Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.joint.19991119 Aspen Area Community Plan Joint Planning & Zoning Commissions Meeting Notes from November 11, 1999 In attendance: Bob Blaich Sheri Sanzone Tim Mooney Peter Martin Gayle Embrey Steven Buettow (came late) Roger Hunt (came late) Steve Whipple (left early) Ron Erickson (left early) Charlie Tarver Staff in attendance: Julie Ann Woods Cindy Houben Mary Roberts (Holasing) Stephanie Millar Lynn Hoffrnan Louise Smart (facilitator) The purpose of the meeting on November 11th was to folloW-up on the requests for additional information made by the Planning and Zoning Commission members at the last AACP meeting in August. Future Land Use Map and Urban Growth Boundary The group felt that the Future Land Use Map presented by Dave Michealson provided a beneficial overview of the Aspen Area. However, the group requested additional map information in order to better understand how the mapping was developed and understand its component parts. Additional maps in one of the following formats are desired: 1) a series of independent future land use maps, depicting each type of use (affordable housing, open space, etc.); 2) a Series of acetate overlays accompanying an existing land use map, enabling the viewer tO capture the relationships between the existing and future conditions; or 3) a computerized presentation of the mapping issues described above. The Commissioners would also like to see a map depicting the concentric rings they envision as part of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The rings identify development areas and would set policies related to encouraging appropriate levels of development in each area. The group would like to see accompanying text describing the policies for each "ring". Members also suggested an analysis of transportation nodes, a map of open space be outlined by specific use, aerial photographs showing landmarks, future affordable housing sites, an annexation overlay with time frames, and that the commercial components of ski areas be further defined by use. Intergovernmental Agreement/Rezoning ~'-'-~ There was a general consensus on the need for an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County regarding the adoption of the Urban Growth .Boundary. In order to implement this type of growth management, there will need to be some downzoning of parcels outside the UGB and some upzoning of parcels (for affordable housing) inside the UGB. The IGA could be used as a tool to ensure appropriate levels of coordination between the jurisdictions regarding master planning, rezoning, annexations, and other issues supportive of the UGB. One member expressed concerns with the potential implications of the IGA regarding down,zoning outside of the UGB and how that might impact property values. It was also added 'that possible incentives and disincentives could be used to encourage the change in zoning regarding the UGB. Staff stated that they would present a draft IGA at the next meeting. Transferable Development Rights It was agreed that studies regarding the City's acceptance of TDR's and the development of a receivership program be developed as is outlined in the Community Development Work Program for 2000. The TDR can be used as a'tool to create more density within the UGB and preserve open space outside of the UGB. Population Estimates The members agreed to accept the population estimates for 1997/98 as laid out in the Existing Conditions Report. These numbers were reinforced by Bob Schultz, who presented comparisons to the population estimates found in the Highway 82 Corridor Investment Study. Some Commissioners also said they would be interested in seeing some historical trend data from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District if it is available, and a comparison with other similar ~' Colorado towns. Population Build Out Vs. Dwelling Unit Build Out It was agreed that the use ora dwelling unit build out is more practical than a population build our. However, it was suggested that assumptions be made concerning a population build out from the dwelling unit build out numbers. Growth Management Quota System The existing GMQS is effective in capturing new growth. However, there was widespread agreement that the GMQS is falling to capture growth in terms of~emodels and exempt subdivisions because they do not compete for allocations. It is generally felt'by this group that the overall impact of all development on the community is lost under the current GMQS. It was suggested by staff that a lottery system, such as that used in Boulder, is fi'aught with problems and should not be explored for Aspen; rather, the current system needs to be restructured to capture as much growth and change as possible, without jeopardizing the effectiveness of the program. The Commissioners want to sustain those elements of the community that create appeal, but felt that it was necessary to capture other kinds of growth more efficiently. Among the issues mentioned were capturing the impacts of commercial development and the proliferation of non- profits within the GMQS as well, perhaps by way of a possible business fee. Another suggestion _ was to measure GMQS through employee generation for