HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19920317
/
,.
AGE N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
March 17, 1992, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
city Hall
------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
L
\
-
I. COMMENTS
II.
III.
IV.
."'.
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
MINUTES A. . L, I ' tu/dr-
/-7-"1:1.. -"""" U/MIl/ ~
7- ;).-q I
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Old Library Text Amendment (to be tabled to March
31), Leslie Lamont
B. Berger Rezoning, Kim Johnson
C. Kraut
ReZOninj~x;::;::;;)Lesl.ie
IV ~ 7b Y
tU q Ib /~ /
-VV~ . -----'-/
Lamont
ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Berger Rezoning from County R-15 to City R-15_.(Moderate
Density Residential)
DATE: March 17, 1992
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the rezoning
from County R-15 to City R-15. This rezoning will become valid
only upon annexation of this parcel into the City. The public
hearing for confirmation of State statutory requirements was held
on February 24, 1992. First reading of an ordinance for annexation
and rezoning is scheduled to take place at City Council on April
13, 1992.
This parcel has also requested Historic Landmark Designation. This
process will not commence until annexation has been formally
approved by City Council.
APPLICANT: Bruce N. Berger, represented by Scott Harper
LOCATION: The 1.16 acre parcel is located at 835 West Main
Street. Please see parcel and vicinity in Exhibit "A".
ZONING / USE: Current zoning in the County is R-15. Requested
zoning is R-15 upon annexation into the City. The current use of
the property is one single family residence of approximately 1,000
square feet. No change to this use is proposed relative to the
rezoning request.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Mr. Berger is requesting annexation into the
City of Aspen. Upon annexation, the State stat-._--es require that
a City zoning designation be placed on the property within 90 days
of annexation approval.
PROCESS: Rezoning is a two-s.-p review. The Commission will
forward recommendations to }:y Council for their final
determination. Council's considcw:ition of the rezoning will take
place concurrently with their review of the annexation.
STAFF COMMENTS: The following are standards from Section 7-1102
which must be addressed when considering a Map Amendment
(rezoning) :
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
1
Response: There are no conflicts with the Land Use Code which will
arise as a result of this rezoning.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The 1973 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows this area
to be single family residential. The proposed zoning would be in
conformance with the 1973 Plan and the current residential use.
C. Whether the proposed zoning amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The subject parcel is surrounded on three sides by land
within the City limits. The single family neighborhood to the east
is zoned R-15. To the west and downslope is Castle Creek with the
City -owned Marolt open space property zoned R-15A PUD / SPA. The
Aspen Villas,, zoned RMF (Residential/Multi-Family), lie to the
north of the subject property across West Main St. To the south,
single family residential development in the County is zoned
R-15. The proposed R-15 zone is compatible with these residential
zones and uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response: The change will not affect the level of activity at this
site.
E. Whether the proposal will result in increased demand on public
facilities.
Response: No changes in public facilities needs will result from
this rezoning. The current residential use is proposed to
continue.
F. Whether the proposed amendment will result in impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the
rezoning.
G. Whether the proposal is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The Berger residence has been in this location since
1947. The proposed zone change will not diminish the character of
the community.
F�
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends approval of the
rezoning of the Berger parcel to R-15 Moderate Density Residential.
The rezoning is contingent upon Council's annexation of the parcel
into the City limits of Aspen.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to recommend approval of rezoning the
Berger parcel to R-15 Moderate Density Residential contingent upon
Council's approval for annexation of the site into the City.
Attachment: "A" - Map of parcel and vicinity
jtkvj/berger.zone.memo
3
I
•
lu
r
� �
iYr
`�o
I rJr
CN
iNsiTE
�.. Ul
0
Q
_
8
�
X
QW
.� z
Jz
Q
/w i
.;i,13906 A. -
mm�
inoD
l
E 1' r 250
0
N
05
m
c
2
4 k I I d
10 A A"w
/J
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT 'W 'f' , APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUA"10N
Osz
OOz
091
- --�o v
11
OS P
U
J
Q
w
J �
F_-
z�v
u4z
W��
y o 1�
boa
w oLL-
tiu06
l�
J
z E
LU U
LU
HERBERT S. KLEIN
RICHARD S. CROFT'
GEORGE M. ALLENt
SCOTT HARPER
'also admitted in Florida
talso admitted in Hawaii
LAW OFFICES OF
HERBERT S. KLEIN
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
201 NORTH MILL STREET
SUITE 203
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-8700
TELECOPIER (303) 925-3977
March 16, 1992
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: B. N. Berger Parcel Rezoning
Dear Kim:
MAR 1 61992
TELLURIDE OFFICE:
P.O. BOX 215
301 NORTH OAK STREET
TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435
(303) 728-5151
TELECOPIER (303) 728-3069
Enclosed is an Affidavit of Posting regarding the B. N. Berger
Parcel for the rezoning application hearing scheduled for Tuesday,
March 17, 1992. Also attached is a photograph of the Public Notice
that we posted on the property.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
HERBERT S. KLEIN PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
By r
Scot Harper
\bnberger\017
Enclosures
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
PUBLIC NOTICE OF HEARING
FOR B. N. BERGER PARCEL REZONING
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNT' OF PITKIN )
I hereby certify that on the 5th day of March, 1992, I posted
Public Notice in a conspicuous place on property located at 835
�'Ve�i. i"sas * j i.r2ct, AspC1�1, �i�iorado, coiitciinini� %iie f €: llow.in
J
information:
Notice of public hearing to be held on Tuesday, March 17,
1992, beginning at 4:30 P.M. at City Hall, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
for Rezoning to Moderate Density Residential Zone District R-15.
Dated this 5th day of March, 1992.
Sheehan Sullivan
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of March, 1992,
by Sheehan Sullivan.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: /7 �M I�
Notary Public:
bnberger\016
Housing Authority
City of Aspen/Pitkin County
38551 Highway 82
Aspen, Colorado B 161 1
(303) 92O-5050
Fax: (303) 92O-5580
17 March, 1992
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department
180 south Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Affidavit of Public Notice
Kraut Affordable Housing Project Map Amendment
Dear Ms. Lamont
The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as applicant for the
above referenced matter, hereby certifies that a Notice of Public:
Hearing was mailed to property owners within a 300 foot radius of
the property on February 27. 1992.
Sig %ol
e Ten
Project Manager
SUBSCRIBED, CERTIFIED AND SWORN To me in the C't of Aspen and
Pitk-in County, State of Colorado this 17 " day of
199?, b. Dave Tolen r
My Cominis.,-3ion Expires:
Notary Public
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE: Kraut Property Map Amendment - Office to Affordable
Housing
DATE:. March 17, 1992
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission, at their December 17,
1991 meeting, reviewed an application for the rezoning of the Kraut
parcel, Lots E, F, G, and I, Block 105, City of Aspen from Office
(0) Zone District to Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District. The
application was submitted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority on behalf of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County.
The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled rezoning review pending
a worksession with interested neighbors and the City Council.
At a February 4, 1992 worksession between the Commission and
Council, and at a February 10.,�1992 worksession with Council, staff
was directed to pursue the rezoning of the parcel to Affordable
Housing and initiate a text amendment for the Affordable Housing
Zone district.
Planning and Housing staff meet with interested neighbors on March
51 1992 to discuss their concerns regarding the rezoning and
subsequent development of the parcel. Please see Attachment A for
a summary of the neighborhood meeting.
This memo reviews the rezoning of the parcel to Affordable Housing.
However, instead of a rezoning with respect to a 100% affordable
residential development as was originally proposed, staff is
suggesting consideration of a mixed -use proposal comprised of
commercial, residential and below -grade parking land uses. .
The text amendment is reviewed in a separate cover memo. The
proposed amendment allows a free market commerical element in
addition to a parking garage within the Affordable Housing Zone
District.
Staff recommends approval of the map amendment for the Kraut
property from Office Zone District to Affordable Housing Zone
District.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen as represented by the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority
LOCATION: Southwest corner of East Hyman Avenue and South Original
Street, Block 105, Lots E, F, G, H, & I.
ZONING: O, Office
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To amend the Official Zone District map from
Office to Affordable Housing for Lots E, F, G, H & I, -Block 105,
City of Aspen.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached referral comments which
pertain to the original application, attachment C.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A. Background - The City of Aspen, Pitkin County and the Housing
Authority have together pursued a comprehensive plan to address
the community's housing problems. The housing plan is threefold
it: seeks to preserve the existing affordable housing stock,
requires developers to mitigate a "fair share" of their affordable
housing impacts and produces new affordable housing to
reduce/eliminate the current affordable housing shortfall.
As part of this comprehensive approach, the City Council adopted
Ordinance 59 establishing an Affordable Housing Zone District (AH) .
The AH zone enables the rezoning of land for the purposes of
affordable housing.
The purchase subsequent rezoning and development of the Kraut
property is a step toward the provision of affordable housing
within close proximity to employment opportunities and neighborhood
services for those citizens in need of housing.
In addition to the site being selected for housing, the 1987
Transportation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
identified this site as one of three centrally located underground
parking garages. The Rio Grande parcel and Wagner Park were
identified as the other two sites. The report identifies this site
as a likely candidate because the site takes advantage of existing
traffic patterns of Main/Original and Highway 82. This location
could help reduce the traffic circulation around the pedestrian
mall, Rubey Park and Durant Avenue. It's proximity to the
commercial core and the gondola make it ideal for both a winter
and summer intercept lot.
The 1992 Draft Aspen Area Community Plan identifies the Kraut
parcel as a site for higher density housing, below grade parking
and local serving commercial space.
At worksessions with the Commission and Council, a mixed -use
concept was discussed. Although both Boards wanted to continue
consideration of a mixed -use development they did not want to delay
rezoning the parcel to AH. Thus, this rezoning has initiated an
amendment to the AH Zone District creating the ability for a mixed-
2
use development in the AH Zone District for those parcels that are
currently located in the Commerical and Office Zone Districts.
B. Site Description - The Kraut property is located near the base
of Aspen Mountain. The site is two blocks east of the downtown
commercial core area, and two blocks south of Main Street at the
intersection of East Hyman Avenue and Original Street. _.
The 15,000 square foot lot is vacant and is currently being used
as a commerical parking lot. There are no natural hazards
associated with the site and it is relatively flat. There are no
significant vegetation on `the parcel and several inches of gravel
exist on top of the natural soil conditions.
The parcel is currently zoned Office. The areas north and west of
the parcel are also zoned Office. Across Spring Street, to the
west, the Commercial-1 Zone District begins. The parcels
immediately south of the Kraut property are zoned Lodge
Preservation and Commercial Lodge and across Cooper.Street is the
Neighborhood Commerical Zone District. The residential
neighborhood to the east of the parcel, across Original, is zoned
Residential/Multi-Family.
The property is bounded by several existing structures. West of
the parcel is a two-story A -frame and the three-story Hannah -
Dustin office building on the corner of Hyman and Spring streets.
The Buckhorn Lodge, a two and one-half story structure, is across
the alley along the site's southern boundary. To the southwest is
the two-story Bell Mountain Lodge. Across Hyman Avenue, to the
north, is the Coates, Reid and Waldron office building which is
approximately 30 feet high. West of the office building are the
700 East Hyman Townhomes that consist of three duplexes for a total
of six dwelling units. To the east, across Original, are single
and multi -family residences.
The parcel is accessible by paved public streets, East Hyman Avenue
and Original Street, and by a dirt alley between Hyman and Cooper
Avenues. The public streets have curb and gutter. There are no
paved sidewalks, only gravel paths. Utility lines are proximate
and contained underground within the public rights -of -way.
C. Project Summary - Many opportunities exist for development of
this site. The neighborhood is a mixed -use neighborhood containing
a variety of land uses, intensities of development, and
architectural styles. Minimal site preparation is involved. No
natural hazards, critical wildlife habitat or vegetation exist on
the site. All public services are in place with the capacity to
serve the site. The site is within the Central Area of downtown
as identified in the 1973 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and is
within one block of several bus routes.
A very preliminary site plan indicates that between 24 to 30 studio
3
and one -bedroom affordable, deed -restricted (preferably rental)
dwelling units could be developed on the parcel with necessary
parking. This preliminary proposal does not include other uses on
the site.
It is estimated that an 89 car parking garage could be developed
below grade providing parking for the building and additional
public parking.
Ideally, a full use of the site could include below grade parking,
first floor commercial space, and second and third floor
residential units. If commercial space is developed on the site
then the number of residential units will decrease to approximately
20-25 units. However, review of this application only pertains to
the rezoning of the parcel and not a development proposal. The
Land Use Code does not require the submission of a development plan
at the time of rezoning.
The following tables from the application detail the dimensional
requirements applicable in the AH zone and how those would be
applied for a 24-30 unit development. These are provided at this
conceptual stage to help the review bodies envision the development
potential of the site. These dimensional requirements pertain to
a 100 % residential proposal and does not consider the proposed text
amendments to the Affordable Housing Zone District. If the
amendments to the AH Zone District are adopted some dimensional
requirements may change regarding those developments that are
within the commerical or office zones. Those changes will be
reflected in the development proposal for this parcel.
Please continue to the next page for the dimensional tables.
n
TABLE 4.1
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
AB Zone
Maximum
Criterion
Requirements
Proposal
Minimum front yard
10'
10'
Minimum rear yard
10,
10'
Minimum side yard
5'
5'
Minimum distance between bldgs.
5'
Maximum height
25'
301(by spec. review)
30'
Minimum lot size
3,000 s.f.
15,000 s.f.
Minimum lot area/unit
Studio
300 s.f.
10 units =
per unit
3,000 s.f.
One bedroom
400 s.f.
10 units =
per unit
4,000 s.f.
Two bedroom,
800 s.f.
10 units =
8,000 s.f.
Minimum lot area total
15,000 s.f.
Maximum F.A.R.
1.1:1
Maximum Floor Area
16,500 s.f.
(15,000 s.f. lot)
Minimum open space (%)
Special Review
Open -space
Special Review
Off-street parking
Special Review
24-30spaces
(1 space/unit)
5
TABLE 4.2
DEVELOPMENT DATA
Number
Unit Type
Category 1
4-5
Studio
4-5
One Bedroom
4-5
Two Bedrooms
Category 2
4-5 Studio
4-5 One Bedroom
4-5 Two Bedrooms
unit size
350-400s.f.
450-500 s.f.
700-750s.f.
450-500 s.f.
550-600 s.f.
750-800s.
24-30 Total Units Total Net Livable: 13,000-17,750 s.f.
NOTE: The figures above are "Net Livable," not "gross" square
footages. If a maximum development program at 30 units is
pursued, garden level units will be necessary for the project
to stay within the maximum F.A.R. permitted under the' AH zone.
D. Applicable Review - Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of
review for an amendment to the Official Zone District Map are as
follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose
of the recently adopted Affordable Housing Zone District which is
"to provide for the use of land for the production of low, moderate
and middle income affordable housing and Resident Occupied
units ... The AH Zone District is intended for residential use
primarily by permanent residents of the Community... Lands in the
AH Zone District should be scattered throughout the City to ensure
a mix of housing types, including those which a -ffordable by its
working residents... Lands in the AH Zone Distric--- should be located
within walking distance of the center of the City, or on transit
routes."
