Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19960910 AGENDA GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10,1996,4:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL I. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. NEW BUSINESS A. AH Overlay, Tim Malloy III. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Rhonda Harris, Administrative Assistant RE: Upcoming Agendas DATE: September 4, 1996 September 17 - Regular Meeting (4:30 PM) Text Amendments/Corrections (DM) -- ADU Regulations (DM) Aspen Meadows Traffic (SC) Weinberg ADU (BN) Kent ADU (SW) October 1- Regular Meeting (4:30 PM) Ordinance 30 (AA) TO: Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission FROM: Tim Malloy, Long Range Planning RE: AH Overlay District DATE: September 10, 1996 STAFF COMMENTS: This issue was last discussed at a meeting of the Growth Management Commission held on June 18, 1996. At this meeting there were several issues which were left unresolved. The purpose of today's meeting is to allow the Growth Management Commission to continue discussion regarding any issues Commission members may have regarding the AH Overlay code amendment as described in the attached memo and provide the County Planning and Zoning Commission with input so they can make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. During the June 18th meeting, staff presented a summary of the attached memorandum and the Growth Management Commission discussed this idea at some length. In general, members of the Growth Management Commission appeared to be supportive of the overlay concept; however, there were several concerns expressed regarding the proposed exemption for commercial square footage as well as other aspects of the proposed AH Overlay legislation. One concern was how to define "neighborhood commercial" uses and to ensure that any space which is granted a growth management exemption remains a neighborhood serving use. There was also discussion regarding the idea of requiring all commercial uses to be accessory to the principal use, how to define accessory uses and how to ensure that they remain accessory. Several members of the Commission also requested that Staff provide an exhibit showing how much affordable housing would be provided if the Highlands Village project (as an example) were to be developed under the proposed AH Overlay approach as compared to the required mitigation under the current Land Use Code. This exhibit will be presented at the meeting. At least one Commission member felt that granting a growth management exemption for commercial space is inconsistent with the intent of the AACP as it relates to commercial growth. Staff will prepared to discuss these and other issues at the meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. April 23, 1996 Staff memo to Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission re: AH Overlay. c:\home\timm\countylr\ahover\gmcseplO.doc TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Tim Malloy, Depuhf Director of Long Range Planning RE: Land Use Code Amcudment to Create an Affordable Housing Overlay/PUD (A.HOIPUD) District. DATE: April 23, 1996. REQUEST: The Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners is sponsoring this request to amend the Pitkin County Land Use Code to include an Affordable Housing Overlay/PUD District. This request is being processed pursuant to Section 3-220.10 of the Land Use Code. Amendments to the Land Use Code require a two-step review pursuant to Section 4-60.20 and 4-60.80 of the Land Use Code. In order to incorporate an Affordable Housing Overlay/PUD provision within the Land Use Code, several sections of the Code would need to be amended. The Code sections which will need to be amended are listed as follows: Section 3-20: List of Zone Districts; Section 3-40.10: Intent of Zone Districts, Allowed Uses, Special Review Uses and Dimensional Standards, (also chart in Figure 3-3); Section 3-150: List of Growth Management Exemptions and Criteria for Growth Management Exemptions; Section 3-130: Development Exactions (regarding affordable housing mitigation standards for commercial projects); Section 4-70: List of Procedures; Section 5-160: List of Submission Contents. In this memorandum, Staff will discuss the substantive code amendments and the issues surrounding them. In addition, we will provide draft language for each substantive code amendment Many of the issues discussed in this memo involve provisions of the Growth Management System for the Metro Area. As a result, Staff recommends that these issues be discussed with the Growth Management Commission prior to the Planning Commission making a recommendation to the Board. BACKGROUND: The impetus for the above described Code amendments originated during the review of the Aspen Highlands Village general submission application, which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 13, 1996. The basic idea behind this Code amendment is to provide a tool which would allow exemption from the Growth Management Quota System for the residential and local serving commercial components of mixed use projects that include affordable housing and commercial uses. In the case of the Highlands Village project, the mix of uses occurs even within the same structure. The theory behind this idea is that such projects (mixed use `vhth affordable housing and local serving commercial) would create fewer impacts on the environment and the existing infrastructure by locating commercial uses in close proximity to affordable housing. APPLICANT: Pitkin County Board of Count "Commissioners. