HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20110105 MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
City & County Planning & Zoning Commissions
FROM: Jessica Garrow, City Long Range Planner
Ben Gagnon, City Special Projects Planner
Chris Hendon, City Community Development Director
Cindy Houben, County Community Development Director
Ellen Sassano, County Long Range Planner
DATE OF MEMO: December 30, 2010
MEETING DATE: Wednesday, January 5, 4pm Council Chambers
RE: Review of AACP Content /Topics
REQUEST OF COUNCIL /COMMISSIONERS: No action is requested at this time. This
meeting is an opportunity for City Council, BOCC and the Planning and Zoning Commissions to
discuss substantive issues in the draft AACP. Ideally, the feedback received at the meeting will
help inform the changes staff and the P &Zs will be making over the next few weeks.
The memo outlines the major topics discussed at the large group meetings, and includes some
context regarding the implications of some policies on current land use codes. Specific questions
for BOCC. Council. and the P &Zs to consider are in bold italics at the end of each major topic.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR TOPICS: The large group meetings focused on the following major
policy areas:
• Affordable Housing Mitigation
• On -Site Housing
• Modestly Sized Development
• Pacing Construction
• House Size
• Lodging Regulations
• The Development Process
Affordable Housing Mitigation: The current draft plan includes a number of policies about
mitigation levels and the location of affordable housing. The Housing chapter includes policies
stating, "All development should provide housing to accommodate 100% of its employees."
(Housing IV.1) The P &Zs included this policy to ensure long -term sustainability, and that as a
community we don't continue to fall behind in housing our workforce.
Some small group participants felt that a 100% mitigation requirement. could be prohibitive to
any new development. Others felt that the real estate market would respond to the code if these
Page 1 of 7
changes were incorporated. A series of questions were asked at the large group meetings about
this issue, including the following:
19. Which statement regarding affordable housing mitigation do you agree with the most?
Responses
(percent) (count)
All development, regardless of type, should provide affordable housing for 100% of 16.25% 26
the jobs it generates.
The current level of mitigation is adequate. 13.75% 22
Whether the amount of affordable housing stays the same or is increased in the
future, there should always some flexibility to reduce these requirements for 49.38% 79
development that provides a valuable community benefit
The current mitigation level should be lowered. 18.13% 29
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 2.50% 4
Totals 100.00% 160
The draft AACP mitigation policy would conflict with several provisions in the city land use
code, which allows for a reduction of housing mitigation from current levels for Historic
Preservation. Open Space parcels, alley stores, outdoor vending, Essential Public Facilities and
lodges featuring small rooms.
The County Land Use Code already requires an impact fee that addresses 100% of affordable
housing generated by development. However, the fee charged does not fully cover the soft and
hard costs of providing housing, and homes under 5,750 square feet in size are exempted from
payment of the fee.
To date, 26% of affordable housing units have been built through mitigation. The remaining
have been built by the public sector.
Questions to consider:
• Where does the group stand on this issue?
• Should there be multiple community benefits that can allow a developer to reduce their
affordable housing mitigation?
• If a waiver for mitigation is granted (i.e. for a community benefit), should the public
sector actively track the shortfall and make up the difference through the RETT, etc?
On - Site Affordable Housing: Another topic that drew comment at the Small Group Meetings
was the plan's "preference" for on -site housing mitigation. The policy states, "On -site mitigation
is preferred." (Housing policy IV.2) The P &Zs included this policy partly to ensure that housing
impacts are not pushed to other areas of the community or outside the community. In addition,
the P &Zs felt that if housing could not be accommodated on -site, then the development is
fundamentally too large.