The proposal is also consistent with the goals identified within
the Housing Production Plan. The Plan is intended as a guide for
City and County officials making housing decisions. The Plan and
the methodology for assessing the production need for new housing
is currently being revised. Once adopted, the Production Plan will
enable the Housing Authority to determine the income categories and
type of housing units that are needed.
Currently the parcel is zoned Office. The Office Zone District
does enable the development of 100 % affordable housing however the
height limit in the district is 25 feet while the AH Zone allows
an increase in maximum height to 30 feet by Special Review. In
addition, the Office Zone District does not enable development of
commerical and office space exempt from the 1,wth~ Management
System. The proposed text amendment to the AH ZIc-)i-:z District would
allow a free market commercial element to be developed exempt from
Growth Management competition.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The various elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan list several goals that are relevant to this rezoning. As
described in the application those goals are: to create a housing
environment which is dispersed, appropriately scaled to the
neighborhoods and affordable; to preserve and maintain the existing
character of the community; the community should collectively
address and resolve its issues and problems by considering the
interest of all its citizen; and to encourage land uses,
businesses, and events which serve both the local community and
tourist base.
7
As was mentioned earlier in this memo, the 1987 Transportation
Element identified this site for below grade parking.
Additionally, the 1992 Draft Community Plan suggests parking,
housing and commercial space for this site.
The rezoning of this parcel for affordable housing and possibly
locally oriented commercial development is an appropriate approach
to dispersed housing development within close proximity of jobs,
community activities and neighborhood services. Development of the
Kraut property will provide a year-round resident population within
the City's core. Initial site planning proposes a development that
is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of
intensity of land use, site design, massing, scale, and
architectural character. A mixed -use nature of the proposal will
also be compatible with the surrounding mixed land uses and will
provide a transition between the commercial core and the
residential multi -family neighborhood across Original Street.
The use of tax dollars to develop the site is a collective
resolution to an important community issue. As the application
states, "New tax provisions were enacted by the City's electorate,
creating tax revenues of over $2 million per year for the next ten
years dedicated to affordable housing. County voters approved up
to $6 million in bonding authorization for affordable housing."
(The County participated in the purchase of this property.)
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: The neighborhood encompasses a variety of zone
districts and land uses - locally oriented commercial, office, and
single and multi -family residences. The intensity of land uses
varies from the busy Coates, Reid and Waldron office building
adjacent to residential duplexes, to the Bell Mountain and Buckhorn
Lodges both representing different levels of use. Please refer to
the maps, attachment D', as a visual reference of the surrounding
neighborhood and the B. Site Description section of this memo.
d . The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: According to the application, a 24-30 unit development
should generate approximately 73-150 vehicle trips/day. However,
due to the in -town location and proximity to bus routes it is
estimated that the number of vehicle trips on a daily basis will
be reduced. According to the Engineering Department, the roads are
adequate to handle this number of vehicle trips. Parking for
affordable housing is established by Special Review pursuant to
Section 5-301 (B), one space per unit has been considered the
minimum number of spaces to be provided on -site for a 100%
residential development.
8
One of the primary concerns of the neighbors is the congested
nature of the Original and Hyman intersection. Service/delivery
vehicles constantly block the street while this end of town is a
popular parking area for day skiers. The neighbors fear that the
elimination of the parking lot combined with increased development
at this corner will exacerbate the congestion and parking- problems.
A conceptual layout of a parking garage shows approximately 89
spaces may be possible on this parcel. The provisif-ri of a parking
garage would mitigate the parking demands for the li.- uses on site
and create additional parking to help alleviate T. problematic
parking situation that occurs in the neighborhood. 14hen queried
about a below grade parking garage on site the expressed
support and desire for.a solution to a growing parking problem.
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: Based upon the Housing Guidelines, the development
should house approximately 53 residents in a 30 unit project.
There are existing utilities on the site or proximate to the site
which have the capacity to service the development. The original
proposal included on -site parking for the dwelling ur: i is . A mixed -
use development would reduce the number of residential units on
site to approximately 23-25.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
RESPONSE: The site is flat with no significant vegetation.
Development will not adversely impact the natural environment.
Landscaping and appropriate site treatments for drainage, runoff
etc. will be addressed during subdivision.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: Affordable resident housing has historically been
interspersed throughout Aspen's neighborhoods. The Commercial Core
and the East End are comprised of various housing types including
housing for working residents. The proposal, for multi -family
housing, is compatible with the character of the immediate
neighborhood. The rezoning is also consistent with the various
goals and programs that the City has been working on to effectively
preserve the local nature of the town and provide housing for
working residents.
9
A mixed -use proposal would be consistent with direction given from
the Sub -Committees working on the 1992 Aspen Area Community Plan.
The committees have identified this parcel for housing, parking and
commerical space.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: The neighborhood surrounding the Kraut property has
changed significantly. Affordable housing throughout the City has
been largely replaced with second homes priced far beyond the reach
of the majority of the employees in town. The East End,
traditionally home for working residents, has greatly shifted to
a neighborhood of second homes. For example, the duplexes in the
700 block of East Hopkins Street (Pitkin Row) replaced
approximately 4 miners cottages that were estimated to have housed
3-4-residents each. The Cooper Avenue Greystones replaced 1 miners
cottage and an alley shed that housed 5 residents total. Another
example i- the approved redevelopment of the Valley Hi apartments
on East Hopkins which will replace 19 dwelling units with 4 deed
restricted affordable units and 4 free market units.
The City, County and Housing Authority have been actively working
to counter this trend in a comprehensive manner. The Housing
Production Plan approaches the problem from several facets:
preservation, production and replacement. The AH Zone District is
one avenue available for the public and private sectors to address
the community's housing problems. This rezoning is proposed as an
attempt to develop new affordable housing integrated into the
community.
Additionally, if a commercial component were to be considered,
commercial space that is locally oriented and meeting the service
needs of the surrounding neighborhood should be encouraged to help
reverse the trend of losing these types of services in the
community. As an example, the duplexes in the 700 block of East
Hyman replaced a local health food store, resident unit and the
"christmas tree lot".
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The amendment is consistent with established public
policy. As early as the 1973 Land Use Plan the development of
employee housing was a goal of the community. As was discussed
above, many plans and policies have been developed to facilitate
the provision of affordable local housing for the community.
10
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of
Lots E, F, G, H, & I, Block 105 of the Aspen Townsite (Kraut
property) amending the Official Zone District map from Office to
Affordable Housing.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. March 5 Neighborhood Summary
B. Resident Letter
C. Referral Comments
D. Maps
pz.kraut2.rzg
W1
ATTACHMENT A
SUMMARY NOTES OF THE MARCH 5, 1992 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
1. Staff made a presentation regarding the rezoning and
development review process. In addition staff explained the
Affordable Housing Zone District concept with a brief history of
the purchase of the Kraut Property.
2. Staff explained the rezoning proposal and text amendment being
proposed for the March 17, 1992 Commission meeting.
3. Neighbor comments can be divided into 4 broad categories:
impacts to the neighborhood, rental vs. sale units, costs/need, and
specific uses.
a. Impacts: The corner of Hyman and Original is a very busy
corner. Service and delivery vehicles constantly double
parking in the street and at times blocks the alley. The
proximity to the commerical core and the Gondola have made
parking a severe problem and may be exacerbated by the
elimination of the existing private parking lot on the site.
Where will those cars go? It is questionable whether the
proposed development of the lot will be able to provide enough
parking to eliminate potential impacts in the area.
b. Rental vs. Sale Unit: The neighbors believe that rental
units will not be as well maintained as owner occupied units.
In addition, the concept of transient/rental units presents
potential safety issues.
C. Costs/Need: The neighbors posed several questions
regarding the financial capability to build the housing and/or
other uses. How much of the eventual development costs will
be further subsidized by the community? Will this development
lead to yet higher taxes? Is there enough money in the
various housing funds to build the affordable housing? What
about money for a parking garage?
Regarding the need for more housing the neighbors questioned
whether a demand exists for more affordable housing. There
are existing units sitting vacant. An employer was not
convinced that this new housing will fill his employees needs.
d. Specific Land Uses: Staff discussed the concept of a
mixed -use development on the parcel. The neighbors seemed to
overwhelmingly support a below -grade parking facility
(although ability to finance was in doubt). A parking garage
with a park on top was also widely supported. Commercial
space was discussed as a possible option but only if it was
higher end commercial/retail space or offices. A general
concern was that parking, residences and commerical space may
be too much jammed onto the site with the inability to
mitigate the impacts.
4. The language would still allow a free market residential
element within the commercial and office zones. Those types of
residential development would be included as part of the 40% free
market component of the AH zone in a previous commercial or office
zone district.
5. A mandatory PUD overlay for AH development in the downtown
would help alleviate required special review to properly design a
mixed -use project in the commerical and office zone districts.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommend to Council approval of this Code Amendment to
Section 24-5-208 and 8-104 of the Municipal Code finding that the
proposed Code Amendment is not in conflict with the Land Use Code
or public interest and that the amendment is consistent with the
Goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the Draft 1992 Community Plan
and will not cause negative effects upon the downtown business
area.
If the Commission has substantive changes to the amendment, staff
recommends tabling the amendment for further review and discussion
by the Commission and staff.
kt(
housing for the community and much discussion has been focused on
using those policies as guidelines for the provision of locally
serving businesses.
POINTS OF DISCUSSION:
1. Staff has recommended commerical uses in the AH zone District
that are similar to those found in the NC zone District. The list
has been modified to include some uses that would be appropriate
for a mixed -use proposal i.e. florist, fabric and sewing notions.
Those uses that would not blend well with residential uses have
been eliminated i.e. service station, paint and wallpaper store.
The Commission may want to consider other uses and/or include a
provision that other uses may be considered.
In addition by making all these commercial uses conditional uses
an amendment to the original conditional use approval would be
required if any of the uses were changed to another conditional use
within the zone district. Therefore, some commerical uses perhaps
should be included within the Permitted Uses section of the
ordinance.
2. Currently the AH zone compares deed restricted dwellings and
free market dwellings as units to units. This is not possible when
considering commercial space compared to residential units. Staff
has attempted to compare total square footage (not FAR because
below grade space is not counted in FAR calculations). There may
be other ways to compare dwellings with commerical space. For
example net leasable vs. net liveable.
In addition, staff has increased the percentage break out to a 40%/
60% split. A commerical development of 40% in the AH zone with 60%
deed restricted housing still gives us more affordable housing than
a typical GMQS application. The commercial square footage increase
is proposed to enable a full first floor of commerical space giving
an architect the ability to incorporate facade articulation in the
required upper floor housing perhaps stepping back the upper floors
from the first floor footprint if appropriate or desired.
Staff will present sketches and numbers to help clarify the break
down between residential and commerical.
3. The AH zone limits the number of free market dwelling units
that can be built within one calendar year. This is not suggested
for the commercial element because any new commercial growth in the
AH zone district should not be allowed to exceed the given quota
for that underlying commerical zone and new growth will be deducted
from the annual quota that is made available each year for each
zone district. In addition, new commerical growth will still
mitigate the impacts of that growth. The incentive lies with new
growth being exempt from the GMQS competition.
9
ry�arcl 12, li �Z
ATTACHMENT B
C6 s�6 .i MAR 1 21992
C U r Y�A S, G 1'o of 4 _- --- — - — -
(►'fie 1^c 2 J�.� O (-� tact 7`- �o t°� 1 T �A c Cok n & r J � �
Gtt fc htdF(I the Y�1 �1'n h j VLLlV1 LtaG QrJ � /I (.2 Gc> 4'Q -C ..SC' 1Jtr'Z 1
1
wi e T 4 ti� U L P C1` '�� 1 r- C r 1-4
r n r�t C Ct (O 8 ��•
�- n 1 I_ 1 I ' -j �' G\ C, V (C ( d �L J / Li ,itl /j
G� Uc- CC`n C e r7Y� r►1a l t7u1(dl✓� �� 1.
,Ilr
�Q✓�rYLPhctQ1 G��:<f FxGCFt i't ci ki Itff PQL1� (�0c/to41�a 4e fr
1 t u a '� ,' o .-► t? ,� -� E PCc J 6 7` a,e
ac aw c^S 1L
u S r ,eS d t W 1 Y Lr � A P f l- V P c'I c�PJ C .T �' C� �' t r t lit a / -e-
6 Cc1 t 1 c`i _i L' ��c' �-1 f r. C •L
d G �
U // % 1t 7��- QI/L"t lva i7�•/.C��'j� �rt�i/�le-1 7�w eZLCIr
J J J !
C, n rt pi r: pi P 7 U ,7 I , 4a ,� ' •� ` / � n Q rr T � � � r � ( � J � P h G �� n Q n �
V P cJ
�
/
�
�-�� Prf C'1K���s
p/a eP � 124 aiil
Q h ID S o r G `f-D ►- ` -A CrJ o � Aled
�/ G' i" �f F'7 7� uG���S ac 74 a -f Gj y d
40
Qh
ler
t
ATTACHMENT C
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DATE: November 15, 1991
RE: Kraut Affordable Housing Project Map Amendment
Having reviewed the above application and having made a site visit,
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. There are 72 to 150 vehicles trips/day that the applicant states
could be generated by this development plus the 700 trips/day for
Hyman Avenue and 4,700 trips/day for Original Street which was
given in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element..
These volumes can be adequately accommodated by the 50 foot widths
of the these streets.
2. The applicant indicates that this development will generate a
resident population of approximately 53 persons and that current
public facilities are capable of accommodating the service demands
of the project and its residents. Although the Engineering
Department utility maps show that this location is served by all
utilities, the applicant still needs to furnish confirmation that
the existing water and sewer systems have sufficient capacity to
accommodate this project.
3. The applicant needs to agree to join a special improvement
district if one is ever formed.
4. The applicant needs to get an excavation permit from the Streets
Department and approval of design from the Engineering Department
for any work done in the public right-of-way.
j g/kraut
cc: Chuck Roth
cows
.,AID&WAIDRON
Real Estate • Rentals • Property Management
March 12, 1992
Ms. Lesley LaMonte
City of Aspen
Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Lesley,
W t 2199292
This letter is following up the neighbors' meeting held concerning
the housing and commercial project planned for the I{raut property
in the 700 block of Hyman Street in Aspen.
As a neighbor, a tax paying member of the community, and one of
Aspen's largest employers, I am writing to express my thoughts
about the project planned. As a neighbor who shares Hyman Street
and will look across at the project here are my concerns.
1. Impact
Parking and Density
This is a very busy street 8-10 hours per day, and I believe
that 25-30 new apartments and 5,500 square feet of commercial
space will have a serious impact on an already very crowded
street. This area is used for parking for commuters and
skiers, and is a major thoroughfare. If the City is planning
to build this project I hope that the impacts will be
mitigated. Parking for those people living or shopping at the
site is not available now and will have to be provided on the
site. If you are planning 25-30 apartments you will be
housing anywhere from 50 to 120 people. Since these are small
units there probably won't be very many families there, so
80%-90% of the people who live there will probably have cars.
