agenda item should be a discussion on the
philosophy of managing growth in the AABC area. Once that discussion is completed, staff
suggests the P&Zs provide feedback on the draft Vision/Intent and Philosophy for Managing
Growth and a Sustainable Economy. Staff would like to heaz if we have missed anything, if there
are major changes the P&Zs would like to see, etc.
After hearing feedback on the Vision/Intent and Philosophy, staff suggests that City P&Z
member Cliff Weiss give his presentation on managing growth in the residential sector. Staff
believes this presentation will be a good jumping off point for a more detailed discussion of
goals and action items for the residential sector of managing growth. If we aze able to get this far
on September 8`h, staff suggests that the first topic to discuss with regard to goals and action
Page 1 of 3
items is "pacing growth." This is partly because staff has prepared a summary of six cities and
towns across the United States who use building permit allocation systems to manage pace (see
Exhibit B).
Questions to address at the September 8`h meeting include:
1. The Aspen Airport Business Center was established in the early 1970s, focusing
originally on providing a location for service commercial businesses, including
contractors, auto repair, large appliances, building materials etc. Since that time, this area
has changed and now includes some retail, office uses, institutional uses and residential
uses. In other words, this area has morphed from a traditional small business park into a
neighborhood that includes a wide range of uses. In a very real sense, this is no longer the
"Aspen Airport Business Center," but has grown into something else? How can we
describe its role today in the Aspen Area? What kinds of uses should be there in the
future? How should it relate to the downtown in terms of uses?
2. Within the context of growth, what is the relationship of the AABC and properties west
of Mazoon Creek to Aspen as:
• A self sustaining residential community (ABC/North 40)
• A service center
• The visual and physical entrance and transition from rural to resort area
• An incubator for affordable businesses
• Part of the tourist economy (lodging, base of Buttermilk)
• A hub for public/institutional uses (airport, CMC, ACSD, RFTA, etc.)
• A potential civic center
• An affordable housing location
• An area for sprawl or infill
What is the impact of growth out there on the commercial core -Will growth draw life
out of the commercial core or compliment it?
3. Taking into account the discussion on the AABC: If growth is to occur, where should it
occur and why?
4. Has staff missed anything important in its draft of the Vision/Intent and Philosophy
section for Managing Growth and a Sustainable Economy? Are there any red flags for
P&Z members? Does it accurately reflect the P&Zs discussions to this point? Has it
answered the questions regarding what types of uses we want to encourage, and what
types of uses we want to limit? Is it close enough to completion so the P&Zs can
comfortably move on to a discussion of goals and action items?
5. (If we have the time to talk about goals and action items regarding "pacing growth"),
what can we learn from the building permit allocation systems of other cities and towns
that may be applicable in the Aspen Area?
Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Summary of September 15` meeting
Exhibit B: Background on Pacing Systems in other Communities
Page 3 of 3
Exhibit A
Summary of Joint Planning and Zoning; Commissions Meeting
Courthouse Meeting Room /September 1, 2009
The following is not intended to serve as minutes, but to summarize P&Z discussion on the
questions posed in the memo. The summary of P&Z responses incorporate elements of previous
P&Z discussions.
Question 1:
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 provide 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?
P&Z Response: There were several areas of consensus, including:
/ If our position is that we should focus on the tourism economy as the only long-
term sustainable economy, then the answer to the basic question is, yes we
should replenish the lodging inventory.
/ The primary concern is that development or redevelopment of lodging respects
the context of the built environment and the architectural heritage of the area.
/ A preference for a relatively low level of amenities in lodges, primarily so that
visitors are encouraged to use the "town as amenity." This approach also has
the benefit of reducing job generation and keeping mass and scale to a
responsible level.
/ To the degree there are amenities on-site, there should be a demonstrated
community benefit.
/ We should not try to define lodge in terms of pricing, but it's appropriate to
encourage small room sizes and a relatively low level of amenities as an indirect
method of creating relatively affordable lodging inventory, especially
considering the loss of economy and moderate lodge rooms in recent years.
Question 2:
Are there appropriate locations for luxury lodging versus moderate or economy lodging?
P&Z Response:
The P&Zs do not want to see luxury lodging in one area versus moderate or
economy lodges in another area. Lodging should integrate a mixture of different types
of inventory, with one suggestion to mix different types of rooms vertically. One P&Z
member cautioned that if lodging is the lowest profit-returning use allowed in a zone
district, they will ultimately convert to a higher use if such higher uses (such as single-
family/duplex residential) are allowed.