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: The most significant amendments to the Land Use Code being proposed are those establishing the overlay'district and the exemption from the Growth Management System. Also discussed is an amendment to the Development Exactions section of the Code. Establishing the AH Overlay/PUD District✓ Compliance with AACP The basic purpose of this Code amendment is to provide another tool for encouraging the private sector to develop affordable housing in mixed use projects with local. serving commercial .uses. The AACP includes the following affordable housing goals and objectives to support the creation of the AHO/PUD zone: • We believe the "critical mass" in our community means that 60% of the work force should live up valley of Aspen Village Mobile Home Park (AACP P. 30). The current Land Use Code requires that employee generation resulting from new free- market residential development be mitigated by housing one person in deed restricted affordable housing for every three people residing in free-market residential dwelling units. Subdivisions developed in compliance with this standards result in the Aspen Area growing in a 25:75 ratio of residents in affordable housing to residents in free-market housing (hereinafter referred to as 25:75 ratio). The AACP establishes a goal for new residential development to provide a 60:40 ratio of residents in affordable housing to residents in free- market housing (hereinafter referred to as 60:40 ratio). The 60:40 housing ratio is based upon an AACP goal to achieve a certain "character" in new residential developments reminiscent of the population mix which existed at one time in the Aspen Area. The "Community Vision" section of the AACP clearly establishes that the AACP was a process by which citizen planners "develop a character based plan" (see AACP PP. 6-10). Development in the AHO/PUD will help achieve the character goals of the AACP by requiring a 60:40 ratio for the residential component of a PUD as well as a diverse mix of land uses. ,r Another goal found in the AACP is. to .create an "economically sustainable" community. It is commonly acknowledged in planning literature that residential land uses, in particular deed restricted affordable housing, in the absence of complimentary commercial land uses, will result in annual negative fiscal impacts on. local governments. Local research also indicates that residential growth results in negative fiscal impacts on the Pitkin County General Fund. One way to offset the annual negative fiscal impacts of growing in a 60:40 ratio is to permit commercial development in the AHO/PUD zone district in appropriate locations in the Aspen Metro Area. Some level of commercial development in the AHO/PUD zone district can help make the land use pattern in the Aspen Metro Area more economically sustainable as called for in the AACP. The AACP also includes the following goals and objectives regarding mixed land use development which support the creation of the AHO/PUD zone: • Seek to create a community of size, density and diversity that encourages interaction, involvement and vitality .a ong. people (AACP P. 5). • On certain large acreage parcels, micro community or neighborhood development may be appropriate, and should be considered, to accommodate permanent residents, neighborhood character, appropriate density, mixed housing types and uses, usable open space and convenient public transportation. As previously noted, the AACP is a character based plan. The Plan suggests that micro community neighborhood development which incorporates a diversity of land uses may encourage the interaction and involvement of permanent and seasonal residents and tourists reminiscent of the interaction which existed at one time in the City of Aspen. The mix of land uses which make up a micro community can be achieved in the AHO/PUD zone. The AACP includes the following goals and objectives relative to locally oriented commercial development to support the AHO/PUD zone: • Encourage land uses, businesses and events which serve both the local community and tourist base (AACP P.16). • Developments which include locally oriented businesses should be encouraged via a menu of options (AACP P.40). The AHO/PUD zone district"is `designed to'" odate local and tourist serving businesses as called for in the Plan. The AACP specifically calls for a menu of land use options to achieve adopted goals. The AHO/PUD zone serves as one option to encourage locally oriented businesses to locate within aevelopmerft` in which the permanent residents comprise the majority of the neighborhood popifki&. The AACP includes the following goals and'ob'R ivies relative to transportation to support the creation of the AHO/PM zzone: • 4 The community seeks to provide