Is the City adequately planning for 50 to 100 vehicles on site
plus parking for the commercial?
If you displace the vehicles who currently park 'on the site,
which by my count, is 20-25 vehicles per day, where are they
going to park? Already the parking for downtown Aspen goes
well beyond Original Street in front of the houses and
apartments down Hyman and Hopkins. What is the City planning
to do to mitigate the parking problems which this project will
present? Much of the parking in the lot at Hyman and
Original is by people whose business requires them to use
their cars in the course of their business.
Aspen Office • 720 East Hyman, Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (303) 925-1400 • FAX (303) 920-3765
Snowmass Office • Suite 113, Snowmass Center, Box 6450 - Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 - (303) 923-4700 • FAX (303) 923-4198
Page Two
Lesley LaMonte
March 12, 1992
As a neighbor I am also concerned with the appearance of the
property. Again if 25-30 apartments are built on this site
that is quite a bit of density for a small site. What is
going to happen to the people, bicycles, skis, cars, dogs,
friends, underwear that needs to be dried, potted plants,
extra clothing, extra furniture, etc. Will that all be
hanging out their windows or sitting on their decks? How is
that going to affect the neighborhood? Has the City concerned
itself with these needs and questions in its design?
2. Height
What is the height of the building going to be? As I
understand it there will be need for one to two floors of
parking, one floor of commercial space, and two floors of
residential. Will the height allow for view planes? Will the
City have to exceed allowable height restrictions?
3. Cost
As a taxpayer I have serious concerns about the cost of this
project. As I understand it, it is to be funded out the of
the real estate transfer tax. As the planners, you say that
the greatest cost of the project was in purchasing the lot.
I think you should revisit the figures for construction costs
for this property. As I see it the commercial will cost about
$100 per square foot times 5,500 square feet, which equals
$550,000. The residential costs of 25 550 square foot units
at $125 per square foot would be about $1 . 7 million. The
parking is probably a $1 million per floor. Total cost of the
project looks to be in the $3.5 million to $4 million range
plus the $1.1 million real estate cost. Is this project cost
effective? Will it be self supporting or will we get half way
into the project and find out that we have a $5 million
project that cannot support itself. Can we, the City of
Aspen, really afford this considering our current long term
debt?
4. Affecting other Projects
Is this for seasonal housing or year round housing? Has the
City considered that and has the Housing Authority been
consulted? Will the impact of 25-30 more studio and one
bedroom apartments lower the occupancy at the other public
housing projects in Aspen?
Page Three
Lesley LaMonte
March 12, 1992
As a taxpayer who has seen his property taxes go up 260% this year,
I am already questioning whether I can afford to live in Aspen.
If this ends up being funded out of property taxes in any way can
I really afford to live here - are you displacing me downvalley?
As an employer I question who this is going to help. Most of my
staff live downvalley. There are a few front desk people that we
employee seasonally who live in Aspen. What employees is the City
targeting for this? Is it for year round or seasonal people? Is
it for housekeepers, reservationists, accountants, or is it for a
higher paid caliber of employee?
My concerns are whether the City is moving too quickly and whether
they have thought out the implication, impacts and the cost of this
project. I hope that you will do this before moving ahead and
creating a tremendous impact on an already crowded neighborhood at
a cost the City of Aspen really cannot afford.
Yours sincerely,
Michael L. Spalding
President
MLS:dd
CC. Todd Southward
March 10, 1992
Le5l i.e Lamont
.Aspen\Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
I own property and live across the street from the Kraut property.
The City appears to have decided that it wants another high -density
affordable housing project on the Kraut property. I think the City
should seriously consider other alternatives. Aspen has a
Successful tourist -based economy because of its unique character.
If Aspen becomes just another high -density condominium resort, it
will lose its competitive advantage in attracting tourists. Also,
the low -density mining -town character of Aspen is what makes the
local population want to live and raise .families here. What Aspen
needs is more parks and open space and fewer high -density
condominium developments. I would like the City to give serious
consideration to having the Open Space Committee make a
contribution to tho City for this property and develop the property
as an underground parking garage with a park on the top at ground
level. Neighborhood parks, while not the highest income generating
use of the property, are the type of amenity that makes Aspen
attractive and livable,
Sincerely,
I
March 10, 1992
Leslie Lamont
Aspen`Pitkin County Planning Departmmen
130 South Galena Street t
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
I own property and live across thet
At the neighborhood planning meeting on et from the Kraut
the neighbors would have several40rtunities
March 5 property.
proposed Kraut development. , 1992, we were told
to continent on the
City 1s considering several.differe tonally, we were told that t
what will be develo eloped q the
different proposals but has not decided
for us to comment on ar have
Property.ed
when Chore are no plans any It Iinls Very difficult
,tor the C�.ty to consider r�zQn rezoning
look at . Put to a project
not even know what it I thfnk it is premature
Ong this Property when the City does
Property. ultimately wants to see developed o
p n the
Sincerely,
J
I
r�
il
March 10, 1992
Leslie Lamont
Aspen\Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Res Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Leslio:
I own property and live across the street from the Kraut property
and want to express my concerns relative to the proposed
development of that property. I am concerned that we do not know
enough about the project to make any assessment regarding whether
this is an appropriate or even viable investment of the taxpayers'
money. You and Dave Tolen informed us that the City does not know
whether the City intends to develop a 100% residential project, a
residential project with an underground parking garage or a mixed
project with both residential and commercial development. Also,
you indicated there is the possibility an underground parking
garage could be designed to connect parking on the Kraut property
underneath the alley with a future parking garage on the Buckhorn
Lodge and Belk. Mountain bodge properties. At this point in time,
the only thing you can tell us is that no one knows what will be
constructed on that property, much less what the potential cost to
the taxpayers is of the various proposals. At some point, the cost
will make this project an unreasonable use of taxpayers' money. At
this time, it is impassible to determine whether this project is a
reasonable use of taxpayers' money, since we do not know what will
be developed on the property. It is premature to rezone the
property.
Sincerely,
March 10, 1992
Leslie Lamont
A,spen1Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Kraut Property Rezoning
!�'J" h
Dear Leslie;
I own property and live across the street from the Kraut property.
I am very concerned about the proposed density for the Kraut
project. I have been told that the project satisfies the floor
area requirements for either the office zone (only if developed as
100% affordable housing) or the affordable housing zone. I
question whether it is necessary to maximize the buildout of the
Kraut site. The proposed Kraut development is approximately triple
,-he density of the homes existing in the neighborhood. The single
characteristic which sets Aspen apart as a community is its
character as a low -density mining town.
Sincerely,
MAR 121992
March lo, 1992
Leslie Lamont
Aspen\pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
I own is mrcpuerty and lave across the street from the Kraut
Y nderstanding the latest expressed intent oftherHousin
Authority is that all of the 24 to 30 affo, rd.a.ble d rides
units to be constructed on the deed -restricted
Consequently, the tenants will have noequity or ownebe rship units.
in the property and no incentive to maintain and keep
interest
in a clean and orderly fashion and state of r� ep the property
levelopment of rental property as opposed to own air. Further,
fails to address the commonly expressed ur ownership property
affordable housing, which is to provide a stable
and goal of
a community including families. There is already an o over base for
affordable rental units on the market. we do supply °f
temporary employee housin not need more
families to stay in or move�ba k to Aspen. Q may need housing for
Sincerely,.
Leslie Lamont
Aspen/pi,tkin Counter Manning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, C010ra.do 81611
Re: Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Lealie:
� own property and live across the Street from
am concerned about the horrible traffic the kraut property.
our neighborhood which willddYt be made wcx'se and parking p��►b].eme �n
�.�,na.x�th�re a�;� ���i�x��. ��pzes® and United Parcel
project. �v�a�
�' t,�.r e�reet ; and there constantly are� �,'are� c�`v.1.o� ��uo�Cs
neig orhood in eearoh of a pax�kco spa constantly
as circling the
Office refused to allow our an. example, the post
Hyman avenue side of our homes � fioe boxes to be located on the
here. At the Our
meetin eca far the traffic problems
use of
the City now considering the canstru t 5, 1992, we were told
parkingparking garage+ on the Kraut on of a below -grade
Property with a ma c _mu_m 0f 9 posbJ e
spaces,- but 't w�..11. very likely bo s�,gn,ifioan
8P spades. In mcst employee rent tlY less than
appro imatel r two peo a l proJ ea t s , there are
oar. Con.se�uently, �he p�a�k �edxeom and each
g P.rc�va.ded �, person has his own
lees than �9 spaces would very likely y a parka�ng garage of
generated by the new development. and would. mate r� only the parking
approximat.eJY 60 parking spaces. At theplace the existing
discussed. the POssibil.ity of the Ca t �a�o�t � f 1992 t meet�,n
ou
and Bell Mountain badge Y F oha�l�ag the 13uckhorn odge
u�dergratand properties a,nd constructing a large
parking f�ac .litY On those .p.rope.rties wh , ch o
connected to the Kraut prapert�r. This � g is the t ou�.d be
urge parking fac�,�.�tY we need in this areaype of o.reat'ive and
Parking requirements , of town to satisfy
gc l ut pan to 't woLald be a sad loss of a potential
a vast PrQblem if the city
development without Y proceeds w th the Kraut
giving sercal.a ac�ns�ierata,on to the parking
problems n this area of towxa. F g
Sincerely,
f
/ � r
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 17, 1992
Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, David Brown, Sara Garton,
Bruce Kerr, Richard Compton and Jasmine Tygre. Roger Hunt was
excused.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Bruce inquired as to when Commission may get the alternate member.
It is being advertised again.
STAFF COMMENTS
Kim: Williams Ranch will be added to the agenda for April 21.
Diane: City Council is going to have a topic of discussion on
April 6 which is going to focus on transportation. The meeting
will start at 5:00. If any of you could come it would be great.
Bruce: Where do we stand on the ice rink situation?
Diane: We are having a meeting on Thursday with Mr. Koch and the
Design Workshop and the City itself on Wagner Park. I really don't
know and can't answer right now where it stands. There is a
possibility that the ice rink will be eliminated from Savannah's
proposal and they contribute toward an endowment for Wagner Park.
You may see that back.
I also hear from City Council that they want to see a larger ice
rink.
David: Aspen Chamber Resort Association has a program called
Leadership Aspen. If any members of the Board or Staff are
interested let me know. I highly recommend this. I think it is
a real good program. It gives you an overview of the community and
different programs in the community from legal to transportation.
Leslie: On the April 7 meeting I have scheduled the Moses
Subdivision 8040 Greenline Review. I think it is helpful that we
go to the site.
It was decided to have a formal site visit at 4:00 for this.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
MINUTES
JANUARY 7, 1992
JULY 2, 1991
David: I move we approve the minutes of January 7, 1992 and July
2, 1991.
Richard seconded the motion with all in favor.
OLD LIBRARY TEXT AMENDMENT
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
MOTION
Bruce made a motion to table this item and continue this hearing
to date certain of March 31, 1992.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
BERGER REZONING
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
Kim submitted affidavit of public posting. (attached in record)
She then made presentation as attached in record.
David: Are there any proposals for this project other than
rezoning?
Scott Harper representative for applicant: None whatsoever. It's
a 1,OOOsgft 1-bedroom cabin of some historical significance to the
Aspen community and the owner/applicant intends to leave it just
the way it is.
Richard: Is he going to apply for historic designation?
Harper: Yes, if it is annexed. In fact we have already made the
application for historic designation.
Jasmine: Is there any significant difference between the R-15
County zoning and our R-15 City zoning?
Kim: No. It is pretty close. The basic intent is to keep it in
the single family or low density configuration.
Richard: I think it makes sense to go forward with this. It is
surrounded on 3 sides by the City. It is on the City side of
Castle Creek and it is one of these parcels that ought to be a part
of the City.
Jasmine then asked for public comment.
No
Paul Murray: I live at 814 West Bleeker. We and a few other
people even though it is customary and accepted to do a rezoning
before something is annexed I think there is another issue and it
is kind of a thinly disguised issue along with the annexing and
rezoning or anything with this piece of property and involves the
direct route of the Hwy 82 into Aspen.
I personally feel that it is unusual in this case that this piece
of property be considered for rezoning before it is annexed before
the City Council has done their political necessity such as public
hearing and actually voting on annexing. This particular piece of
property being shoved through for a rezoning before annexation is
completed.
I think the point is there is another issue here and it is Hwy 82
and the direct alignment which bothers a considerable amount of
people in the west end that have considered the direct route of 82
as a real positive thing.
Tim Paddock: I live in the Aspen Villa Townhomes which is adjacent
to this property. I support the revision to the R-15 based on the
fact that it should be included as part of the City. You should
just follow the normal course of events which is P&Z does the
zoning and then the annexation. There should be no reason for you
to be altering the normal course of events.
Burdick Hewer: I live at 814 West Bleeker. I would oppose the
rezoning something that still is not a part of the City. I also
question the fact that a possible historic house which is 46 years
old. I feel you have to annex it before this Board can do it even
though it may be legal. It just sounds as though it is coming
through the back door.
Bob Velasio: I live at 814 West Bleeker. We feel that the whole
scenario that we are seeing unfold is to annex and declare a piece
of property historical and stop the highway that has been voted on
by the citizens of Aspen and approved. We think it is a very, very
sensitive issue to do this before the Council does the annexation.
Bob Shelfros: I live at 814 West Bleeker. I certainly agree with
what is going on. It is kind of a block around 82 by the back door
without the coming up again for a vote by the people in the town.
Harper: I know there are a number of people concerned about that
issue. Annexation and rezoning to the City of Aspen has no bearing
whatsoever on whether or not the highway goes through there. The
only thing that might affect it at all is historic designation and
that might be the proper time for these other concerns to be
addressed.
Jasmine: I think what our concern is as a Board what we are saying
that if in fact this is annexed into the City it would be
appropriate for it to be zoned R-15. We are not saying that it
should or shouldn't be annexed into the city. We are just saying
that if it is annexed R-15 which is the zoning that it now has in
the County would be appropriate in the City as well with the same
type of density. The decision about the annexation and certainly
about the historic designation is not within the purview of this
particular Board.
She then closed the public portion of the hearing.
Richard: You have made my comments.
David: When this goes before various groups for historic
designation would it come back to us?
Kim: Yes it would. And then that is a public hearing.
Paul Murray: Is there a percentage of time that this is the normal
procedure where you rezone before you annex? Does this always
happen?
Diane: It is outlined in the State Statutes as being a permissible
procedure.
Murray: I realize it is permissible. I was asking is it a normal
procedure. I have been lead to believe that it has not been a
normal procedure to do this.
Diane: The rules of the game are not any different for this
application as any others.
Jasmine: This has been done several times before and it is up to
the applicant. It is not that unusual a procedure.
Sara: I also want to reassure the public --there is nothing
subversive going on or collusion here. I think that if this
straight shot happens which was voted on we would all rather see
it within City limits too than having the County deal directly with
the highway. There is nothing like avoiding the straight shot
going on. I promise you.