9.8.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit A
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A
Question 3:
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?
P&Z Response:
The consensus was that metro districts are an appropriate tool to help fund
lodge development, as well as potential reductions in government fees in exchange for
community benefits. Several P&Z members were willing to explore the potential of
public financing, but there was consensus opposing public-private partnerships with
direct subsidies.
Question 4:
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"?
P&Z Response:
Yes. There was a lot of public feedback supporting this type of initiative. Balance,
diversity and uniqueness are important elements of downtown retail. Perhaps most
important are the basic products and services such as food, pharmacy, hardware, etc.
There was some discussion of needing more moderate restaurants. It remains a difficult
task to define "locally-serving," which will be addressed when we get to goals and action
items.
Question 5:
One of the themes raised by CCLC, SkiCo, and the private sector interviews, is the
importance that the Aspen Area remain relevant to younger generations. Should we
focus on ensuring the Aspen Area is attractive for a new generation of visitors and
residents? If yes, what needs to be done in the lodging and retail sectors to do this?
P&Z Response: Yes, we need young people living and working here, which will help to drive
interesting nightlife, skiing, etc. for younger visitors. Loss of affordable restaurants,
retail and nightlife work against attracting young people. Younger people are put off by
"high-end" image. Creative and interesting special events, a balanced lodging inventory,
unique retail, vital nightlife and the arts scene will tend to help this effort. Providing the
appropriate type of affordable housing may be primary method. Other comments
included:
/ The whole town was 25 years old in the 1970s.
/ The tourism industry creates largely seasonal jobs.
/ How are conditions created so that young people want to stay and not just use
Aspen for "puberty."
/ Some type of "incubator" space could be very important in this effort.
/ How about Aspen Peace Corps?
/ There is a loss of vitality as the town gentrifies.
9.8.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit A
Page 2 of 2
Exhibit B
Summary of Cities, Towns with Building Permit Allocation Systems
The following is a review of six cities and towns across the country who have a growth
management program that focuses on limiting building permit allocations on an annual basis.
The review includes the purpose and various important elements of the program.
City of Boulder
Purpose. To establish a 1% annual growth rate, starting in 1981, to preserve "the unique
environment and high quality of life, to avoid deterioration of air and water quality" and so the
pace of development doesn't exceed the availability of public facilities and services.
Number of Allocations. Calculated each year based on a 1% increase in number of existing
dwelling units.
Exempt or Partially Exempt Uses. No allocation is required for lodging units, college housing,
affordable housing, mixed use development or single-family lots established prior to 1976. No
allocation is required for residential redevelopment that does not increase the existing number of
dwelling units.
Up to 30 exemptions per year for historic landmazk properties and group homes. The planning
board may grant exemptions for "unmet community need"; or if constraints of building
size/configuration infrastructure phasing requires more allocations.
Bankin Carry-Over. If some allocations are not used in the prior year, they can be rolled over to
the next yeaz, up to 25% of total allocations in current year.
Allocations can be "banked" without planning boazd approval if banking is based on minimum
building size. They may be banked with planning board approval if building
configuration/infrastructure requires a certain amount of project to be built at one time.
Timin .First-come first served, quarterly basis
City of Golden
Purpose. The intent was to implement the "People's Ordinance" of 1995 to establish a 1 % annual
residential growth rate. It was based largely on Boulder's methods.
Number of Allocations. Calculated each year based on a 1% increase in number of existing
dwelling units.
Exempt Uses. Allocation system does not include college housing, residential redevelopment
that does not increase existing number of dwelling units. Exemptions may be granted by ballot
election or Council approval if it is a senior or urban renewal project near transit and trails, or a
mixed use project with at least 25% commercial.
9.8.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit B
Page 1 of 6
Exhibit B
Bankin¢/Carry-Over. No carry-over from year to year. Same banking requirements as Boulder.
Timing & Method. Semi-annual. Via lottery.
Hudson, Ohio
Pur~OSe• The goal was to slow down the boom in residential development so public
infrastructure and services were available at the same time as development, and to prevent
further deterioration of facilities, infrastructure and service levels. Also to protect "the
community character of the city as a desirable place to live and conduct business" and "to
prevent overcrowding and congestion."