Page 2 of 7
This policy would require changes to the city land use code. Currently there is an incentive for
on -site affordable housing in the downtown, but there are no other on -site housing requirements
at this time. Issues to consider are:
• The potential of real site - specific constraints,
• Certain uses being optimal for certain areas (i.e. lodging at the base of ski areas)
• Geographical areas that may be are appropriate for off -site mitigation
In addition. it is worthwhile to consider that as a result of the 2007 Housing Summit, the city has
been actively seeking financial partners to develop Burlingame, along with several land- banked
properties. In addition, the city's new Affordable Housing Credit program has resulted in the
private sector building and proposing 100% affordable housing developments; and the housing
credit market relies partly on a code that allows for off -site mitigation.
Questions to consider:
• Where does the group stand on this issue?
• Are you comfortable with the language that on -site housing is preferable, or should the
plan use more exploratory language?
• Should there be consideration of a .system that allows off site mitigation to take place
within a particular proximity !o the development (Ex: development within the core
must be mitigated within the core rather than West of Castle)?
Modest Development: Another element of the draft AACP is the use of the word "modest"
when describing the desired mass, scale and bulk of future development. Some at the Small
Group Meetings felt requiring 100% mitigation, on -site affordable housing and modest - scaled
development will make future development impossible.
Again. if the new AACP were to use the word "modest" to describe the physical appearance of
future development, it would have implications for the city land use code. Today, the city land
use code, Historic Preservation Guidelines and Commercial Design Guideliness all rely on an
analysis of new development that is based on neighborhood context, neighborhood compatibility
and harmony with the surrounding area. The following question was asked at the Large Group
Meetings in November.
5. Which statement do you agree with the most?
Responses
(percent) (count)
New development should be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. 38.89% 63
New development should be modest in bulk, mass, and scale. 32.72% 53
Neither of these statements reflect my opinion. 26.54% 43
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 1.85% 3
Totals 100.00% 162
Questions to consider:
• Where does the group stand on this issue?
Page 3 of 7
• Are you comfortable with using the word "modest" as a way to describe the bulk, mass
and scale of future development?
Pacing Construction: The draft AACP includes a policy stating, "Establish a construction
pacing system that respects the quiet enjoyment of our community and neighborhoods."
(Managing Growth 11.1) This idea has been included in every community plan since the 1970s,
but has never been implemented. The small group participants in general did not support this
policy. The large group meetings included a series of questions about establishing a pacing
system:
13. What's your opinion on establishing a construction pacing system?
Responses
(percent) (count)
I'm against it. Everyone should have the right to build when they want. 24.54% 40
We should focus on managing the impacts of construction instead. 43.56% 71
I support this. Intense construction activity ruins the quality of life for 22.70% 37
locals and visitors.
I'm not sure, but I'd like an informed and productive debate on this issue. 9.20% 15
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 0.00% 0
Totals 100.00% 163
20.) 14. I would support a construction pacing system, but only if it placed annual limits
on only the following types of development. (pick the one you agree with the mostL
Responses
(percent) (count)
Single - Family /Duplex Development 4.43% 7
Multi- Family Development 1.90% 3
Commercial Development 12.66% 20
Lodging Development 17.09% 27
All of the above 17.72% 28
None of the above. 44.94% 71
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 1.27% 2
Totals 100.00% 158
The policy is written with a focus on having a community -wide policy discussion about pacing
construction, while including some direction on the possible techniques of pacing. Implementing
a pacing system would require amendments to the city and county land use codes.
Questions to consider:
• Where does the group stand on this issue?
• Should the document include a policy about pacing construction?
Page 4 of 7
House Size: The draft AACP calls for reductions in house size throughout the`IJGB. Managing
Growth Policy 111.2 includes a bulleted list of reasons to reduce house size (included in the
clicker question below). In general, the small group participants did not support this policy. A
number of questions from the large group meetings focused on this issue.
16. Which of the impacts listed below do you agree with the most a reason to limit the size of
the largest homes? (pick one)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Protect the natural visual quality of river and stream corridors and 8.55 13
mountainsides.
Protect our small town community character and historical heritage. 25.00% 38
Reduce environmental degradation and protect the quality of our rivers and 7.24% 11
streams.
