HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20021126~ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 26, 2002
MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2
INFILL LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS ........................................................ 2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 26, 2002
Jasmine Tygre opened the special Planning and Zoning meeting at 4:30 p.m. in
Council Chambers with Jack Johnson, Ruth Kruger and Eric Cohen present. Dylan
Johns arrived at 4:40 p.m. Ron Erickson, Bert Myrin and Roger Haneman were
excused. Staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris
Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
MINUTES
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve the minutes from 10/29/02;
seconded by Jack Johnson. APPROVED 4-0.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (09/03/02, 09/17/02, 9/24/02, 10/01/02,
10/08/02, 10/15/02, 10/22/02, 10/29/02, 11/05/02, 11/12/02, 11/19/02):
INFILL LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Infill Land Use Code
Amendments. Chris Bendon stated that this was the last significant infill
amendment to the Growth Management Quota System in the Land Use Code.
Bendon said that the managing growth section of the AACP based the maximum
population growth between 28,000 to 30,000 people within the community growth
area (from the busiest month of July 1998) and restricted development to a growth
rate of no faster than 2% (affordable housing exempted). Under goals was a
growth limitation for the quality of life for residents and enjoyment for visitors;
refer back to the maximum population of 30,000 people (total population including
fulltime and part time residents, tourists and commuters).
Bendon stated that the housing section contained a policy to provide 800 to 1300
additional affordable housing units within the Aspen Community Growth
Boundary. The plan included potential affordable housing sites and estimates with
a number of units illustrated on a chart included in the report.
Bendon said that Alan Richman was hired for the Barriers to Infill Development as
part of the Simple Streamlined Approval Process for development, which vary
with a complicated criticism of the process. There was an analysis of the process,
which for the developer represents risk; the more processes the more subjective
and the higher risk. Bendon said that the developer would not go into growth
management because of the process with higher risks. The Simplified Process did
not add mass to structures such as other incentives but reduced administrative
costs; incentives could be additional FAR or a reduced and diminished process.
The recommendation was to substantially modify growth management and
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 26, 2002
implement a straightforward approval process using objectiw: criteria to evaluate
projects administratively. The proposed zoning was not structured to influence
large-scale redevelopment.
Bendon said the reconstruction credit for redevelopment had a critical effect on the
infill program's liability because of the reconstruction penalty that altered the
natural rejuvenation process of commercial and lodging properties; rejuvenation of
those properties was the primary'goal of the infill program.
Bendon stated that the annual lodge pool for growth management was to be
eliminated along with the date process, the scoring and the joint review process
with the county. The allocation of commercial growth by each zone district was
also to be deleted. The growth management would be kept primarily as a planning
and zomng process for review.
Bendon explained the formula for the development ceiling with relation to the
proposed GMQS tables included in the proposed section changes. The terms
exempt and exemption were used ~ncorrectly and would be corrected in the
revision.
Bendon said that affordable housing had 2 provisions for residential development,
the 60/45 rule, which was 60% of the units and 45% of the floor area must be
affordable. The 70/30 rule was 70% of the units and bedrooms were affordable
and 30% were free-market, which was an available PUD process. The P&Z
reviews were for all essential public facilities, conversion of residential
reconstruction credits, any projects deemed exceptional projects and projects with
cash-in-lieu payments. City Council would also review exceptional projects.
There were charts illustrating the employee generation and procedures for the
development allotments.
The commission discussed the differences in sites for the development allowed in
the downtown core and other zone districts with regards to growth and employee
mitigation.
Bendon said that a 500 square foot exemption could be given for alley stores. Jack
Johnson favored the idea. Ruth Kruger thought it was a good idea but impractical
to operate because alleys were not attractive. Bendon said the concerns were the
deliveries, trash and noise. Kruger asked what incentive would there be for the
landlord. Dylan Johns asked if there could be a possibility of deed-restricted
commercial space. Kruger thought there might be legal problems with commercial
deed-restrictions. Tygre stated that the rate couldn't be deed-restricted. Johnson
asked to imagine if it were successful it would be like Aspen was in the 60's or
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 26~ 2002
70's; potentially if it took off it could be comparable to the mall. The parameters
needed to be set with regards to zoning and health/safety issues. The commission
concerns were to offer incentives for the types of stores, meeting the affordable
housing mitigation requirements, 500 square feet or less, staff review with no limit
on the type of use.
The commission agreed with the staff review for many of the applications and with
planning & zoning review for design standards, growth allotments and to
constantly re-evaluate the process. The new criteria included historic landmark not
needing to provide affordable housing for employee mitigation; free-market could
not exceed the affordable on site; a blanket provision; a minimal effect on the
public infrastructure or improving the public infrastructure; and planning & zoning
review for cash-in-lieu.
The commission discussed Exceptional project criteria and how to rate the project
using all or part of the criteria; the criteria were subjective but could be flexible.
Bendon said that affordable housing outside the city limits was being proposed as
mitigation. The only portion that went to Council on Growth Management was the
multiple year development allotments, which would be significant projects.
The commissioners thanked Chris for the monumental amount of work.
MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to continue the public hearing on the
Infill Land Use Code Amendments to December 10, 2002; seconded by
Ruth Kruger. APPROVED 5-0.
The cornn2i~ 's~ion ad!oumed at 7:00 p.m.
~ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
4