The City Council also found that the cost of services and infrastructure exceeded the financial
capability of the city to provide them; there was a growing imbalance between residential and
non-residential uses that contributed to budget shortfalls; the city needed time to plan and
provide infrastructure and services to accommodate new residential development and attract
commercial development; and there was a need for affordable and senior housing that wasn't
sufficiently addressed.
Number of Allocations. Set annually by City Council upon hearing a report on previous year,
budget information, progress toward infrastructure and service improvements.
Exempt or Partially Exempt Uses. Eighty percent of annual allocation set aside for "priority
development," including (in order) affordable housing, senior housing, single-family homes on
lots legally established before 1996, single-family lots on a minimum of five acres with direct
access ton public streets and utilities.
City Council may approve 30 more allocations per year if they are for a project that sets aside
25% of units as affordable housing for seniors, or mixed use projects that revitalize downtown or
existing subdivisions that amend plans to reduce density, protect riparian habitat, preserve open
space.
Allocation system does not include residential redevelopment that does not increase existing
number of dwelling units.
Banking/Carry-Over. No automatic carry-over. May be carried over by Council.
Timing & Method. Semi-annual. City Manager recommends allocation list to Council.
Key West, Florida
Pur~ose• To manage growth due to the unacceptable length of time needed for hurricane
evacuation. System was the result of legal challenges and state court decision, which required
specific implementation of city's 1990 Comprehensive Plan.
9.8.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit B
Page 2 of 6
Exhibit B
Number of Allocations. Annual limit on new residential/lodging permits of 91 per year from
1990 to 2002.
Exempt or Partially Exempt Uses. Thirty percent of annual allocations for affordable housing.
Does not include residential redevelopment that does not increase existing number of dwelling
units. Does not include projects with existing vested rights. Annual "sub-quotas" on different
es of residential and lodge uses were "sensitive to differing trip generating characteristics ..."
Banking/Carry-Over. No details on banking. No carry-over.
Timin¢ & Method. No details available.
From City of Key West website, 2008: "Over time, most of the available allocations were
exhausted, although a small pool of units dedicated to affordable housing and for "beneficial use"
(the minimum use needed to provide owners with reasonable use of their land) have been
reserved.
"On Februazy 29, 2008, in response to legal challenges, the City invoked a "zoning in progress"
doctrine to address deficiencies in the existing Building Permit Allocation System Ordinance.
During the prepazation of the new ordinance the City will only allocate new units for workforce
housing. Because so few new units existed in the system anyway, the zoning in progress
resolution has had little impact on actual development in the City. Most development continues
to be redevelopment of existing units which aze either acknowledged as lawfully established
prior to the institution of the Building Permit Allocation System or can demonstrate that they
have valid allocations."
Mount Pleasant, South Carolina
Purpose. To manage growth fora 10-year period in order to implement capital improvements for
roads, school system and improve other municipal infrastructure and services to handle new
residential development.
Town Council found that town has experienced unprecedented residential growth due to
proximity of City of Charleston and public beaches, increasing traffic congestion and noise, and
requiring greater town workforce and infrastructure. The town's road system is barely capable of
handling current traffic volumes, a situation which will worsen, posing a threat to public safety
in the face of a hurricane. Growth has outpaced the town's ability to gain funding for road
upgrades -these can be funded and implemented by 2010. If growth is not managed, taxes will
increase substantially to maintain levels of service of town facilities, including roads and schools
etc.
The allocation program "recognizes the expectations of owners and developers, allows all
applicants a fair opportunity for a permit, but at a pace that allows for capital improvements
needed to maintain the coveted quality of life in the town."
9.8.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit B
Page 3 of 6
Exhibit B
The town seeks a plan that would not foreclose to the less fortunate the opportunity for access to
reasonably priced safe and sanitary housing.
Number of Allocations. Annual report to Council describes number of permits sought and
obtained in the past year and progress toward capital improvements. Allocation between 2000
and 2005 is 3,442 single-family and 253 multi family, based on 3% annual growth. From 2005 to
2010, allow 3,720 single family and 1,590, based on 3% annual growth rate.
Exempt or Partially Exempt Uses. Each residential unit requires one allocation (including duplex
and multi-family), but multi-family allocations granted in bulk and may exceed quarterly
allocations. Does not apply to residential redevelopment where no new dwelling units are
created. Affordable housing is exempt.