Limit consumption of energy and building materials. 14.47% 22
Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs. 3.95% 6
Reduce short- and long -term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion 1.97% 3
and demand for affordable housing.
Limit zoning variances to reduce impacts on the neighborhood and the 5.26% 8
community.
I don't agree with any of these reasons. 11.18% 17
I am comfortable with 1.7 to 3.9 million new square feet of residential 22.37% 34
development.
Totals 100.00% 152
17. I believe the most important reason to more strictly regulate future development on
mountainsides is:
Responses
(percent) (count)
Protect the scenic quality of the Aspen Area. 38.75% 62
Reduce environmental degradation. _ 31.88% 51
I don't think future development should be more strictly regulated in these 29.38% 47
areas.
Totals 100.00% 160
The P &Zs have already agreed that some of the action items that identify specific square footage
reductions in house size should be eliminated. Research and analysis as part of a code
amendment process will ultimately lead to specific recommendations.
Questions to consider:
• Where does the group stand on this issue?
• Does the group want to include a policy calling for reductions in house size?
• Is the group comfortable with eliminating specific goals for square footage reductions
front the current action items?
Page 5 of 7
• Does the group agree with the bulleted list in Managing Growth policy 111.2 as reasons
to limit /rouse size? Are there other reasons to limit house size that should be captured
in the policy?
Lodging Regulations: The current draft of the AACP includes a section on lodging. The large
group meetings asked a question about the kinds of' lodging people would like to see. Most
people felt that any lodge. regardless of price point, was important to add to our inventory.
13.) 7. Which statement do you agree with the most about replenishing our lodging bed base?
Responses
(percent) (count)
We should replenish what we've lost, but only focus on moderate and economy 28.40% 46
lodges.
We should replenish what we've lost without focusing on any one type. Any 51.23% 83
lodge we can get, even if it's in the deluxe category, is important
I don't think we need to try to replenish our bed base. 17.28% 28
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion 3.09% 5
Totals 100.00% 162
In the P &Z discussions there were distinctions made between lodging in the core and lodging in
the West of Castle area relative to characteristics of design, traffic impacts and specifically visual
qualities. Both the Managing Growth and West of Castle Creek chapters will have policies that
will influence future lodge development.
Questions to consider:
• Where does the group stand on these issues?
• Do you believe that there is a difference in the characteristics and impacts associated
with lodging inside the core vs. West of Castle? Should development standards
regarding density, size and affordability be different for those two areas?
• Should the public sector play a role in encouraging /financing the types of lodging the
community wants?
The Development Process: The draft AACP includes a number of policies and action items
seeking to increase predictability in the planning process. For instance, Managing Growth policy
1.2 states "Restore public confidence in the development process," while associated action item
I.2.a states, "Amend the land use codes to create greater expectation of certainty and
predictability in the review process."
During their deliberations thus far. the city and county P&Zs felt that PUD and COWOP land
use reviews have been too open -ended and unpredictable. Managing Growth policy VI.I states,
"Ensure that PUD and COWOP processes result in tangible community benefits and do not
damage the built environment through mass and scale that significantly exceed land use code
standards."
Page 6 of 7
The small group participants had a number of comments about the development review process.
Some felt the process has become unpredictable. while others felt that the public debate over
individual developments was informative and created better projects. The large group meetings
included a question about this issue:
11. What is your preference for how development applications should be reviewed?
Responses
(percent) (count)
The appropriate height, mass, and scale of buildings should be established
by zoning, and should never be varied. We should remove most or all of 47.55% 68
the discretion from the review process.
Development should be negotiated on a case -by -case basis, with all issues
on the table, and enough discretion for the P &Zs and Council /BOCC to 49.65% 71
bargain and negotiate.
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 2.80% 4
Totals 100.00% 143
The draft plan includes a policy that would ensure consistency between city and county codes in
the UGB (Managing Growth policy 111.1).