Bruce: I want to state right out in the open that I am in favor
of the straight shot. And if I had any reason to believe this was
something that was going to affect that, I would be voting against
it. But in this case we are not creating any kind of quantitive
interest that is increasing the interest of the land owner but
basically changing from the County to the City. So I don't see any
problem with this.
David: My only concern as far as a negative impact goes is if the
straight shot does occur the change in zoning may increase the
value of the property and therefore increase the cost of
condemnation to the community whether that occurs at the City,
County or State level.
a
Richard: At least 3/4 of this property is river bank in which case
slope production would come into play. Is that more stringent in
the County? Or is it the same?
Kim: I think in terms of single family or duplex development slope
production wouldn't come into play at all in the City.
Richard: In that case I would support David's argument.
Kim: Mr. Berger is requesting a PUD overlay,at this time. So PUD
slope reduction only comes in with a PUD overlay.
MOTION
Bruce: I move to recommend approval of rezoning the Berger parcel
to R-15 Moderate Density Residential contingent upon Council's
approval for annexation of the site into the City.
Richard seconded the motion with all in favor.
KRAUT REZONING AND TEXT AMENDMENT
REZONING
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
Leslie presented the notification of public noticing. (attached
in record.
You reviewed this application on December 17 and tabled the
rezoning application in light of a work session with the City
Council to discuss City Council's goals for rezoning this property
and their ideas for different uses for this property. You also
directed staff to meet with the neighborhood and discuss with them
their issues on this parcel.
You met with City Council on Feb 4 and 10 to discuss this property.
The message that staff received from both those work sessions was
to proceed with the rezoning application but you wanted staff to
pursue a text amendment to the Affordable Housing zone district
legislation. That gives you the ability to review multiple use
project on the site.
Staff met with several of the neighbors on March 5th.
Summarization attached in record.
After further review of the application and in light of the pending
text amendment to the AH zone district, staff continues to
recommend approval of rezoning this site from Office to Affordable
Housing. Staff is continuing to pursue with a variety of City
depts and City Council a multiple use on this site. The broad
picture scenario would be a below grade parking structure with
first floor commercial and second or third floor Affordable
Housing.
ur. ,fir e a development application to be
:fie same t une of rezoning the parcel. Staff
(
recmmends approval based upon the findings ' ; pp p ngs that rezoning this
;property to Affordable Housing is consistent with the goals of the
`City to provide scatter -site affordable housing throughout the City
and within walking distance of the downtown. This rezoning and
potential development would address changes that have occurred
within the neighborhood --primarily a significant loss in the
numbers of affordable housing. Rezoning the parcel is consistent
��lComprehensive Plan and the multi -use
,;
with the various elements of the plan. The
'transportation element which identified this site as one of the
primary true sites for a parking garage. The draft 1992 Aspen Area
Community Plan has identified this site for all three --below grade
parking, affordable housing and to carry forward our neighborhood
commercial concept and to hopefully tie this parcel in with the
superblock idea which includes the Bell Mountain, the Buckhorn and
City Market.
,'qur't"�iarici`h °' meeting with the neighbors I indicated to them
that.if I had received letters from them by the time my memo went
out I would include them in the memo. I did get one letter in time
from Rita Rasmussen. (Attached in record)
Leslie then presented 7 letters which were all read into the record
by Jasmine. These were from Michael L. Spalding, President Coates,
Reid & Waldron, Jean Rayner Bawm, Steven and Elissa Solzman, Fred
Marie t l,� Bill Ca�rr�, }, , Linda,, Waag, Robert Bar. All of these letters
ire Y' from peo'p'`e 'who' 1 ve across the street from this site and all
stated objections to this development. (all attached in record)
Jasmine: The zoning to Affordable Housing will allow the
construction of employee units. It would not allow the commercial
uses as currently planned in AH zoning.
Leslie: Or a parking garage.
Jasmine: So ''the first step in this would only allow for if the
rezoning is approved by the Commission at this point and then
forward to Council, that would only allow for the housing element
only of this project which we think may, in fact, eventually be a
mixed -use project. The mixed -use aspect of it would be considered
in step 2 which is the text amendment. So right now we are just
talking about the affordable housing aspect of it as far as the
rezoning is concerned.
Bruce: Shouldn't the text amendment precede the rezoning so that
the zoning we pass is the zone that is the AH as it has been
proposed.
Leslie: No, it doesn't. What the text amendment does it gives the
ability to use the AH zone for multi use. AH, as you know, is
purely affordable housing. If you were to recommend approval to
L
City Council of rezoning this property to AH and then we had some
problems and some changes and more discussion of items on the text
amendment, the rezoning of the Kraut property will go forward.
They are connected but they are separate.
Bruce: But any text amendments we pass would apply not only to the
Kraut rezoning, assuming it is rezoned, but to anything else that
we have already rezoned or consider in the future to rezone to AH.
Leslie: Anything in the future, yes. But you have not rezoned any
property AH--for example West Hopkins is in a residential zone
district.
Bruce: So this text amendment would affect that property.
Leslie: No. The multi -use language in the text amendment is only
for those zone districts that are currently commercial or office
zoned. So any future AH proposals that were within the downtown
core or along Main Street --any commercial or office zone districts
could apply.
Bruce: What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, to the
City or the Housing Authority to rezone from O to AH? We are
talking about 5ft in height by special review. We are talking
about the ability to have commercial development without going
through GMQS and we are talking about the ability to have a parking
garage.
Leslie: Well, that is the text amendment.
Bruce: But that is the advantages of AH over O.
Leslie: No. Rezoning to AH gives you the ability by special review
to go up to maximum height of 30ft. Already in our zoning code all
affordable housing, parking required for affordable housing is
done by special review. AH does not give you an advantage over the
currently Office zoned district in parking.
AH gives us the ability --gives someone the incentive to build free
market commercial space or residential space without having to go
through Growth Management. And AH is the only legislation in our
zoning code that allows us to do that.
Bruce: But there is nothing to preclude this applicant or any
other applicant from coming in and building an affordable housing
on a site that is zoned Office.
Leslie: Right.
Richard: Staff, concerning the present zone there. If it were
developed by a private developer and the City hadn't bought it, as
Office what are the traffic and parking impacts relative to
affordable housing? Can you give any kind of indication of that
saying that if yea many square feet of office space how many --what
kind of parking would there be required.
Leslie: The person would have to compete for growth management-
-go through the competition. So we have a level of control over
site design if there is a competition.
Parking requirement is 3 spaces per 1, 000sgft of net leasable which
the P&Z Commission may reduce to 1 and 1/2 spaces per thousand
square feet of net leasable provided the applicant pays the cash -
in -lieu which is $15,000 per space.
The affordable housing implications in the growth management
basically we get --they are required to provide at least 50% of
their employees generated with affordable housing. So 50% of the
employees generated by the net leasable and it is about 3 and 1/2
employees per 1,000sgft.
City Council has the ability to take whatever option the applicant
puts forward. The code gives the P&Z the ability to special review
the parking requirements for the on -site affordable housing within
the growth management compilations. And the height in the Office
zone district is 25ft. That would be Office proposal.
Richard: So it makes sense to me that affordable housing is a
better deal for the neighborhood than an office building in terms
of traffic generated.
Jasmine: Or number of parking spaces needed.
Leslie: And the Office zone district does not give you the ability
to --you can do a commercial parking lot --parking structure in the
Office zone.
Jasmine: But I think that it is important that if this was
developed as a commercial project for office space what would be
the impact of the parking circulation as opposed to a residential
development.
Jasmine then opened the hearing for public comment.
Michael Spalding, Coates, Reid and Waldron: Our office is across
the street. I have to tell you I was a little surprised at
Leslie's statement to the Planning Commission that they recommend
this without giving any comment or recommending it for or with
these reservations or based on the input we have gotten which
should address these factors. I was surprised that it was just a
simple "we recommend it. We have listened to what the neighbors
have said at the neighborhood meetings and read these letters, but
we don't really care".
So my feeling on this is it doesn't really matter what I say or
anybody else says at this meeting because the City and their
planning for it has already made up their minds that this is what
is going to happen. So this is definitely the way I feel. And
�7
just watching the heads nodding and the comments that were coming
from around this meeting when the letters were being read has shown
me that people here have made up their minds and I think that is
not the proper procedure to go through. And I would hope that this
really didn't happen around me and that this public hearing is to
be open for positive and negative comments and that these comments
will be taken into consideration by this Commission.
My feeling is not that. I have not ever gotten noticed of any of
the meetings. Through some networking and through my friendship
with Leslie I have found out about the meetings. She has been nice
enough to call me and remind me. It makes one feel suspicious when
the closest neighbors don't get noticed of public hearings and
neighborhood meetings. I under9stand the title company was
employed to do this but why didn't somebody check their work and
make sure that all the people that have been writing Leslie and
asking Planning staff to include us in these notices --why couldn't
that have been done before and why couldn't we have received this
notice over these past several weeks.
I guess the overriding comment is the cost of the project is going
to be pretty doggone high if, as Richard suggests, that the benefit
to having the AH zoning here because it will replace some parking
and really mitigate the situation best and that might very well be.
But that would put the project I think into a pretty extreme cost
for 25 studios and 1-bedrooms if you are going to have a floor of
parking, commercial and I presume a couple of floors of residential
housing.
And I wonder if the City and the Planning Commission really wants
to recommend this plan because it is more than just a rezoning
request. There is a plan behind it and there is a desire behind
it by the City to have a certain project there. So we are really
looking at --you should really be looking at I think the change to
affordable housing but with a plan in mind and that plan may be the
City's responsibility as far as approving for the cost. But I
think that should be taken into consideration by somebody along the
line and not have this project just slam dunked through because we
have decided we need more employee housing and therefore it is
going to go through no matter what the cost, no matter what the
implications are.
Martell, 702 East Hyman: I agree with Mickey and I was surprised
there was no reaction by Leslie. We had a meeting for a couple of
hours 2 weeks ago. And it is like all that didn't mean a thing.
Leslie told us to have the letter there by the 12th. All the
letters were delivered by the 12th. And the reactions --"Well, OK
great". I felt the same way as Mickey. That everybody sitting
around waiting for the letters to be read into the record and let's
get on with it knowing that this is going to go through.
I don't see the need for all of this affordable housing at this
time. There are vacancies all over the place in affordable
housing. To spend this kind of bucks to put affordable housing in
mid -town Manhattan is what you are talking about. You could be
_...__ doing it out at the elementary school where you already own the
property. You have foundation there. I don't know what the
numbers would work out but certainly you could get more for your
dollar than you are going to get where you are.
A lot of discussion was done about the parking. The parking is a
problem there. Most of the day it is a one -lane street. Nobody
seems to care about that. Nobody seems to care about anything but
affordable housing. Look at what it is costing the City already
for affordable housing. Everything you do goes over budget. This
is definitely going to go over budget considering the track record.
What you plan to spend per year to subsidize has been astronomical.
You have had to double and triple your subsidies and it is just
more and more of the taxpayers money being paid out when it is not
necessary.
All of a sudden City Council decided a few years ago to get into
the affordable housing business. "Let's put some affordable
housing here. Great idea. Let's spend a million one." Now you
can be up into 5 and 6 million dollars. Where do the numbers
justify having employee housing so that people can walk to their
job? Nowhere else in the world are people concerned with having
to walk to their job. Everyone drives anyhow. That is why there
is so much traffic congestion. You have employee housing by the
hospital with busing. Everybody still drives into town. It just
seems to me it is unnecessary that employee housing has to be
within walking distance of their job when it is just not done
anywhere else.
You have enough employee housing. If you want to put more, why
don't you spend the money where you can get 3 times the amount of
employee housing for the same dollars and not disrupt a
neighborhood.
And I am not so sure about the parking with an office situation.
Whether it does or doesn't impact the area as much. That is
another discussion. You said you are not even discussing that at
this time.
Jasmine: At this portion of the hearing we are discussing the
affordable housing because the mixed project would not be allowable
without the text amendments which are the second part of this. So
right now we are talking about only the affordable housing element.
Martell: It just seems to me you are putting the cart before the
horse. If you are going to build commercial, it is going to cost
you this amount. This is how much we think we can get out of the
commercial space. This is how much it is going to cost us and this
is how much we are going to have to subsidize. This is what we
project to subsidize for employee housing. This is how much it is
going to cost us for the interest and everything on the underground
parking. And it was discussed at the meeting with the owners of
the Buckhorn and the other lodge also. And they were talking about
rC--)
the parking that is necessary for City Market's planned move. They
were talking about putting parking under the Buckhorn, under the
Bell Mountain Lodge and the Kraut property and the alleys and the
streets. I haven't heard a thing here about that. It is just like
it never existed --like the discussion never happened. And they
were talking at that meeting --intelligent people --about "This might
be the answer to the parking problem that we have in downtown
Aspen". And that hasn't come up at all. It is just like "Hey,
let's get this affordable housing through and that's it".
Steven Ables, 803 East Hyman: I am new to the area. I would like
to know if the Council has taken the 5 and 1/2 million dollar
budget and had other choices that they were going to spend 5 and
1/2 million dollars for affordable housing in other areas and make
comparisons as to what that amount of money spent on this project
would be to what 5 and 1/2 million dollars would be spent on other
projects where the land is already owned by the City. Has there
been a comparison made if you are going to spend this amount of
money for this site as to what 5 and 1/2 million dollars would do
with other sites.
Jasmine: I don't think that has been done necessarily in that
regard. Other sites have been considered. This is not the only
affordable housing project that is being considered. But it is
part of an overall community plan and it is not necessarily one or
the other.
Leslie: In addition, 2 years ago the City Council conducted survey
of most of the other parcels in the City. And came to a conclusion
which parcel they would purchase and they purchased 4 parcels and
this is one of those parcels they purchased.
Abels: Have the others been acted upon yet?
Leslie: Yes. We are in the process of putting together the
project receipt notes, approvals at the end of North Hopkins St
where the road ends. It is a property the same size. It has been
through the entire review process. There was zoning and the
subdivision review process that has been approved.
Bruce: The public is asking some very good questions. But they
are questions that this body is not prepared to answer or to deal
with. You are asking questions about political expediency and
budget considerations and those are not our concerns. We have
standards A through H from the memo that determine whether we are
able to rezone something based upon those standards. And if this
site meets those criteria then we rezone it. If we determine that
it doesn't meet any one of those criteria we can turn down the
rezoning. But the political expediency of whether this is a good
site or whether the City Council spent too much money, those are
outside of what we are able to make judgements on.
I appreciate your questions and concerns about all of those things
but that is not what this body is commissioned to do. We are to
make decisions based on zoning.
Mickey, let me respond a little bit to your suggestion that we are
not open minded about this application. I can assure you that I
for one have not reached a decision yet about how I am going to
decide this. And I suspect that my fellow Commission members also
have that same feeling. So it may be a slam-dunk in some other
body but it is not a slam-dunk, I don't think, in the Planning &
Zoning Commission.