Bankine/Carry-Over. If allocations run out, allocations from the next quarter can be used -but
NOT at end of each year. Unallocated permits can carry over to the next year.
Timing & Method. Quarterly process. First come, first served.
Half Moon Bay, California
Pur~ose• Electorate approved Measure A in 1991, limiting annual building permits to 3% growth
with a priority for downtown infill. Purpose is to preserve the quality of life in the community;
protect and enhance public and private open space, parks and recreation facilities; and ensure
that adequate public school facilities will be available to serve new development.
Electorate approved Measure D in 1999, reducing annual growth rate to 1%: To protect the
health and safety of existing and future residents by controlling the rate of future residential
growth in the City during periods of infrastructure capacity constraints, particularly those related
to water supply, sewage treatment capacity, school facilities, open space, parks, and streets and
highways.
Number of Allocations. Calculated by determining how many additional dwelling units would
result in 1% growth in population. Half of the allocations to be used only in downtown infill
area.
Exempt or Partially Exempt Uses. Affordable housing density bonuses as provided by state law
are exempt. Allocations not required for residential redevelopment that does not increase existing
number of dwelling units.
Bankine/Cam-Over. Information not available.
Timing & Method. Semi-annual. Via Lottery
9.8.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit B
Page 4 of 6
Exhibit B
Conclusions
In all cases, the purpose of an annual cap on the issuance of building permits is a mixture of
preserving quality of life and natural resources, preventing traffic congestion and allowing the
municipality to provide necessary infrastructure and services.
In some case, setting the annual limit on building permits is a simple calculation allowing for a
1% growth rate (either in dwelling units or population). In other cases, the annual limit is set
after the legislative body reviews a report on progress toward providing necessary infrastructure
and services. In Mount Pleasant, there is a "sunset" on the permit-capping program. The permit
allocation system is tied to a specific period of time (10 years) during which the town will
upgrade roads and schools. Once infrastructure projects are completed, Mount Pleasant intends
to drop the pacing program.
This provides the P&Zs with a choice of different rationales for implementing a pacing system,
ranging from the somewhat undefined (quality of life) to very specific achievements (for
example, `solving' the Entrance to Aspen, or some other major improvement). Interestingly,
local public feedback revealed an interest in future growth in the AABC area, but only if
"substantial improvements" are made to the transportation system.
In all the above cases, exemptions are made for affordable housing and a list of other "desired"
types of development, such as senior housing, mixed use development in downtown areas etc.
One potential in the Aspen Area would be to exempt residential redevelopment from pacing if
the property is owned by a local employee who agrees to place a Resident Occupied designation
on the property until it is sold to someone who doesn't qualify under APCHA eligibility
requirements. (This was a suggestion from Marcella Larson.)
It is interesting to note that all of the building permit capping systems in this study exem t
"scrape and replace" redevelopment. They specifically exempt redevelopment that does not
increase the number of dwelling units. This does not mean that the City of Aspen or Pitkin
County must also exempt residential development from a pacing program.
It is important to recognize that the annual cap on building permits is the method by which these
cities and towns manage growth: Staff refers to this kind of system as downstream growth
management. In contrast, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County have placed annual caps on the
number of development approvals since 1976: Staff refers to this kind of system as upstream
growth management. There are no examples of municipalities that use both an upstream and a
downstream growth management system. The likely reason is that both kinds of growth
management control growth, with the only difference found in when such controls are applied
during the review process.
In certain ways, both systems have similar weaknesses in terms of actually controlling the
number of building permits that aze acted upon each year. In downstream systems, the capability
for "banking" building permit allocations (in some cases, for up to five years) allows applicants
to vary when construction will actually occur. In upstream systems, the legal notion of "vested
rights" allows applicants to vary when construction will actually occur.
9.8.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit B
Page 5 of 6
Exhibit B
In both cases, growth control municipalities remain at the whim of the national economy to a
significant degree when it comes to the intensity of construction activity. One of the key
questions becomes: Is a municipality willing to deny/limit the banking of building permits
allocations, or deny/limit the term of vested rights? And what are the legal implications (vested
rights are established by state law)?
According to preliminary research, cities and counties must grant vested rights under Colorado
law, however we are still investigating whether that term must be three years. Staff has
determined that cities and counties are not mandated to extend vested rights. Also, the existing
criteria for extending vested rights in the city and county could be amended.
9.8.09 P&Z Meeting, Exhibit B
Page 6 of 6