Questions to consider:
• Where does the group stand on these issues?
• Do you want to see any other aspects of the Development Process highlighted in the
plan?
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Results of Instant Voting Keypad Sessions / Nov. 15 & 17
Page 7of7
Exhibit A
November 15 - 17 AACP Results
Turning Results by Question
Session Name: ALL AACP SESSIONS
Created: 1111812010 3:10 PM
1.) Test Slide: How did you get here today?
Responses
(percent) (count)
I walked 27.08 % 39
I rode my bike. 4.17 % 6
I drove. 50.00 % 72
I used my jet -pack. 13 89% 20
I took the bus. 4.86% 7
Totals 100. 00% 144
2.) Where do you live?
Responses
(percent) (count)
"Innie" - inside of the Roundabout. 70.78 % 109
"Dube" - outside of the Roundabout as far as the Airport/AABC
15 58% 24
"Far Outie - I live past the Airport/AABC. 13 64% 21
(Totals 100. 154
3.) I am:
Responses
(percent) (count)
Male 58 33% 91
Female 41 67% 65
Totals 100. 00% 156
4.) I am:
Responses
(percent) (count)
Under 20 125% 2
20 -24 2.50% 4
25 -34 10.63% 17
35 -44 9.38% 15
45 -54 16.25% 26
55 - 64 35.63% 57
65 -74 19.38% 31
75+ 5.00% 8
Totals 100. 160
November 15 - 17 AACP Results
5.) I live in:
Responses
(percent) (count)
Aspen - Full Time 73.58% 117
Aspen - Part Time 1 89% 3
Pitkin County - Full Time 15.72% 25
Pitkin County - Part Time 0.00% 0
Snowmass Village 1.26% 2
Basalt/Carbondale /Glenwood Springs 6.92% 11
Other 0.63% 1
Totals 100.00% 159
6.) I've lived in the Roaring Fork Valley for:
Responses
(percent) (count)
3 years or less 4.40% 7
3 -5 years 8 18% 13
6 -10 years 11.95% 19
11 -20 years 15.09% 24
21 or more 60.38% 96
Totals 100.00% 159
7.) 1. I would like to encourage the following types of development the most. (pick up to four)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Free market housing 9.45% 50
Affordable housing 1123% 70
Larger lodging units 4.73% 25
Smaller lodging units 15.69% 83
Tourist- oriented retail space 5.67% 30
Day -to -day retail services (basics, essentials) 18.34% 97
Office space 1 70% 9
Public/institutional 5.29% 28
Arts and cultural facilities 12.67% 67
Let the market decide 13.23% 70
Totals 100.00% 529
8.) 2. I would like to encourage the following types of development the most. (pick one)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Free market housing 8.13 % 13
Affordable housing 13 75% 22
Larger lodging units 2 50% 4
Smaller lodging units 10 63% 17
Tourist - oriented retail space 1.88 % 3
Day -to -day retail services (basics. essentials) 21.88% 35
Office space 0.63% 1
Publicllnstitutional 1.88% 3
Arts and cultural facilities 10 63% 17
Let the market decide 28.13% 45
(Totals 100.00% 160
November 15 - 17 AACP Results
9.) 3. I would like to discourage the following types of development the most. (pick up to four)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Free market housing 9.81% 41
Affordable housing 14.11% 59
Larger lodging units 19.14% 80
Smaller lodging units 2 39% 10
Tourist - oriented retail space 12.92% 54
Day -to -day retail services (basics, essentials) 1.44 % 6
Office space 12 20% 51
Publidlnstitutional 11 72% 49
Arts and cultural facilities 6 46% 27
Let the market decide. 9.81 % 41
'Totals 100.00% 418
10.) 4. I would like to discourage the following types of development the most. (pick one)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Free market housing 6,29% 10
Affordable housing 28.93 % 46
Larger lodging units 27.04 % 43
Smaller lodging units 2.52% 4
Tourist - oriented retail space 6.92% 11
Day -to -day retail services (basics. essentials) 0.0D% 0
Office space 5.03% 8
Public /institutional 8.81% 14
Arts and cultural facilities 1.89% 3
Let the market decide 12.58% 20
(Totals 100.00% 159
11.) 5. Which statement do you agree with the most?