Michael Horn, Coates Reid & Waldron: I just wondered if you were
aware that there has been an increase in vacancies in the private
sector and as well with the Housing Authority which now has deficit
due to income that did not come in this year. I work with CR&W as
a long term rental manager and I work in housing. I have been
doing it for 20 years. And the trends that I see both commercial
and residential is there is a definite increase in vacancies. So
I don't know why everybody is in such a hurry to run over there and
build housing. I think we are going to have a change in this
community and it is quite definite by the statistics that we see
now. What we ought to see first of all really is there now today
a need and are we anticipating something that really isn't going
to be there. Look at your own Housing Authority statistics and see
their increase in vacancies and that has got to indicate to you
that there is a change now taking place.
Barbara Martell: I don't think anybody thought about what about
the merchants and they have no place to park and they pull in our
driveways and they triple park. Is anybody thinking about the
people that service right now? They need a place to park. Where
are they going to park when you do this development?
Jody Edwards, representing 700 E Hyman Ave Condo Assoc: First I
am very concerned about the fact that we don't really have a plan
yet. We are talking about several different alternatives. But we
don't have a specific plan. I am afraid about how this applies to
the review criteria. We can't know whether the project is going
to be compatible with the neighborhood and existing uses and
character. And we can't know what traffic, parking and other
impacts are going to be until we know what the plan is.
Is it going to be parking structure or not? Is it going to include
commercial or not? All of those have different impacts on the
traffic, on parking and other aspects regarding the neighborhood.
So I don't think we can say with any certainty that it satisfies
the review criteria. And specifically with respect to the change
in condition criteria. The only condition I heard is that the
income level of the purchasers of the homes in the neighborhood has
dramatically increased. That has to do with the price of
residences and more with the real estate market and Aspen's
international popularity than anything else. I don't think that
the type of changed condition contemplated by the Land Use Code can
justify rezoning.
Dave Tolen, Pitkin County Housing Authority: I want to clear up
a misconception because I have heard it from a number of different
places including the newspapers. I understand it is true that the
private rental market has seen a vacancy increase in the past year.
It is not true that the long-term deed restricted rental housing
managed by the Authority or by private owners has seen any increase
in vacancy rates here in the past 2 years. In fact it has held
steady at around 1 to 2% which is significantly lower than what is
considered to be a healthy vacancy rate to make housing available.
Where we have seen a problem in a deficit is in a specific seasonal
project where rental income is projected for certain months of
seasonal use. But in no case that I know of in any of the
privately owned or publicly owned rental property is there an
increase in vacancy right now.
George Vicenzi, adjoining property: I guess what we are doing now
is really considering the factors of the affordable housing. And
you have to look at the criteria whether it should be rezoned or
not. I think for this Board which is the most important is the
compatibility with the existing neighborhood. The neighborhood is
not a place where employees live. Right now the neighborhood is
basically lodges and commercial offices and residential
condominiums.
If you rezone this you are going to change the nature of the
neighborhood by putting in employee housing. I know what kind of
impacts employee housing has. Your projections of so many cars per
unit is usually inaccurate because most people have guests that are
staying for 2 or 3 weeks or a month at a time or a lot of times for
the whole winter which aren't officially registered and are just
crashing.
I think your projection of autos is way below what will actually
happen which means guests and extra cars will be parking in the
neighborhood. The proposed 89 parking spaces I don't think will
cover what the employees will actually generate.
The other compatibility is that the traffic in the neighborhood.
And this is a major criteria. A major problem in all of Aspen is
parking and traffic. Right now it is at a critical stage. If you
put in something of this magnitude, it will make it worse. So I
can't see how you can possibly say this is compatible to the
neighborhood that already has a traffic problem.
If you really look at the big picture here the point of what would
the private sector do if they were to develop it --what would they
provide? What you are doing is paying --the City is paying for
employee housing that would be obtained free if a private developer
had done this project --had done some office _space or light
commercial use. They would have to provide the parking and they
would have to provide the employee housing at their expense.
With this plan the City is paying for employee housing that would
13
ordinarily be provided by the developer. And it seems in the
budgetary problems that that is really not a very fiscally
responsible thing to do if for us to build employee housing that
would be built by a developer anyway.
This is something all the neighbors have worked on. This large
parking plan using that block underneath Bell Mountain Lodge and
the Buckhorn and City Market the streets and alleys. This affords
the City probably a one-time opportunity to tie in all of these
properties together and do something that can really be beneficial
to the whole community. This, I think, should be considered before
you rezone it because this is a one-time shot. And I think if you
don't do it now it will never happen again. So that is very
important and I think it is really short sighted for us to say "OK,
let's push forward with this affordable housing zone" with a piece
of property that really is not compatible.
Another criteria is is the neighborhood changed. Well it has.
This property is 2 blocks from probably one of the most sought
after spots on the planet. And that is the Gondola. The Gondola
is a really prime piece of property. Everybody wants to be as
close as they can. So to put employee housing in 2 blocks from
this prime spot on the planet would seem ludicrous. It seems it
would have much better uses. The City itself, since it owns the
property, should consider building an office space for itself.
That is where they need office space is in downtown Aspen. You can
put employee housing a block or 2 away from the prime downtown part
of Aspen.
I think this should be something that should seriously be
considered is what is the best use for the City besides just
affordable housing. I think City office space would be a good
consideration. There might be a lot of other possibilities that
could be put there that would be better uses for the City.
If the City neglects this they are going to have to go out and pay
the private sector for prime office space when they could be
building it cheaper on this piece of property.
I think for now it should stay the way it is. It now has a parking
lot which I think the City can get more income from. If they
maximize the income from the parking now it would buy a little bit
of time to consider other possibilities on this parcel. But as far
as the criteria go I think this project is totally not compatible
for the existing neighbors.
If you look at all the uses around it is totally different. To put
high intensity of employees right in the center of this commercial
area is not fair to employees. It is just not a nice place to
live.
Jean: There is a lot of land around Aspen and it's wall-to-wall
distance. Why are you so intent on building on this tiny piece of
land which must be 4 times as big as this room? I want to know
someone who can give us an answer. PLEASE. Parking underneath is
feasible. You can throw a tennis ball twice as far as that piece
of land. And you are so intent on building. Why? We need to know
from someone who can tell us. And nobody gives us any answers.
We really want to know what is happening and why.
Jasmine. We will go through all of these things later on, Jean.
?: The other day I was coming down the Gondola. I look upon this
area where you are planning this housing project. And there is no
greenery in this whole area of town. I can understand why you want
to build on the west side. It is far away. There is plenty of
space out there. It is not nearly as developed as this area. Our
area in this town is very dense. There are tons and tons of cars.
Federal Express and UPS park outside on the streets all day long.
The air quality which I am amazed --I have been here for 24 years-
-has always been great but with all the exhaust fumes! I am
asthmatic, and you are just packing in more cars into a little tiny
area. I don't understand the concept of giving commercial space
at this count, adding more to taxes, so the retail space in the
rest of the town goes up and of course more people to other areas.
I don't understand the logical thinking of any more taxes to the
community, of ruining the air quality by packing in this housing
project with a lot of cars.
I have never seen a financial report on this. How do you expect
to pay for it? Are we going to get taxed more? At the last
meeting that I opened my mouth, everybody said "Well the transfer
taxes". But I really don't understand how you can afford to make
the studio apartment available for 300 bucks for 20 to 25 units for
transient people or people here a year or two years.
Are they going to be able to afford this area? Of course they want
to work and live in town. I can understand. But so many cars.
Are you going to outlaw cars from this area? Plus nobody can have
a car that rents here. I don't hear a logical thing from the
Planning & Zoning Committee to alleviate the congestion, to
alleviate the smell -the stink that we have put in this area that
you want to increase in this area.
Richard: I heard a few new thoughts from the public that has some
positive potential. It seems to me there is a question --should
this be a park? Should this be green space or should it 'be
developed. And I haven't heard that one before. And the one that
George brought up --the possibility of the City selling it from one
department to another and putting it's own offices there. So I
think that there is a time when we go on that that should be
considered.
But the whole purpose of the text amendment that will be discussed
later is to increase the options and flexibility on this property
and see what is best for the public and for the neighborhood. So
I hope it will fulfil that intent.
As to some of the other issues that have been raised. I used to
live in that neighborhood until I was evicted from a nice little
cottage to make way for those lovely Graystones a block east of
this site. And that historically has been a lot of local long term
employees living in that neighborhood. My sense is that if this
project is built that is what will be there. People who will rent
those apartments will hang onto them as long as they can or until
they start a family and need larger space which means going outside
of town essentially.
In terms of traffic our whole community plan is to get as many
people located, yes within walking distance, unlike the cities that
are floating themselves to death. Their cars will sit there most
of the time. They will use them to get out of town when they want
to get out of town. That will actually reduce the number of people
looking for parking places in the area. That is the intent. If
someone can prove that this doesn't work then we need to look again
at everything the City is trying to do through this Commission,
throughout the Aspen Area Community Plan and every commission and
project that is focusing on these issues.
Comparing this project to a new commercial project that we are
housing current employees, not generating the demand for more
employees. That is the difference between this project and a
commercial project which would create new employees and have to
house some of them.
Sara: I wanted to help you out a little bit on the background.
First of all this Commission is semi -judicial board which means we
cannot sit and cheer and applaud when we hear letters or comments
from you any more than a judge can. So we are listening to those
letters and we are hearing everything you are saying. And we are
considering them. But the way a meeting is run, we can't interrupt
each other or say "Right on" and all that kind of thing. We are
really trying to consider it all.
I think this may be about our 5th meeting on this project. Of
course we know all about the Bell Mountain Lodge and that whole
project and what is proposed there. I don't think any of us want
to see just employee affordable housing go into that wonderful
piece of property there. The mixed use makes so much sense and
that is why we have been haggling over this rezoning for so long.
If the parking structure goes in, we have talked about how we can
break through to join into this project with the Bell Mountain
Lodge -all of that.
The area -the Aspen Community Plan that has been in the works for
2 years --I don't know how many of you living on Hyman have served
on any of those neighborhood boards. But there have been
neighborhood caucuses for all of you to put your input on all of
these issues we are talking about. There is something like 4 to
600 people in the community who have participated in this and
really are working hard on it.
That parcel was not designated by the Council and the P&Z to be
affordable housing. The community said "We want affordable housing
there. We don't want it ghettoized. We don't want everybody on
buses every day. We want different kinds of groups of employees
in different areas". The oldest cities in Europe have employees
downtown still. This community always did. Up above Sardy's. Up
above the Paragon. It is wonderful. It keeps the community
viable. If you want to keep it rural, I am afraid you have
selected your home in the wrong area.
Density should be in a commercial area. The hill towns of Italy
are packed --crammed in. But then you can go out into the fields
of Tuscani. We can go out into Hunter Creek and up Aspen Mountain.
We want density here. We don't want it sprawled all over our
valley.
David: As before, I find myself agreeing to a great deal with
everything that has been said by the neighbors in a lot of the
comments. I also want to assure you that as a part of our packet
there is a summary of the comments from the meeting of March 5th
that addresses everything from the impacts to the sale cost, the
need, very specific land uses. It is a very extensive memo. I
encourage you to read it to satisfy that we have heard you.
My office is adjacent to this. I agree to a lot of what has been
said. Without being redundant I want to mention that as far as a
mixed use goes on this site I think the 1975 Masterplan targeted
this site as being a major parking garage because of the proximity
to the core. Then subsequently the most recent community plan that
the whole community has been working on for a couple of years has
also targeted this site to be mixed use, parking.
The Housing Committee has targeted this as a potential site for
housing. This is not a rubber stamp committee. We tabled this the
first time it came to us listening very closely to a lot of things
a lot of you have said. And have had several meetings including
joint meetings with Council since then.
I encourage you if you have any considerations --if you have
political concerns, financial concerns, it is not in our purview
although we are certainly interested just as you are with the
financial implications and tax consequences of these projects. I
would encourage you all to go to City Council meetings, take it up
with your Council people, call them at home, call them at the
office, meet with them at Council meetings if you have serious
concerns in that regard. I also encourage you to go to the Housing
Authority Board meetings and perhaps get onto their agenda.
The intent I think of putting mixed use projects that include more
housing than would otherwise be required --this is where I disagree
with you, George --I think even on a 60-40 split, this is more
housing than would otherwise have been thrown in had there been
just a GMQS application --significantly more. And that it's
potentially the environmental impacts subsequent to having more
housing on this site than less are very great. It will potentially
reduce pollution, reduce commuting, reduce traffic, reduce parking
problems. But that is one of the reasons why I think most of the
members of this committee have encouraged the Council to consider
a mixed use plan on this site.
To help mitigate some of the parking concerns: My clients have
trouble finding parking. My staff has trouble finding parking.
I have trouble finding parking. If it is such a bad smelling
neighborhood I don't think you all would have chosen to live there.
I think housing above retail or offices is desireable and
compatible with this neighborhood. There is housing above Nature's
Storehouse. Catiecorner to this project there is housing across
the street. There is housing on 2 sides. And so it is not
absolutely incompatible with the adjacent uses. I do personally
however favor a mixed use project with a significant parking
garage. I think a mixed use project on this site would be
absolutely fantastic. It is a very desireable site.
In our meetings with Council I have suggested there are better more
affordable sites further away. Council listened. And as part of
following up on the Community Planning process they have seen to
purchase this site and continue to go forward with developing this
site. We are not deciding whether or not to move forward. If one
of you were to decide to buy a lot several blocks away and offer
to trade, that is something I wouldn't be surprised if Council and
the Housing Authority wouldn't be willing to talk about. But again
that is not part of our purview --cutting deals. We are not here
to cut a deal like that.
The realities of putting a mixed use project on like you are
talking about with a significant parking garage --I have been
shopping for developers for that type of project for a couple of
years now. Several members of council know it's tough to put a
venture like that together in today's world financial climate. It
is very difficult to get construction funding for any type of a
speculative project --anything greater than a single family home.
It has a lot to do with the S&L crises and RTC and the overbuilding
in the commercial sector of the 80's throughout the nation. So one
of our goals I think by trying to put in the mixed use potential
to the AH zone is so that if the City does go forward with
development of this project that it will help alleviate some of the
shortages that are there in the Office sector as well as affordable
housing. So I am inclined to support this application. But I do
have serious reservations. I share your concerns about parking and
traffic and noise. But I think this is an improvement and a
lessening of impacts --not increasing of impacts.
Bruce: I still have a problem with a rezoning application without
the project application. So I still have that problem despite work
sessions with Council.
Number one I am not opposed to affordable housing on this site.
02
It is clear to me that affordable housing can be built on this site
whether or not it is Office zoning or Affordable Housing zoning.
Number two. The number of concerns and objections expressed by the
neighbors specific kinds of concerns more than they are zoning
kinds of concerns. However my personal conclusion is that based
on criteria C, D, and E and I can quickly state what those are.
C is neighborhood characteristics, compatibility. D is traffic
generation and road safety. and E is demands on public facilities.
I haven't been convinced that those 3 conditions have been
satisfied to compel me to vote in favor of the rezoning to AH.
Tim: I, too, have not made up my mind. It is not written in stone
as to what I think should be there. I am in favor I think of
concentrating on as much affordable housing in that area as we can
if we decide to put affordable housing there and make it as dense
and functional as possible. I think major parking structure has
to be incorporated with it. And I hope whatever is designed there
can be blended into the super -block idea.