both commercial and residential construction and change in use. In other words, make the employer responsible for the real impacts on the community. The members agreed that to capture as much growth as possible, it is necessary to consider the following: closing loopholes in the system and eliminating exemptions; considering the usefulness of a square footage based system versus a valuation based system; and including changes in use. The Aspen City Council and the Housing Authority Board have committed to providing more affordable housing units than there are allocations for under the existing GMQ system. Currently, there are 599 100% Affordable Housing (AH) units left (which includes the portion of AH units from the 70/30 split) and 104 Resident Occupied units, wh/ch make up the 703 deed- restricted units remmning as of 1999. The Plan Update calls for an overall range of 700-1300 affordable housing units by 2020. If we stay at the Iow end of the range and augment the provision of affordable housing through buydowns of existing units, then no reallocation would be necessary and the ceilings for allocated units could remain as is. However, if we aim for the upper end of the 700-1300 range, reallocation or additional allocations would be necessary, m accommodate the 597 outstanding units that do not fit under the current GMQS ceiling. However, it is still important to note that even at the upper range of 1300 affordable housing units over the next 20 years, the community would still be able to stay within its goal of a maximum population of 30,000 full and part-time residents and tourists. The general consensus was to remove barriers to affordable housing in the city center (see int]ll development) and to reallocate allotments to allow for the affordable housing goal to be achieved. Some of the members were not comfortable with the high end of the range (1300 units) and did not want to be tied into th~it number. There was a general consensus to provide for pacing the rate of change for both new construction and the redevelopment of existing lots. In addition, the members would like to explore concurrency of infrastructure and development and encourage transit-linked affordable housing at the edge as well as within the UGB. Infrastructure and Capacity The P&Z did not feel that it was their decision to request updates to the studies of the Sanitation District Study and the Water Supply Availability Study. They would like to see the impact of infrastructure costs on Affordable Housing construction. The members would like to further investigate concurrency standards and changes to the City and County Land Use Codes that will support goals of pacing change and growth, which will be addressed through the GMQS study. Infill Development The members were extremely pleased with Alan Richrnan's study, Regulatory Barriers to Imfill Development and Strategies to Overcome these Barriers. The members stated that they would like to schedule'a work session with City Council and the City Planning & Zoning Commission as soon as possible to adopt these measures through without delay. The members also agreed to remove the recommendation to increase City employee mitigation to 100% from the Plan, and to further discuss the level of mitigation during the work session with City Council. During the meeting, the issue was raised on the disruption caused to the community by infill redevelopment. Also, the members would like to explore infill development in terms of Affordable Housing for vacant lots, tear downs, and add,ons. ~-- Purchase of Open Space It was agreed upon that sites identified as possible joint open space/affordable hous'mg sites be evaluated by the City Parks Department and the Housing Authority for both Open Space and Housing purposes before the land is acquired. Acquisitions will be made in accordance with the Future Land Use Map. A fiscal analysis of the identified "for purchase" sites will be required, identifying a pro-active acquisition timeline to begin negotiations. Managing the Size and Composition of the Workforee Staff and consultants who addressed this issue both felt that attempting to directly manage the size and composition of the workf6rce presented serious problems. Consultant Ford Frick who reviewed the plan for economic sustainability implications called this action item "the most eyebrow raising" portion of the plan and suggested it not be pursued: Facilitator's Bin The following items were placed in a "bin" as new items to be broached if time allowed, issues to be considered at a later date, or suggestions made by the public in attendance: concurrency standards impacts of Affordable Housing on traffic and parking buydowns · Affordable Housing through zoning Next Steps The next meeting of the Joint Planning and Zoning Commissions is scheduled for December 16th from 5 PM to 9 PM in Council Chambers, dinner will be Served. At that time, the group will go over the potential future land use map and additional maps in more detail, the Intergovernmental Agreement, and other outstanding issues from the November 1 lth meeting, and recommend that public hearing begin on the Draft Plan in January. January 18th has been identified as a preliminary date for the first public hearing.