a b`'aianced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors, and commuters that reduces congestion and pollution( AACP P. 20) _., Planners and urban designers recognize that mixed use development as would be allowed in the AHO/PUD zone helps reduce reliance uporrfivate automobiles and increases use of mass transit and alternative transportation modes:: In the May of 1995, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy presented a seminar on Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality presenting examples of Transit Oriented Development Design Guidelines being utilized by several communities in Oregon, San Diego and Orlando'Morida. These communities are now requiring mixed use higher density developments to reduce the reliance on private vehicles and improve the utilization of mass transit. The mixed land uses permitted in the AHO/PUD zone will help reduce automobile dependence in the Aspen Area and help improve air quality as called for in the AACP. Staff believes that the contemplated AH Overlay/PUD district is consistent with the AACP. Proposed Amendments and Issues Section 3-20.10 of the Land Use Code lists the various zone districts. This Section would have to be amended to include the AH Overlay/PUD district. In addition, Section 3-40.10 identifies the intent of the zone districts and includes the list of allowed uses and the area and bulk standards. This Section would need to be amended to include a statement of intent for the AH Overlay/PUD District. Since this would be an "overlay" district, the allowed uses and dimensional requirements would be those for the underlying zone district(s). Thus, it would not be necessary to separately list the allowed uses for the AH Overlay/PUD district. Staff suggest that the following language be considered to amend Section 3-40 of the Code: Sec. 3-40.73 Affordable Housing Overlay/Planned Unit Development (AHO/PUD). 2 A. Intent: The Affordable Housing Overlay/PUD zone is intended for the ..prpduct*pn of Category 1,2,3,4,apd limited Resident,,Qecupied affordable housing within transit oriented mixed lad dusedevelopnient,;.The AH Overlay/PUD could accommodate a wide range of land uses including, but not limited to, free-market residential and affordable housftg,,�nd commercial -uses,where the commercial uses are accessory to the other allowed anI ,dci,,�s within the underlying zone 1Is p1le I ial review _;s,. districts. Recreational facilities, tourist accommodations and tourist oriented commercial uses could also be.act Wmodated in appropriate locations (where these uses are allowed by right or.by,_special re -view in the ,underlying zone district(s)). The AH Overlay/PUD zone is intended to provide a mix of land uses that encourage interaction between tourists, seasonalA residents and permanent residents consistent with -the character oriented goals of the AAICT.,.,, The Affordable Housing Overlay zone will be available for lands located wi the Aspen .As Metro Area as defined in the AACP (not . extended" Metro Area) and shoWstrategically ically located in recognized activity centers, on transit and bicycle roqtes, The mix.of land uses in the AHO/PUD is intended to reduce the need for private vehicle.4rips and, increase mass transit utilization thereby improving air quality. Use ' of the Afl Overlay/PUD shall be subject to review under the Planned Unit Development criteria identified in Section 3-170 of the Land Use Code. Use of the AH Overlay/PUD districtshallalso be considered a rezoning and shall be subject to the standards and criteria, in Section 3-220.20. In addition, the following criteria shall be consider when evaluating whether to permit a land use development to be zoned AHO/PUD: 1. The degree to which a development represents an exceptional commitment to advancing the visions goals and specific action items of the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. Whether the development limits Resident Occupied affordable housing to no more than 10 percent of the affordable housing units 3. The consistency of the development with the most current Community affordable housing needs as determined by the priorities of the Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority; & The percentage of single-family affordable housing units that are constructed by ,the developer as opposed to selling, lots for affordable housing units. 5. The range and diversity of, affordable housing provided in the development; 1 5 6. The community atnenities`"proAd b� the development for the benefit of t a residents and visitors "of th& Aspen Areafficli ding but not limited to; trails; recreational facilities, transit facilities and areas for pubNeiiise; 7. The degree to whi6heommerciafland Wes may offset the nega&&- fiscal impacts associated with residential develap`he6i; 8. The transit orienfai ion of a proj&fifi grail to consideration density, site design, mix of land uses''aiid'relationsitip,4fe sit routes. B. Use Requirements. Use require`m` &ts 'A&6 determined by the underlying zone district(s) as established in 'Code Section 340.t R-Aidential uses restricted to Category 1, 29 3, 4 and Resident Occupied'affoftlable hou"guidelines (as defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing rAut' bnity) `' " `f bo' hiprise seventy (70) pei&nt of the residential unit mix of the development. In -addition, the number of persons residing in the restricted affordable housing =units must` c®nipromise sixty (60) perceiit'of the total residential development population. Despiter these requirements, projects may also be comprised of all category deed restricted``unifs. - Projects may also be comprised of up to 10 percent resident occupied units. ' In thi` case of developments with one or more underlying zone districts, the 70 percent residential unit mix and 60 percent residential population mix may be satisfied by aggregating the resident unit and population mix in all the underlying zone districts overlayed by the AHO/PUD. Average household sizes shall be determine by the Aspen Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. Each individual underlying zone district overlayed' by the AHO/PUD need not meet the minimum required unit and population mix.' C. Dimensional Requirements: Dimensional requirements. are determined by the underlying zone district(s) as established in Section 3-40. The are several issues to consider regarding the above language. First, use of the AH Overlay has been restrict to lands located within the Aspen Metro Area (not the "extended" Metro Area). This was intended to limit the potential for requests to rezone new areas for commercial uses since the intent of the AACP is to reduce the overall amount of commercial square footage at build out. The Metro Area also offers the greatest potential for "transit oriented development," which is one of the desired' benefits of the AH Overlay/PUD district. Having said this, Staff would acknowledge that there is some'slogic to allowing this tool to be used County wide. For example, if one of the intents of this district is to reduce the impacts (particularly traffic related) of residential develo" p" ient; th6wit wdtdd se`em`that allowing local serving commercial uses in projects located in outlying areas would have as much or more effect on these impacts as projects located in the Metro Area. With respect to this issue, Staff felt it would be appropriate to limit use of the AH Overlay to the Metro Area as a .test. In the . 6 evwentrthis proves to be a valuable tool its applicability could be expanded to other areas in the f4e Theaboye language also includes the 70/30 unit and fi3O/40,population requirements also found inputrecently adopted, D,and AH 3/Pl-P zone, districts. This standard was arrived at, (despite the fact that.* j pix t,Qity and County P&Zs recommended a 70/3 0 standard for both units and popul der signifcant debate. In the end it was determined that there was little additional bqpfit gained,by incre4singthe -population standard from 60 percent to 70 percent. The Housing Office made this determination after review of average household size and other information. Another issue involves the potential for, creating new pressure to rezone properties for commercial uses. Since the AH, Overlay will allow commercial uses as permitted in the underlying zone district (and in fact, exempt these uses from the growth management pay, scori,ng,competition) there may, be, some added desire to rezone lands for commercial use and then apply the AR Overlay zone, j1ii,§ situation should be minimized by the fact that rezoning. is subject to rigorous review .under the current Land Use Code and is a discretionary approval. One of the standards which must be met when,considering a rezoning proposal within the Metro Area, is consistency -with. the AACP! The Growth Action Plan within the AACP includes as a goal the reduction in potential commercial square footage at build -out from 700,000 to 400,000 square feet. Any request for rezoning that included a significant increase in commercially zoned landswould have difficulty meeting this test. In addition, the intent statement for the AH Overlaydistrict indicates that the commercial uses should be accessory. Further, the draft language includes several suggested criteria for evaluating whether a particular proposal should be- granted AH Overlay zoning. Growth Management Exemption Section 3-150.30 of the Land Use Code lists those activities which are exempt from Growth Management. This list would need to be amended to include a new exemption for units built within the AH Overlay/PUD District. The other issue addressed in this section of the Code is whether these exempt units are deducted from the "development ceiling" and "annual allotment pools." This is basically the bookkeeping system that allows us to track the numerical objectives of the system. Few things on the list are not deducted from the ceiling and pools. All units constructed within all of the other AH zone districts (AH, AH 2/PUD and l.,'AH, 3/PUD) are. deducted. The only affordable housing units which are not deducted are "caretakerdwelling units," Staff recommends that any units granted growth management exemptiogyja the AH Overlay/PUD provision be deducted from the ceiling and pools just as they are for the AH 2/PUD and AH/3 PUD zone districts. Staff recommends., that Section,3-1,5,0,3Q be amended by