I am optimistic that there are boards like this and that there are
people in the City who can solve the problems that you are all
afraid of. And just to have fear stop us because we don't know
what it is going to look like --we don't know what it is going to
be, we don't want to go any further. I am more optimistic than
that. I think if we, on the one hand, go ahead with the AH zoning
that will put us on the track to start solving these problems and
start confronting what should really be there.
I do remember a lot of employee housing and various kinds of
employee places around that neighborhood. Original Curve and next
door to Mr. Abrahms house on that same side of the block there is
an apartment complex that has a lot of employees in it. So
scattered around in that area you can see what it is going to look
like. Directly on that opposite corner is a fairly dense complex
of small apartments where long term locals live.
I think that there are quite a few things in the area that are
similar to what you are going to see on that block if there is
affordable housing there.
The commercial aspects of it are very gray for me. I like to see
commercial go to the Airport Business Center or even down to
Clark's Market. I don't really think that neighborhood commercial
is necessary there.
I appreciate all of your input and it is helping me to try to
decide but for the most part I am not afraid of solving those
problems. I am optimistic that we can make everybody happy there.
Jasmine: Although there are certainly certain areas of
disagreement among the members of
project --one element that I thin
k
What happens with the Buckhorn Lodge and the Bell Mountain Lodge
ideally would help tie in with the idea of having a major intercept
type underground parking lot in that section of town which has been
part of the transportation plans and land use plans and wouldn't
it be a nice state for many, many years. I think that the reason
that I would be in favor of using the AH zoning rather than
maintain the Office would be mostly to give us the opportunity to
include the parking feature. I think that is essential.
I have the same reservations as Tim does about the Neighborhood
Commercial which would be actually technically part of the text
amendment. But I agree with them that zoning it AH will give us
the opportunity to explore possibilities other than a strictly
commercial development which will cause additional congestion and
additional traffic problems for the neighborhood and not solve them
in the way that a mixed -use project which I personally see as some
housing and lots of parking.
But without doing that we don't have that option. I think that it
would be helpful to the people who are opposed to this project to
consider what would happen if another Coates, Reid and Waldron
building went in there. I think you would find that that would
have much worse impacts on your neighborhood. A lot of the parking
problems that have to do with that neighborhood have to do with
some of the commercial uses which in the olden days weren't
required to provide enough parking for their particular uses. And
that is why some of the overflow is occurring in your residential
neighborhood.
We have an opportunity to solve this problem. Or at least mitigate
it to a great extent. And it seems to me that although I have some
questions about some of the items that will be coming in a site
specific plan that the AH zone gives us the best opportunity to
move forward to site specific plan which you will all then also
have an opportunity to comment on. But we have an opportunity to
do some good stuff here. And I think it would be foolish of us not
to take this opportunity.
Leslie then read into the record comments from Roger Hunt who was
out of town at the time of this meeting: He is basically looking
at that we have to look to the future in that Independence Pass is
never going to be closed year around so we have to consider below
grade parking on this site. It is a primary intercept lot site.
He is encouraging consideration of below grade parking combined
with other integrated uses on this site. He talked about the fact
that they had looked at other intercept lot sites further out of
town to intercept some of the Independence traffic. The problem
with that was that they always had to then service by shuttle or
:, U
other transit services.
His primary focus is coming from a transportation point of view and
he considers this one of the key parcels. And if the City cannot-
-if we can't get the City to consider this parcel for parking, how
on earth can we expect a private sector person to come forward with
a parking solution near this parcel.
He is not talking a 4 story parking structure but something that
can be integrated to this super -block idea with the Bell Mountain,
the Buckhorn and City Market.
He is firmly in favor of rezoning the property provided there are
provisions for allowing a parking structure that can be integrated.
He has no problem with the concept of rezoning to AH. His problem
is that in several work sessions that City Council seemed to be
backing mumble
Jasmine: Am I correct in assuming that everybody on the Commission
is very much in favor of including some kind of underground
parking?
Richard: I haven't come to a conclusion on that. That is not
something I wouldn't preclude. I just wonder if it becomes another
auto incentive or whether it is actually solving a problem. And
of course the money involved. We think affordable apartments are
expensive. Look at parking spaces --especially underground ones.
So I am not sold on it but I haven't ruled it out either.
Jean: I really feel you did a great job with the new parking
garage that is behind the Library. Is that full every day?
Diane: For the past 3 months it has been full almost every day.
There is constant movement of cars in and out but it has been the
highest it has ever been.
Jean: I don't think anybody here is disagreeing with parking
underground. I don't hear it. There is also a large field behind
the parking garage. What is that field used for? And can that not
be a rather larger AH development? I still say and I stick to my
point that this parcel of land is too small to do what you want to
do with it. Go and do it a block away because there is a huge
field there.
Jasmine: That is a playing field.
Leslie: The Rio Grande playing field was bought with
transportation money to originally be the receiver site for the
terminus of the down valley rail. Because the rail may or may not
happen we have the entire Rugby Association on our back about that
we may lose the playing field to rail. And there has been an
overwhelming concern that no housing be put down on these parcels
down here unless they are integrated with some other use.
Brad: One thing that came up at a meeting we had with Leslie that
has not been mentioned is the City building this affordable housing
for the employees of the Ritz Carlton? I think everybody should
think that out. They don't have enough employee housing. They
lost contracts that they had and where are they going to house
their employees? That was a question that came up at the meeting
we had. In other words the Ritz Carlton is going to have hundreds
and hundreds of employees and will not have housing.
Jasmine: No. They are required to provide housing for a certain
percentage. They won't get an occupancy permit until they do that.
Diane: They have within their PUD agreement a very specific
requirement as to how many employees they have to mitigate and they
have also listed the different areas where they are going to have
to provide mitigation for that. They will not receive a
certificate of occupancy October 1st this year for the hotel unless
they meet the requirements --their employee mitigation.
And I have heard rumors that contracts have fallen through.
Whether they substitute that with a comparable place to house their
employees --I haven't seen anything on that yet. But they will not
get their CO unless they meet their employee requirements. So you
should not feel that the Ritz Carlton is not going to meet their
obligations required in their agreement because they are. I can
assure you of that.
Horn: The Ritz Carlton has contacted me to try to place some of
their very beginning management employees. The very beginning of
what is going to be their employees. They have contacted me and
have no housing. So that is the first 3 or 4 new employees there
and they don't have housing. I have a request from them already
for housing.
Diane: They are mitigating 60% of their employees. So they have
X amount of employees. They have to provide mitigation for 60%.
Martel: Richard, I wonder if you have a personal vendetta here
because you were evicted from your place X amount of years ago when
they built our area. This is the second time I have hear you say
the same thing that you were evicted from that very lot where our
townhouses are.
Richard: It wasn't where you are. It was a block away.
Fred: A block away. I haven't heard anything that you have said
that really --other than you being evicted --and that we need
employee housing right in mid -town. Other than that I haven't
heard you say anything. And then to hear you talk about that you
are not so sure that underground parking would be a good idea blows
me away. Everyone in this room all agree that underground parking
is a necessity. Where are you going to put them? So you say "I
have been evicted and therefore we need employee housing right
where I was evicted or a block away and we don't need underground
parking"
Sara, you were talking about the employee housing mixing with the
commercial. That is very nice and you used the Paragon as an
example. And that is nice. It is an historic building and you
have employees living upstairs. It is nice. But that is not what
is being spoken about here. We are speaking about giving a
variance of an additional 5ft. We are talking here of 25 employee
units. We are not talking a couple of apartments. We are talking
of a massive project on this small lot.
You were saying "Well, then you bought the wrong property". When
we bought our property this was not zoned AH. What it was zoned
for, we took our shot with. That is what we bought. That is what
was put in front of us --not affordable housing which is what is
being discussed now. That is what our big objection is to this
whole thing. We all realize that progress takes place and there
will be something there the same as our townhouses are where
Nature's Storehouse was. But why not keep it in what the area is-
-not affordable housing.
And, Tim, along the same line we do have an idea. You say we don't
have any idea what is going to be there. But we do have an idea.
You are going to put affordable housing there and we see a number
of affordable housing developments in the area and that is not what
we feel should be on that particular lot.
Vicenzi: We have been going back and forth. We all know what the
issues are here. I still think affordable housing is incompatible
because the City really has to --all your arguments are this will
alleviate traffic. This will be a positive thing. And I agree
with that in theory. But let's get down to reality. Are you going
to restrict who you rent these places to so that they do in fact
work in town so they walk to town? What if the people work out in
Snowmass? Or work out at the Airport Business Center? Or out of
town. What if they rent these places? Half of the cars are
driving in and out. You have that aspect of it to consider.
What about as part of this saying --this parking idea is a really
good idea. Let's look at it. What about saying maybe we should
have a whole plan that purchases the underground rights that if
Bell Mountain Lodge, the Buckhorn, the City Market to see when and
if we do a parking structure here that we can do a nice
comprehensive plan. We have the rights but we don't lose them
because the Bell Mountain Lodge or these other properties are
developed and some developer says "I don't want you breaking into
my building". These are things that haven't been really thought
out. When you come in and you are tripling and doubling the
density that has a lot of impact. And we are saying OK the
community, maybe we should take some of them, but are we really
getting the benefits? Do we have safeguards that in fact the Ritz
is going to provide 60% of their housing? Well, what about the
other 40%? How do we know that we aren't going to have half of the
Ritz's other 40% living there? So we are basically subsidizing
those. We don't know that. There are a lot of concerns here.
You are also saying you want to do the next step a mixed use. So
now you are going to have commercial and you will be generating
more employees for that mixed use commercial down on the ground
floor. So, in fact, the City is developing the property, creating
more demand for employees and building employee housing. A lot of
this stuff I think you have to look at the big picture. And I
don't think this Board has really addressed all of these problems.
And I think you are rushing into zoning this AH. I think you
really should study the alternatives on this lot.
Jasmine: I want to point out one thing. Affordable housing can
be developed under Office zoning which the parcel is now. Anybody
who bought this parcel relying on Office zoning should have been
made aware that there was a possibility as a permitted use under
the City Codes to develop this parcel as Affordable Housing. We
can develop it as affordable housing without rezoning it. The
rezoning is what is going to allow us to put in the underground
parking.
George: It will increase the density, right?
Leslie: The floor area is the same.
Jasmine: All I am trying to say is that the employee housing
portion of this project will go through as long as the City decides
to commit the money to it regardless of what we zone it tonight.
Zoning it to AH makes it possible to put in the underground
parking. The decision of whether it is going to go ahead
financially as employee housing is a Council decision -not ours.
But employee housing will be on that parcel one way or the other
if City Council decides to allocate the money for it. We are
trying to create a project that will mitigate some of the impacts
of it's own development plus some development in that area. That
is basically what the difference between the Office zone which it
now is and the Affordable Housing Zone which is what it is going
to become.
Martel: Except you are adding additional height and you are adding
additional commercial.
Bob: Under the Affordable Housing clause is there a possibility
on this thing to restrict the number of cars? We are talking about
a lot that is 60 cars. The whole area is packed, packed, packed,
packed with cars. And you are adding 30 rental units there. I
don't understand --why can't these people who are getting in town
housing not have cars?
Tolen: There is 2 difficulties in restricting the number of cars
residents can own. First of all realistically we may say to people
in their leases "You are not permitted to have more than one car".
The enforceability of that is nearly impossible. Secondly it is
probably considered discriminatory to impose restrictions on one
residential development that aren't imposed on other residential
developments in the area. So restricting the number of cars that
w_ these people can own or drive because they are employees in the
City is considered inequitable if we are not restricting the number
of cars that people can drive around who don't work in the City.
David: Along that line former City Council member Bill Tuite who
is now a County Commissioner has for a long time favored just that
sort of a rule. If you want to make it known to your City Council
people, your County Commissioners and members of the Housing
Authority Board that you would like to see that sort of rule
implemented, I encourage you to contact those people. I agree with
David, it is probably not easily enforceable but as a practical
matter finding parking places downtown is difficult. Those people
hopefully who live there will either be walking to work or not be
using their car to a great extent.
Jody: I just wanted to try and clarify what I know about the
public notice issue. I was informed before the first public
hearingavid that several of the neighbors did not receive any
public notice including some who did not show up at that public
hearing. And so if memory serves I objected on the record that
proper notice had not been made. If I didn't then, I object now.
Subsequently I contacted Leslie and Dave and was able to obtain a
copy of the list for this year. To the best of my knowledge
everybody is on that list. But I haven't gone out and done my own
independent title survey of who owns all the property within 300ft.
Diane: I talked to the City Attorney about this. And Dave has
essentially certified that everyone on that list and Jody has
reviewed that list that everyone within 300ft has been notified of
that. And I don't see any reason why that would create a problem
at this point. That is part of the record right now. Jed also
added that you are a recommending body. If there were 1 or 2 names
left off that list inadvertently that that would have to be cured
prior to the public hearing before City Council but he felt
confident that this has been submitted and certified and made part
of the record that it is probably fairly accurate. And if there
are any that have been omitted that you are aware of you need to
let us know.
Jasmine: We have a staff recommendation that pertains specifically
to the rezoning of Lots E, F, G, H and I from Office to Affordable
Housing. The criteria for those rezoning are addressed in the
Planning Office memo. I know that Bruce has some reservations
about whether in fact the particular parcel does, in fact, fulfil
the criteria expressed in the memo. We do have to deal with these
criteria and perhaps someone could propose a motion and then we
could go over the criteria.
Richard: I recommend approval of the rezoning of Lots E. F, G, H
and I Block 105 of the Aspen Townsite known as the Kraut Property
to amend the official zone map from Office to Affordable Housing.
David seconded the motion.
Bruce: As strange as it may seem I think of 2 other projects that
cause me to think what I do about this project. One is the
Snowmelt facility down on the Rio Grande. And the Meadows.
The thing that happened on both of those things --on the Snowmelt
facility we have tried repeatedly to send the message to Council
that we don't think that is the proper site for snowmelt.
The reverse sort of thing kind of happened with the Meadows where
we kind of planned it--masterplanned it --and then there was so much
comment from the body politic out there, the Council in effect took
it out of our hands and said we are going to do the right thing
with the Meadows and we are going to start from scratch.
Now those 2 seemingly weird thoughts lead me to believe that the
message we ought to send to Council on this site is "OK guys, you
bought it. You spent whatever you spent on it and you need to
figure out what you are going to do with it and then when you get
that all figured out and you get the public satisfied and everybody
comes in together and they all agree like they did on the Meadows-
-we had pretty much agreement among the community that yea this is
the best compromise we can come up with --then I will be prepared
to rezone the property to AH or Q or whatever Council works out as
a masterplan for this site. But I think we are just kind of
whistling in the wind at this point to rezone it to AH and just
kind of take our chances on whatever Council or somebody works out
in the future. That is the reason I vote against it.
Richard: Just to make this clear I would like to amend the motion
to include that it meets the review criteria A through H as set
forth in the Planning Dept memo.