Responses
(percent) (count)
New development should be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. 38.89 % 63
New development should be modest in bulk, mass, and scale. 32.72% 53
Neither of these statements reflect my opinion. 26.54% 43
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 1.85% 3
Totals 100.00% 162
12.) 6. Which statement do you agree with the most?
Responses
(percent) (count)
New downtown buildings should reflect the Victorian era only 13.75 % 22
New downtown buildings should be allowed to evolve past the Victorian era 80 00% 128
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 6.25% 10
(Totals 100.00% 160
13.) 7. Which statement do you agree with the most about replenishing our lodging bed base?
Responses
(percent) (count)
We should replenish what we've lost, but only focus on moderate and economy 28 40 46
lodges
We should replenish what we've lost without focusing on any one type. Any
51.23% 83
lodge we can get, even if it's in the deluxe category, is important
I don't think we need to try to replenish our bed base. 1728% 28
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion 3.09% 5
(Totals 100.00% 162
November 15 - 17 AACP Results
14.) 8. Which of the reasons below do you agree with the most as reasons to keep lodging
modest in bulk, mass, and scale? (pick up to four)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Create certainty in land development 7 28% 33
Prioritize maintaining our mountain views. 16 56% 75
Protect our existing lodges 7 51% 34
Protect our small town character and historical heritage. 21.19% 96
Limit consumption of energy and building materials. 13 91% 63
Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs. 11 48% 52
Reduce short- and long -term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion 8 61% 39
and demand for affordable housing
I don't think the size of lodges should be restricted in this way 13 47% 61
(Totals 100.00% 453
15.) 9. Please choose the one reason you agree with the most as a reason to keep lodging
modest in bulk, mass, and scale? (pick one)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Create certainty in land development. 1.24% 2
Prioritize maintaining our mountain views. 13 66% 22
Protect our existing lodges. 1 24% 2
Protect our small town character and historical heritage. 37.89% 61
Limit consumption of energy and building materials. 5 59% 9
Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs 3 11% 5
Reduce short- and long -term lob generation impacts. such as traffic congestion 5.59% 9
and demand for affordable housing
I don't think the size of lodges should be restricted in this way 31.68 % 51
(Totals 10000% 161
November 15 - 17 AACP Results
16.) 10. What should be done with the mastodon, woolly mammoth, ground sloth and mouse
bones they're digging up in Snowmass Village?
Responses
(percent) (count)
Change the name from Snowmass Village to Snowmasstadon Village. 30 30% 40
Aspen better dig up something soon or we'll never see a tourist again. 32 58% 43
The Veloci -RFTA logo Coincidence or clairvoyance? 11.36% 15
What's next? Jimmy Hoffa? 10.61% 14
If only Snowmass had started its affordable housing program earlier, maybe 15.15% 20
they'd all still be alive.
(Totals 100. 132
17.) 11. What is your preference for how development applications should be reviewed?
Responses
(percent) (count)
The appropriate height. mass, and scale of buildings should be established by
zoning, and should never be varied. We should remove most or all of the 47.55 % 68
discretion from the review process.
Development should be negotiated on a case -by -case basis, with all issues on
the table, and enough discretion for the PBZs and Council /BOCC to bargain 49.65% 71
and negotiate.
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 2.80% 4
(Totals 100.00% 143
18.) 12. Remember your experience of 2005 -2006. What were your feelings about
Responses
(percent) (count)
Very concerned. There was way too much going on. 32 30% 52
It was a nuisance. but I could live with it. 40 37% 65
It didn't bother me. 18 63% 30
I wasn't here then, so I don't know what you're talking about. 8.70% 14
(Totals 100.00% 161
19.) 13. What's your opinion on establishing a construction pacing system?