adding the following: 7 M. Dwelling units and neighborhood commercial square footage consirtxeted in association with a project approved for AH Overlay/PUD zoning shall be exempt from growth managementeb"mpetition'aiic�"scoin �-rocedures. All tourist"oi�iem�tec kg-., commercial developme nr (including -Ibdge iihits)- one in association with ai X ft Overlay/PUD project shall be`subject t6 gro h iiianagement compettiMil 'aiid'scoring procedures unless otherwYs`e ea apt uirde' uatl a r'provision in this sectf6W `o'-r'unless demolition credit has been *d for'sii&--�b4 iYii'er6al square footage or lodge units. As you will notice, this exemption includes the " - kliborhood commercial" component of a project as well as the residential component. We would note that tourist oriented commercial development is not granted exem�ti`orr ,onn-growth 'ilia iagement under this provision. The reason for granting exemption for fife local''seiTiig commercial component oi`a-mixed-use development is that Staff feel's this' exempt ori' rovides a significant incentive- fi ri � sing the AH Overlay/PUD approach. Further;,, Staff feels fiat little is lost by this exemption, `since most of the things we would have f eceived' t ' o-dgh the growth management, competition process are achieved through one or more`ofihe other requirements of approval under the AH Overlay/PUD approach. For example; the t Sigii",resource ifn pacts and visual impacts criteria which are part of the commercial gro' `"t management scoring criteria are more than adequately covered by the review standards required under the PUD provisions. With respect to affordable housing, the criteria inthe commercial growth management section of the Code simply grants points for affordable housing. Under true competition this might result in an amount of affordable housing`thdt e' xceeds the current exaction standard for r commercial development (100 percent of employees+-t� generated). However, there has been little or no competition in the commercial category for years. This tends to eliminate the incentive for providing anything but the minimum" -amount of housing necessary to achieve the minimum threshold score. Under the AH Overlay/PUD approach, the requirement for the affordable ha-ising component (70 percent of the units and 60 percent of the population) would most likely exceed the minimum exaction standard for most -projects even if the exaction for the commercial component were reduced frond b'0;`pereefif"of ille employees generated to 60 percent. This is due to the fact that the increase in'pmployee housing generated by`the 70:30 ft and 60:40 standard will in most cases outpace the' commercial exaction standard. I is relationship would deteriorate if a project were to nicluded,aliarge con iAercia -component and relatively small residential component. v As' &. cussed previously; there `&61 everal safeguards which should provide adequate review`and control of su-h'projo ts. r To test the theory discussed above, Staff analyzed the numbers for both the Highlands Village project and the North 40 project. This `analysis` involved'a comparison of hfow much affordable housing would be provided if both of these projects were required to simply meet �_^ r-14ie c ent exaction standa ersa ,m Ling the 70:30,unit and 60:40 population standard plus :providing affordable, housing,for; 60 percent, (tl c eft requirement is 100 percent) of e: _ gees generated by the eq �� �'ci , et tnpo pt, of ,_projects. The result, in both cases, :yVW .that the comm yaw dTzcteive `mare affordable,housing through the AH Over 'Ay UD approach. : wr ite that one, at e reasons why this analysis was favorable for the AH approgg1js a & the current _ le housing exaction standard for residential uses is only 33 perk _f employee ge. rated. The AACP recommended that this standard be increased; "y pri, to date this,.as not been done. e Even the issue of pacing, oneupf the stF,import t, ftctio of growth management, can be r .°,_ at lust partially ,addressed through -be P )UP, review. Since,the exemption for the commercial space would be granted a.s part o a,,to. project via the I�TjD,,review, the issue of whether the project includes the right amount and type of commercial space can be addressed. While this does not provide the same type of pacing as the growth management quota system, given the limited applicability of this Code amendment, Staff does not feel this exemption will create any, significant- impacts to the growth ,management program or the infrastructure system, which ,is -:one of the key, purposes of p -Wig. Y r Affordable Ho.usini! Exaciio Standard In the.