David amended his second to the motion.
Roll call vote:
Tim, yes, David, yes, Sara, yes, Richard, yes, Bruce, "No, based
on the fact I find that it does not meet criteria C, D and E. "
Jasmine, yes.
TEXT AMENDMENT
Leslie: Basically the goal
commercial element within the AH
with the premise that this would
use project would be appropriate
are currently zoned Commercial o
was to provide a free market
zone district. And we started off
be an appropriate --that a multi -
only in those zone districts that
r Office.
Jasmine: But you were talking about neighborhood type commercial
or locally oriented type commercial --not just commercial,
commercial.
Leslie: Right. And that we tried to cover under the uses.
Jasmine: I got confused about the goal. Is the goal to provide
the neighborhood commercial or is the goal to offset the cost of
the affordable housing or neither of the above.
Leslie: The original goal of the AH zone district was to give a
mechanism for the private sector to come in and do affordable
housing. And to give them that incentive we gave them a free
market residential element exempt from growth management.
And the reason why it was a 70/30 split is because we typically in
residential growth management we get 50/50 free market affordable.
So we wanted to up it to a 70/30 split.
Bruce: It just dawned on me that if you say the purpose for the
AH was to give the private developer incentive to do these kinds
of projects I am a little troubled by the fact that now it's
already a done deal with what is approved AH. But we are not a
private developer.
Leslie: I understand that but the City also feels that if we are
expecting people to do a substantial amount of affordable housing
the zoning should reflect that and if the City is doing a
substantial amount of affordable housing whether it is 100% or less
because AH give the ability to do 100%--that the City also should
be rezoning their own property to reflect the land uses that are
on the parcel.
Bruce: Philosophically what is happening is that --I still think
the City paid too much for that land. And so instead of paying the
right amount and being able to build affordable housing under the
O zone that we are now trying to force -fit because the price we
paid for the land --get something on there where we can sort of get
our money back --sort of get our investment back. I am troubled by
that.
Leslie: I think if you really compare how you could do 100%
affordable housing --the Office vs AH it is not that different. It
is the 5ft--there is a 5ft height limit difference.
Bruce: But you see if a private developer had come in there and
paid what the City paid for that land, and then needed a bail -out
by changing the text and changing the zoning in order to do a deal-
-do a project there, we would say "That is tough. You paid too
much for the land. Take a hike, buddy. You made a bad deal so you
are going to have to live with it".
And I have a feeling, I think that is what the neighbors are really
kind of trying to say is "You are doing something for yourselves
,� 7
that you wouldn't do for a private developer". And that is where
I really have a problem.
Leslie: A private developer could buy this lot and rezone it AH
and do the exact same thing that the City is proposing. And the
Billings property is a really good example of a project that in the
beginning the City didn't bail out. They took everything that was
applicable that they could use in the code and they pulled it all
together and they were able to get substantial amount of density
on that property including a rezoning of the property.
Richard: I remember when the City first bought it, I was upset
because they couldn't do anything but affordable housing. I
thought that would be a great place for commercial ground floor,
housing above. And that according to the existing rules it had to
be all affordable housing. That was my feeling about it then. So
that I feel that this change brings it into line with what I
thought we should have been able to do with it then assuming that
we can actually make the project fly with that kind of a mix.
Jasmine: I guess my confusion is that the need for neighborhood
commercial or for locally oriented commercial for whatever reason
has been something that we have tried to grapple with in a lot of
different areas. And it is a serious problem because I think it
is really important for this kind of stuff to be preserved not just
for locals but even tourists who ask you about places. "Whatever
happened to the Village Pantry?" That was a place that locals used
to go to even though tourists went there too. "How come the
Weinerstube is way over here when it used to be over there?" That
kind of stuff. And we have to provide that. But I think that
there are more problems with the neighborhood commercial in terms
of uses and rentals that to sort of include it in and already
problematical area of affordable housing is really scary.
Let's say the City owns this project. We decide that we are going
to approve this. We are going to allow locally oriented commercial
in the Kraut parcel. Well what Neighborhood Commercial needs in
order to succeed is lower rent. The reason those businesses aren't
around is because they can't pay commercial core rents. And they
are not going to be able to succeed over there regardless of the
location if you are going to charge commercial core rents. So the
City owns this project. The City can charge them whatever they
want to for rent. So in effect you are subsidizing the rent.
Leslie: That is one proposal.
Jasmine: Well, maybe that is the right thing to do. And maybe it
isn't. But everything has just gotten so tangled up. A private
developer comes in. You say "OK, you can build this project. You
can put in X number square feet of Neighborhood Commercial. He
puts in Mezzaluna. What are your controls? How can you make him
charge the kind of rent that will make it possible for a little
shoe maker to be able to have that kind of space which is what we
want. We don't want another Mezzaluna over there. But how can we
do it without making the rent possible? If somebody else owns it
we have no control over the rent.
It is like all these things are all intertwined because of this
particular parcel but the problems of Neighborhood Commercial I
think go a lot beyond this. I think what you could have is a
situation where you have a parking garage. You have employee
housing and Mezzaluna. And I think that would be the worst.
Leslie: A lot of people when they talk about how we are going to
protect the local oriented business and how we are going to create
space for local oriented businesses originally what people were
talking about is "Well why don't we use our same deed restricted
concept that we use with affordable housing. Why don't we use it
with commercial space?" Margot was really pushing that. That was
a real discussion point in the community plan stuff at the
beginning. And people really backed off of that because they --as
she said in the work session, "The minute I started talking about
deed restricting commercial space my phone rang off the hook. No
one yet that I have heard of or has given me an idea on how they
can make that work".
So one of the ways that we currently now are trying to protect the
integrity of our NC-- NCI zone district is by the use. That is why
staff was really opposed to allowing tables and chairs
mumble We saw that as opening another door. Mezzaluna
is in the C-1 zone district. And wasn't it Gideon who processed
a code amendment to allow restaurants to be a conditional use in
the C-1 zone district?
Jasmine: Yes. Under certain circumstances which were misrep-
resented but we have no redress.
Leslie: We don't allow restaurants in the NC zone district. And
we don't allow them in the NCI zone district. That always becomes
an enforcement issue. Believe me there are major problems with
this. But it is not not doable. But I think there are some real
stumbling blocks here and one of the thing we tried to do is given
these goals to try and preserve our neighborhood commercial uses
and create more space in town for them. We have talked a lot about
how we want to tighten that up and then I took out those uses that
are just not compatible with housing.
Sara: This text amendment I think is an important thing to have
happening to affordable housing in the commercial core. Never
since we have been talking about the Kraut property did I really
think that it could be everything to everybody. I want parking.
I want some housing there. I am real questionable about business
and putting any more at that end. I think it is very important
that this happen to AH zones in the commercial core but I don't
think it might apply to the Kraut property.
I am not worried about paying for it. I know I am spending
everybody's money. I don't think that is the way I want to look
at it.
Bruce: The thing that concerns me is that --If Mike Lousich who
once had a contract on that Kraut property, were coming in here as
the applicant and was asking for text amendments to allow
commercial in the AH zone, I dare say that we would be saying "No
way, Buddy, get out of here. We have got enough commercial in this
town. We want affordable housing and we want a parking garage".
That is my point. I think we are manipulating it because we are
the applicant. And I just don't think that is right. I don't
think that is fair. And I think we subject ourselves to ridicule.
Leslie: We offer free market residential element in the AH
already. Do you think that making that available for commercially
zoned areas is a bad idea?
Bruce: No. I don't. I just think it is a bad idea to have the
City be the first applicant and proposing the text amendments. I
am not opposed to affordable housing. I am not opposed to
disbursing it throughout the community. I am not opposed to it in
the commercial core. I am in favor of all of those things. I just
think we are really opening ourselves out to scrutiny when the City
is the first applicant and is manipulating the code for this
project to try to make this project work. That is my sense of what
is going on.
Tolen: The City as the applicant for this project proposed and
still would propose a 100% affordable housing project with the
parking required for that project and mumble. However we have
heard back from the Planning & Zoning Commission that we need to
be more flexible than that. And we have worked out a process for
that flexibility. But from the applicant's point of view this
project works as a housing project. In the sense of the
feasibility of the project it's doability, it works as a housing
project and we don't need this text amendment to make the project
work. We need the text amendment in order to have a process for
working out issues that you all brought to our attention that need
to be resolved.
Leslie: These are issues that have come up in the community plan.
The real desire that came out of the community plan is to take the
NC zoning and extend it's boundaries.
David: The Growth Committee and several of the committees have
specifically recommended to target this block for expansion into
the NC zone including the Bell Mountain and the Buckhorn for use
as neighborhood commercial, grocery store --a potential City Market
expansion, intercept parking lot and perhaps upstairs offices
and/or affordable housing.
Bruce: So why do we rezone it to AH?
Sara: Because we are listening.
Bruce: Because we are doing what Council is telling us to do.
Tim: I can remember when Woods and Bazza had the Bell Mountain
Lodge under contract. And they wanted to have it rezoned Office.
And I think that was turned down and that dropped them out of their
contract because what they wanted to do was to do another Mez zaluna
Mall and put lodge rooms or apartments upstairs and they had a big
plan for that. They wanted commercial on the street level and
housing upstairs. So I don't know --if there is going to be
backlash about it. They didn't think it was a good idea then but
now that the City wants to do it, it's a good idea.
Leslie: The commercial element in the AH zone district has been
tossed around a lot --not just with the Kraut.
Bruce: That is one reason I asked the question early on about
procedurally. Might it not be better to amend the text before we
rezone.
Leslie: That question has been asked throughout the entire
process. Are we rezoning without a development plan? Shouldn't
we know what the text amendment is without a development plan?
Shouldn't we know what the text amendment is without the re-
zoning.
David: I think we had a development plan before. I think Frank
was very clear in our work session. The plan that we have seen is
the development plan. And I think what some of us are encouraging
Council to do is reconsider that development plan. And to re-
design that development plan --there are ways to massage that plan
to have that first level --that same structure could be rented out
for office use or grocery store use and have housing above without
tearing the building down and re -building it. We are trying to
encourage Council to take that leap. Float some bonds, build a
parking structure underneath it and if it is successful on half of
the block maybe it will be designed so that when somebody assembles
the rest of the block they can be incorporated. It is pie in the
sky. It may never happen. I will put money in that it will never
happen. But it is possible that it could happen and it won't
happen unless the zoning takes place first. As long as the Bell
Mountain is LP --it is going to be difficult.
Bruce: The real long range need for that site and the Bell
Mountain is an intercept lot or garage. It seems to me we are
foreclosing our options by zoning it AH and rushing to get
affordable housing built. Sure we need it. I don't believe that
persons are saying we don't need it affordable housing. I think
we do. But if we build it there it, in my mind, it forecloses ever
having what we may really need there long term.
Sara: The AH offers us that possibility to do the parking garage
that Office does not. I would have a hard time accepting just
housing there without that garage. I think that Frank Peters
because he has set on 2 Councils now is almost throwing up his
'� f
hands because he is saying affordable housing is all we have ever
wanted there. The Council has said to us "Go ahead with the AH
because that is a priority". That is what the community has asked
us for. It was affordable housing first and then let's do the lot.
Bruce: But they could have done affordable housing when it was
zoned 0. I am not opposed to the text amendments. Now that we
have zoned it AH I think the right thing to do is to make the text
amendment. But I am still opposed to the rezoning.
Sara: But we couldn't have done the parking garage without AH.
Bruce: Yes we could have.
Leslie: Yes you could have. Parking garage is a conditional use
in Office.
Jasmine: Oh, then I misunderstood. Then I gave people the wrong
information because that was what I thought.
Sara: Yes. I misunderstood too.
Leslie: A commercial parking garage would be considered net
leasable. And you could not do a commercial. You could do a
public parking garage exempt from Growth Management as essential
public facility.
Sara: Well, anyway we are doing what the Council asked us to do.
Jasmine: I was under the impression that what with the AH zone was
going to allow us to do was to allow a commercial parking garage
which the 0 zone would not.
Leslie: No. Office does allow the parking. What zoning to AH and
with the text amendment it gives us the ability to consider exempt
commercial space.
Bruce: 5 more feet.
Leslie: We could have gone below grade 5 feet and had a whole
below grade housing with window wells and you still would have had
the same number of units on there. The floor area in AH is 1.1 to
1. But with special review in Of f ice you can go up to 1 to 1. And
then under our review section of parking it says "All afford
housing parking is done by special review".
Bruce: Well, we have rezoned it now. So let's figure out what we
are going to do now.
Jody: My understanding was without this text amendment you can't
do the parking garage --under AH.
David: That' s true. But an hour ago the parking garage could have
gone under the Office zone.
Bruce: Yes. We are worse off right now. Right?
Leslie: Without the amendments, you are right.
Jody: Without the rezoning you could have done it as a commercial
and you could have done 100% affordable housing if you wanted.
Leslie: You couldn't have done the commercial, Jody, mumble
Jody: Well, true.
Sara: I think the Council wants to protect that parcel with AH in
case another Council comes in, Jody, unlike Castle Ridge.
David: Jody, I can only tell you having worked on both sides of
the fence, it is just as hard either way.
Leslie: What we were attempting to do is find a way to easily
break out our percentage --our mix and the way we went with it is
we went with the square footage because we couldn't do unit to
unit. We went with square footage and we did not go with floor
area because anything below grade doesn't count as floor area. So
we went with the total square footage of the box excluding parking.
Because if you have 3 stories of parking, there went your 40 % which
is what we are proposing.
Growth Management you have to mitigate 60% of your employees. If
someone were to build X square feet of net leasable, how many
employee housing will we get generated out of that. And we feel
comfortable that the 40/60% split of square footage. We are still
getting more employee housing per 40% square footage of net
leasable than you do from a Growth Management perspective.
Bruce: What would have been their employee housing requirements
for that commercial square footage. In other words they have got
some housing requirements anyway any time you build commercial
square footage. Is that part of this mix in housing that we are
going to get anyway?
Many people talking at the same time.
Richard: So if they put in 6,000sgft of commercial space that's
around 20 employees but then --
Leslie: But they only have to mitigate 60% of those 20 employees.
Richard: So that is 12 and we are getting a whole lot more than
that. If you have 9,000sgft of affordable housing.
Leslie: We were using rough numbers and using the parameters of
this site as an example and our goal was in splitting out the
commercial free market and the affordable housing is to make sure
that we were getting more than we would have goten through Growth
Management. Therefore the commercial element is mitigating it's
employees and then some.
Bruce: Yes, but if we built 100% affordable housing we wouldn't -
Leslie: Yes.
David: That is a mute point then.
Sara: That is what Frank keeps bringing up.
Many people talking at the same time.
David: This gives the City the opportunity if the structure is
designed in the sort of way where there is 3 levels starting at
grade. Where the first level is at grade --or even if it is below
grade, it gives the City the opportunity to take all those
essential non -profits and arts groups, house them in the first
floor of this structure, take the red brick school and do something
else with it. Sell it. Put housing there. Put an ice rink there.
Put a rec center there. I don't know what it could be.
Bruce: Have you considered the consequences of mistakes?