Responses
(percent) (count)
I'm against it. Everyone should have the right to build when they want. 24 54% 40
We should focus on managing the impacts of construction instead. 43 56% 71
I support this. Intense construction activity ruins the quality of life for locals and
22.70% 37
visitors
I'm not sure. but I'd like an informed and productive debate on this issue. 9.20% 15
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 0.00% 0
(Totals 100.00% 163
November 15 - 17 MCP Results
20.) 14. I would support a construction pacing system, but only if it placed annual limits on
only the following types of development. (pick the one you agree with the most)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Single - Family /Duplex Development 4.43% 7
Mufti-Family Development 1.90% 3
Commercial Development 12.66% 20
Lodging Development 17.09% 27
All of the above 17.72% 28
None of the above. 44.94% 71
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 1 27% 2
ITOtals 100.00% 158
21.) 15. Which of the impacts listed below do you agree with the most as reasons to limit the
size of the largest homes? (pick up to four)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Protect the natural visual quality of river and stream corridors and 14 20% 70
mountainsides.
Protect our small town community character and historical heritage. 15.82% 78
Reduce environmental degradation and protect the quality of our rivers and 15.01 % 74
streams
Limit consumption of energy and building materials. 16.63% 82
Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs. 7.71% 38
Reduce short- and long -term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion 5.27 % 26
and demand for affordable housing.
Limit zoning variances to reduce impacts on the neighborhood and the 7 30% 36
community.
I don't agree with any of these reasons. 8.11 % 40
I am comfortable with 1.7 to 3.9 million new square feet of residential y 94 49
development.
Totals 100.00% 493
22.) 16. Which of the impacts listed below do you agree with the most a reason to limit the size
of the largest homes? (pick one)
Responses
(percent) (count)
Protect the natural visual quality of river and stream corridors and 8.55 % 13
mountainsides
Protect our small town community character and historical heritage. 25 00% 38
Reduce environmental degradation and protect the quality of our rivers and 7 24% 11
streams
Limit consumption of energy and building materials. 14.47 % 22
Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs. 3.95% 6
Reduce short- and long -term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion 1 87% 3
and demand for affordable housing.
Limit zoning variances to reduce impacts on the neighborhood and the
5.26% 8
community
I don't agree with any of these reasons. 11.18% 17
I am comfortable with 1.7 to 3 9 million new square feet of residential
22 37% 34
development
'Totals 100.00% 152
•
November 15 - 17 AACP Results
23.) 17. I believe the most important reason to more strictly regulate future development on
mountainsides is
Responses
(percent) (count)
Protect the scenic quality of the Aspen Area. 38 75% 62
Reduce environmental degradation 31 88% 51
I don't think future development should be more strictly regulated in these
29 38% 47
areas.
Totals 100.00% 160
24.) 18. Which statement do you agree with the most regarding visual impacts of development
along the Highway 82 corridor from the Airport to the round- about.
Responses
(percent) (count)
Protecting all views should be the primary consideration. 24 07% 39
Visual impacts are one of many important considerations 42.59% 69
We should identify certain views that should remain unobstructed. but not all
25 93% 42
open views have to be maintained
Views from Highway 82 should not be a consideration. 7.41 % 12
Totals 100 00% 162
25.) 19. Which statement regarding affordable housing mitigation do you agree with the most?
Responses
(percent) (count)
All development, regardless of type, should provide affordable housing for 16.25% 26
100% of the jobs it generates.
The current level of mitigation is adequate. 13 75% 22
Whether the amount of affordable housing stays the same or is increased in
the future, there should always some flexibility to reduce these requirements 49 38% 79
for development that provides a valuable community benefit
The current mitigation level should be lowered, 18.13% 29
I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 2.50% 4
(Totals 100.00% 160