}paragraphs above we, mentioned. a reduced employee housing exaction standard for the commercial component of mixed use projects._This- ;issue first arose during the Board of County Commissioner's review of th,Highlands Village proposal. It was clear in the case of r, Highlands that applying both the A � .,criteria (7!0:30 unit and 60:40 population) and the commercial exaction standard (100 percent of employees generated) would result in more affordable housing on the site than was reasonable, given concerns for traffic congestion, air _ pollution and noise in the Maroon- Creep Valley: Even allowing the applicant to satisfy this standard by paying a cash -in -lieu fee, for -,the balance of the units not provided on site did not seem reasonable, as this fee would be in,the 10 million dollar range. Under these circumstances, it seemed reasonable to consider a reduced standard for a project that provides local serving commercial, uses as well as affordable housing units at the 70/30 ratio. The City of Aspen;utilizes� 60 percont (i e.; 60 percent of the employees generated by the onunercial use) when calculating tlie,employee housing mitigation requirement for commercial. developments: Having, exar ned the numbers for the Highlands and North 40 projects, (and finding that this standard results in more affordable housing than would be required under the current mitigation standards) staff feels that reducing the affordable housing exaction standard for the commercial component of mixed use projects approved under the AH Overlay/,P , approaclr-is:�reasonable. Staff suggests that Section 3-130.20 (2) be amended as follows: 9 s_'vk_'e: v �: 2. Commercial -Development: A i ; Ppli"lit `shill provide affordablehousing for one hundred percenr(f00°/o)- otthe emtplo�.ee4, ge t6r-ated by commerciA Aevelopment,� except commercial cfeoilapm t-donee iii assoei Lion with an AH Oyerla I roject, based upon the stand*640 igure:3.6 1,00ffimdivial developmot-Honer = association with an Ali O� r4ayl?UD hirojMaji0ficant shall be_ri duiir d t6 provide affordable housing for'six certt (60% of tl eye loyees generated btu: commercial portion olwtheldweWhien % h LdWi to meeting the unit mix -and population requirement bf,the AH Orverlay/� district as described in Section 3 40.73 of the Land Use Code. If when using the standards in Figure 3-6 to determine the number of emplft eeg ftfi�er�tt db©a tcomin re i l used a range of full time employees is indicated, the precise emplagee' genaf tiow standard shall be determined during review of the development applic ti6h -after dui'Asidoflhtidn of a proposatfrom an applicant. 1r} ._•" d �•.1 .,r-. '\r "i..6j-S,i,: 1r3„ .. ...~ •s+ y{ 4. OTHER ISSUES. `f •.:.fix "' ..!"-•' " f , ., ..t.. During Staff review of�thi§�Code a�nendmenrw- d-noticed=an-onlissio l in the Growth Management Section, which is pertinent tt_ Hines`prcject fcir theiAspen Highlands Village. When the growth management system went through the most recent major update, the Growth Management Commission waststablished.1 s_<_Corrunission is comprised of the joint City and County Planning Commissions, and is responsible for certain duties relative to the Growth Management System* for the Metro Ares.. One' of these duties ismonitoring onitoring those exemptions from the system which are intdided"t©, be-deductdd from -the "development ceiling" and "annual allotment pool." How�_vdr there"is no provision in the Pitkin County Land Use Code requiring the Growth Managem'e t Commission to review requests for these exemptions. The primary purpose of this review would be1t6l ensure communication between, the- two jurisdictions regarding the use of these exemptions. At the very least,., it will-be=important to keep track of how many exemption's are used, each year since there are a finite number of allotments available. It would also seem that there should be some level of agreement between the City and the County regarding whether a particular request for exemption is in the best interest of the Community. This will be particularly important for large projects where multi -year allotments are required as -in tlio ease of the Highlands. Village project. The City's Land Use Code includes the appropni ftd'prouision ,however; Staff feels. at the County Land Use Codes should be amJ ende&tb-iricluded a provision addressing this -issue.. We suggest the following amendment to; Section, .3­I50 30 ofthe, Pitk ri Counw Land Use Code: 3-150.30 Metro and Non=Metro Area GMQS' Ekempos 10 T� a Lions set out in t s p the Aspen Metro Area and t -Metro Area. r awhich are identified as b ' e f o th an development ceilin sha roval *. i • Anotl lsu Related to the H'i1 ' cijet� : ` `to do with the granting of multi- year allo `ants in the Free-M et AH, ASsdciated'e ' pe on category. In order for Hines Interests to acquire the necessaryAotmelits for thoseet units which are not being acquired through TDR, the Highlands Project will c . ` e the entire quota in the Free - Market AH Associated category for 1l3 years,. This raises s'everal questions. If we allow this, what happens if (or when) another`proj t conies in during those 5 years. The Code does not currently specify what should happen, under this enario! Do we turn projects way? Do we start borrowing m years 6 through 10"? Should we maintain a reserve pool for the Free -Market AH. associated category. (currently,' we only require a reserve pool for the F -Market Residential `and Tourist A o odatior s categories). These issues will need to be addressed before the Highlands Village project can be dealt with. RECO NIDAT ON: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the discussion of this matter to a meeting of the Growth Management Commission. c:\home\t' \cases\codeamen\ahoem.doc 11