Sara: That's right. What could go wrong.
Bruce: If there is some glitch in here --are we making some big
mistake that we are going to pay for? Somebody else can come along
and get an AH zone and do something that we never dreamed would
happen?
Leslie: There are 2 ways to answer that question. First for any
free market commercial space that would be developed --when it came
around for growth management and we had to figure out what the
allocation is --that they develop 6,OOOsgft of commercial space
which was originally zoned Office. What I envision is that when
we figure out what the Growth Management allocation is for the
Office zone district we would deduct that space out of the Office
zone district --we wouldn't be getting double growth. That is what
we do anyway with anything that is exempt from Growth Management.
We take that out of the allocation available that year and so we
have had growth but it is as if it went through Growth Management.
The second answer is we struggled with the fact could someone build
a project and have free market residential and free market
commercial and deed restricted or affordable housing. Could they
do an amalgamation on this? And we were thinking that if someone
bought Kraut tomorrow zoned AH we put it out for bid and someone
came in and still proposed a 70% deed restricted unit and 30% free
market unit split, they could still do that.
Bruce:
The City could do
that
too,
right?
Leslie:
The City could
do
that.
Someone could do
a 100%
affordable housing. Someone could do 70/30 unit split between free
market and deed restricted. Somebody could do a 60/40sgft split
between commercial and deed restricted. OR someone could probably
interject free market housing in that. The way we try to cover
that is that anything that is free market whether it is commercial
or residential then comes out of your 400.
Bruce: So let's build a couple of million dollar penthouses on the
top floor and pay for the whole thing.
Leslie: Is that what you were thinking of by mistake --something
we could get that we wouldn't want to get?
Bruce: Yes. I am just wondering if there is something in this
that we are not anticipating that some shrewd --
Richard: I thought of that before where the 70/30 you put the
little boxes down on the ground for and then penthouses on top of
it. Somebody could end up --
Leslie: Someone could do that right now.
Richard: Yes, with the Office zone.
Jody: The problem I have with this --everything seems to be keyed
to the prior zone district. And you are rezoning the property.
It is not Office anymore. It is AH. It is not commercial anymore.
It is AH. What happens if 5 years down the road City Council does
away with he commercial zone district and implements neighborhood
commercial or whatever all over the place. You won't even have
this criteria any more. This references the old criteria which
aren't even on the books any more.
I had a condominium project I was doing a few years ago which was
built under the old ? which isn't on the books any more.
And we had a lot of problems with what we could and couldn't do
because of when it had been built and how the codes have been
changed since then.
This proposed text amendment references half the zone districts
which could be changed at any time.
Leslie: On several of the not the whole zone district, not
the whole amendment.
Jody: It says in some cases the previous underlying zone shall
guide assessment of payment in lieu of parking, etc. On page
2. What if that previous underlying zone doesn't exist any more?
What if they have been changed in the interim. What do we do?
Leslie: I agree. And one of the ways we talked about that that
we thought we could deal with this on a more fluid basis is to have
these kinds of zone districts have mandatory PUD. And PUD enables
you to set the dimensional requirements.
Jody: Those are based on underlying zone district too. And if the
underlying zone district is AH and this new AH references an old
Office or whatever, that doesn't exist anymore --
Richard: Can you just slip the change in the Office or the
Commercial zone in under the AH?
Jody: In other words make this an overlay zone instead of a new
zone.
David: I would go for a deletion of that clause. Why not just
delete that clause? It is not Office anymore.
Bruce: You are trying to f igure out where to take it out of quota.
Leslie: So what quota do you take it out of? We don't have a
quota for AH. And since our quota in the commercial core is
dependent on the specific zone district that you are in--C-1 has
a different allocation than NC. I was trying to link the 2 and say
you have just rezoned from Office to AH. And now you are going to
develop --there are certain aspects of your development proposal
that to keep you compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, you
would refer to the Office zoning district. My idea was that at the
time of development that would set your side yard setback.
Jody: But your rezoning doesn't always occur at the same time as
the development. Whereas you are rezoning now, you may not get
around to deciding what you are going to develop for another year
or two. And who knows what happens in the interim. It looks to
me like your minimum front yard, your minimum side yard, the off
street requirements are all hooked to the prior zone district.
Leslie: And the Growth Management.
Sara: Just from being on the Oversight Committee, isn't there a
good chance that all the scoring and GMQS might disappear?
Leslie: Yes. But if we revamp the whole scoring system it would
affect every section of the code. We would have to go through
every section of the code. Another thing that is coming out of
the Community plan is the fact that maybe there are certain
neighborhoods for example out by the hospital where we may want to
encourage a small local oriented 7-11 or something like that.
And if you had that kind of desire maybe this would probably fit
into something like that out there. For example the Moore
property, if it was ever annexed into the City and they could take
advantage of AH this may be --but right now this is only being --
you know --so instead of trying to think about OK what is coming
down at the community plan I thought I would just play it a little
bit safe and only stick to our existing Commercial and Office zone
district.
36'
Richard: At the time of application maybe this is a PUD process.
So we are going to have so much affordable housing, so much
Commercial or Office in the project then in order to come out of
the quotas whatever you are proposing to use it for rather than
some underlying zoning that this is --
David: I would go so far as to proposing that we severely limit
this list. It doesn't come out of anything as a further
inducement.
Sara: Create a whole new list just for this.
David: I would cut this list back by 50% and it doesn't come out
of anything. It doesn't come out of NC. It doesn't come out of
Office. It doesn't come out of C-1, C-2. It is an inducement to
encourage half a dozen uses. And if the owner so desires to do
that sort of thing it is an inducement to create what is perceived
as a community need.
Leslie: So you basically want to treat it as an essential public
facility. Why do you think you need that additional inducement?
David: In trying to float a mixed use project on that block, one
of the real difficulties is in trying to sell it to the private
sector has been that under the assemblage --if someone tomorrow were
to assemble the entire block, it would take 7 and 1/2 years of
growth allotments in order to build a larger grocery store. Just
a grocery store. Real difficult for somebody to sit on land and
pay interest. In this community which is not considered pro -
business it is not worth the risk. It is just not going to happen.
Leslie: They do not have to compete. They don't need an allocation
to be built. The point is that if they were built, when it comes
time to asses the allocation for everybody else it comes out.
Richard: These are at the head of the line.
David: I am saying that why penalize somebody else in the NC. So
if the Bell Mountain were to try to --If City Market were to try to
expand and bridge across the street then it is longer than 7 and
1/2 years to get the allotments they need to do a serious
expansion.
Jasmine: We are talking about the super -block. The only parcel
of that block that has been rezoned is the Kraut property. There
has been no change of zoning on for the Bell Mountain Lodge or the
Buckhorn and so this does not necessarily apply because there is
no knowledge right now that there will be any reason why those
would be zoned AH. We are talking about AH zoning and then we are
sort of confusing it with the super -block. And I think we should
try to keep those separate.
David: As a planning body I think it is reasonable for us to look
a little bit beyond--
Jasmine: But there is no reason to suppose that those would
necessarily be zoned AH to begin with. And so all of this stuff
that we are talking about which are specifically text amendments
for AH zone would probably not have any application to those
particular parcels unless they were automatically zoned AH. But
they are not.
Bruce: And they won't be unless the City buys the land.
Jasmine: So that is a whole different ball game.
Richard: If somebody assembled the whole block, put. an AH zone on
it would they then be able to push through the process faster than
7 and 1/2 years and get the grocery store.
David: Yes.
David: So this is relevant because it is therefore an inducement.
Bruce: Leslie, what was the rational behind dropping the split
from 70/30 to 60/40?
Leslie: That was primarily because if you were looking at 3 story
structure --anywhere else you are not going to get --the downtown
commercial core you can go to 40ft. But we don't see 40ft any
longer. So we were primarily talking a 3 story structure.
Basically the way it breaks out is 33, 33, 33. We were looking to
give somebody a whole first floor commercial and then as they went
up to the second and third floor they had the ability to then
wedding -cake as they went up because you do 40% and then you have
your 60% on the upper 2 floors.
Bruce: I remember when we did the 70/30 numbers they were just
kind of pulled out of the air. Does it take 60/40 to make the deal
work or will 70/30 work just as well. Are we giving away 10% there
that we don't need to give away?
Tolen: In most cases we are increasing the percentage instead of
decreasing it because 60/40 mix based on square footage is in most
cases more affordable housing than a 70/30 breakdown because in
most cases the free market units are going to be larger in terms
of square footage.
CHANGES
David: Delete stuff in bold before page 2. And then wherever that
comes up throughout the ordinance be specific. Go with the AH
setbacks and that sort of thing and delete references to other
zones.
Under B--permitted uses I see a loophole here. The way I read it
I could develop 40% free market commercial, 40% free market housing
and then anything that is left could go to affordable.
That is B and C under conditional uses that it could be phrased
that 60% of the gross square footage and/or net leasable depending
how you want to define it shall be deed restricted affordable
housing. And the remaining 40% may be either or a combination of
Commercial Office or free market residential or free market
commercial. But not to exceed 40%.
Then listening carefully to the comments of the neighbors and
sharing their concerns about parking in the neighborhood I would
encourage deleting any allowance for parking -in -lieu payments. All
parking shall be mitigated on the site. It is not just this site,
but anywhere that this is likely to apply. I think parking is
potentially a problem. I would encourage us to consider deleting
the acceptance of parking -in -lieu payments for this particular
zone.
Leslie: In our CC and our C-1 zone district someone can totally
cash out of their parking.
David: Right. Which doesn't help parking congestion downtown.
Leslie: Right. But it is paying for our parking garage.
Bruce: But as a practical reality in some cases it physically
cannot be done.
Leslie: And then the Office zone district you can reduce already
currently, you can reduce to 1 and 1/2 spaces per thousand square
feet of net leasable. But I am currently working on another code
amendment to address the situation where you have a rezoning to
Office and you can't provide the parking on site. So that is what
this language reflects is the code amendment that I am working on
right now.
Then to pare down the list of uses, I would recommend deleting the
following line items. Liquor store, barber shop, beauty shop,
record store, TV sales and repair shop, video rental and sale shop,
garden shop, and 16-maybe. Under 14 I would change it to non-
profits gffices. Otherwise it is Coates, Reid and Waldron and/or
Coldwell Banker or another travel agency. And I just don't think
the town needs specially subsidized space for those things. But it
does need --and the only thing I would add to the list would be an
underwear store for Margot.
If we are going to give an inducement for someone to build
essential commercial services I think those could be limited to
drugstore and sundries. Where I think there is a substantial
shortage currently and for the foreseeable future of the community.
Drugstore, food store, shoe repair shop, laundromat, hardware
store, parking garage, recreation, daycare center, satellite dish,
dormitory.
Leslie: And I would add seamstress to that.
Nam
Sara: I see abuses for all of this. If you have a shoe repair
shop, who is to prevent them from selling Bloomingbird's shoes and
cowboy boots? It is just a way to get into this. They will turn
around and also the fabric and sewing notions. There is a little
girl on a sewing machine in the back corner that they are selling
one -of -a -kind--. I really have trouble with neighborhood
commercial. Who in the world is to say what is neighborhood
commercial.
David: If you are in the real estate business it is primarily dry
cleaners, food, drugs, and laundry. It kind of stops there.
Jasmine: I have a tremendous philosophical problem with the
inclusion of neighborhood commercial because of the difficulty of
policing it and the difficulty of getting what we want from it.
And I understand that the community is very concerned about
providing additional neighborhood commercial. Conditional uses
that are not reviewable and enforceable are just a nightmare. And
we haven't even seen what could happen.
I just don't think we can put a text amendment in unless there is
some kind of provision for very specific conditional use
enforcement. Otherwise we are opening up all kinds of really
horrible problems and I just don't see that we can do this without
creating commercial development without mitigation, taking it away
from affordable housing and getting into a situation where we are
subsidizing neighborhood commercial. And if we are going to do
that I think we need to have something that is more tangible than
this. I think this is something that is waiting to get totally out
of control. I have this feeling because of what has happened in
the past.
I would feel more comfortable if the public had been involved and
said they all miss the fact that neighborhood kind of businesses
are not able to make in this town anymore. And so as a town we are
willing to make some kind of a commitment to do something the way
we voted bonds for employee housing or whatever to provide these
neighborhood commercial services.
I would feel more comfortable with that if there was some kind of
feeling that everybody in the community really felt that way and
was willing to make that kind of commitment. I think this is just
something we have come up with. Again the local plans have but we
don't know how representative that is of the population at large.
And I think this is one area in which you might find a lot of
opposition from people whose businesses aren't neighborhood
commercial but who nonetheless make a living and live in this town
whether they sell emeralds or nuts and bolts.
Leslie: That was the argument against requiring commercial space
be deed restricted. The people who were in their free market space
were saying "I am working really hard to make a go at it and no one
is giving me a break and now you are going to deed restrict and
q--b
someone is going to get in and they are going to get a free ride"
Bruce: The same argument I made against affordable housing. That
is that some of us scraped and somehow managed to buy into free
market housing and if we flood the market with affordable housing
it pulls down the value of free market housing. It is the same
argument whether you are talking about commercial or residential.
David: That is part of the reason I wanted to really pare the list
down to a couple of the uses. So it is not competitive with the
free market.
Tolen: What you have right now is a zone district that permits
free market residential which insofar as it serves a particular
market doesn't get at any other policy objective. It is just the
benefit you are permitting the developer who does 70% residential.
With the zone amendment at worst, even if people abused the uses
here to the fullest extent, what they would get --what the community
would lose would be no different from what is permitted under the
current zone district which is a certain proportion absolutely free
market use.
It would be nice if we could structure this zone amendment in such
a way as to at least there is some chance that neighborhood
commercial uses will be served rather than no chance at all. It
seems like the zoning method as it is proposed is at least no worse
in that sense than the current zone district and may be better with
the uses restricted.
David: I think the worst abuse of this the way we have talked
about it would be a ? an upscale version of that. Something
a little glittzier a little more expensive but still a deli, food
boutique with no seating. I think that would be the worst abuse.
But ? makes sandwiches and if I am working around the clock
and scraping to get by, I love to be able to run downstairs and
grab a sandwich or a salad --even at an inflated price.
Jasmine: Maybe you are right. Maybe the restricted uses that can
even apply might be the handle on that.
Leslie: And that is the other reason why I wanted to make them
conditional uses. There is no commercial uses that are an absolute
permitted use. It is an enforcement issue but we see these people
in here over and over again. And we made Silver City Grill come
because Loretta had been allowed to abuse the situation. But
Silver City Grill wasn't. And I thought we struck a really fair
compromise.
Sara: I definitely want an amendment to affordable housing in
commercial core or I wouldn't have voted for that rezoning.
Jasmine:
I misinterpreted
that
entirely as well.
Sara: We
sure want to see
this
in May.
Zf-/
Jasmine: What I would like to do is continue the text amendment
public hearing to date certain of April 21, 1992.
MOTION
David: I so move.
Richard seconded the motion with all in favor.
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 8:15pm.
Ja a M. Carne , City Depfity Clerk
Lt ;?-