Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890131 ~x.U RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING JANUARY 31. 1989 vice Chairman Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30 pm. roll call were Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr, Michael Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. Welton arrived immediately after roll call and Jim Colombo was Answering Herron, Anderson absent. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Michael: I got a phone call from a resident of the North of Nell Building. I went to look at what he was talking about today. He claims that on the top of the easterly most portion of the ski Company Hotel is a small building that holds their stacks or something. And that he has spoken to the people of the Ski Company because he thought it was so ugly and they said that the only reason they are putting it there is because some code required it and that they didn't need it there. It is on top of the east wing and he says that they told him it was a non- necessary type of thing. I went and looked today and there is a small--it looks like an outhouse sitting on top of the building. Cindy said she would check. Roger: This concerns the Hotel Aspen which they have improved considerably. However all they have done is taken care of the punctuation. They haven't taken care of the basic noise which I consider loud for a residential type of neighborhood. They have done a cosmetic job on it but the basic fan noise is still there and that is all surrounded by R-6 and we were very sensitive about that and I definitely recall saying that things like dryer exhausts don't omit that kind of noise. They have got something else other than what I would consider a normal dryer exhaust. It is a major exhaust fan of some sort. Roger: In last week's Aspen Times they showed employee housing configurations and different spots down valley. What interested me was one of the "desired spots" was the Pitkin Iron area. The interesting thing that comes up is the conflict between "desirable employee housing" and also an alternate transportation corridor. And if it is rail why plunk housing out on an area where you are going to have to have your up valley lots. STAFF COMMENTS Cindy: Tom Baker asked me to ask you if you would be willing to '\ have a special meeting on either the night of the 14th or the 28th for the Youth Center at the Rio Grande site. PZML3L89 The night of the 28th was decided upon. CORRECTIONS TO LAND USE REGUIATIONS CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Alan: This is a continuation of a session that began on January 3rd. We presented to you approximately 50 items at that meeting for corrections to the code. You got through numbers 1 through 40. The vast majority of them you agreed with the staff recommendations. On 1j4th of them you had specific suggestions into changes. We made all the changes that you have requested and I have included in the packet most of those changes. Some of them were just so straight forward or so minor, we will bring them back to you when we bring you the final. Alan and the Board members then went through attachments 40 through 50. FLOOD PIAIN sunny Vann: I think you cleaned up the problems associated with applying the code. I think there is still a basic policy question regarding development within the 100 year flood plain. Basically the City has adopted a position which exceeds that of the FEMA and has taken the position that basically you can't develop within the 100 year flood plain. We have situations here where the 100 year flood plain stretches substantially inland. And about the only way you can develop those areas is to go downstream or go upstream and dig out a portion of the river or to lower potential elevation of the property. Those are requirements which exceed FEMA I S basic requirements for insuring the city. While I don I t necessarily disagree with the position which the Engineering Dept has taken it is difficult to develop certain parcels of land in the community which you would not perceive to be in the flood plain. Almost the entire lower portion of Oklahoma Flats area is in the so-called 100 year flood plain. Remo lives down there. His whole site is totally within the 100 year flood plain. If he were to sell his property and wanted to re-construct on that site it could be precluded for substantial cost added to his ability to redevelop the way this legislation is currently drafted. In the past the Engineering Dept has sort of skirted around its own rules by taking the position that perhaps the change in elevation of the water is so minor. I am not suggesting you 2 PZM1.31.89 change at this point but I think it is an issue which deserves consideration because there are portions of the City, within the mapped 100 year flood plain that this particular language as currently being interpreted will make it extremely difficult to re-develop. We are talking about parcels of land which have houses on it right now and have been there for substantial periods of time. Alan: Understand we haven't changed the policy here. just cleaned up the language. We have Bruce: That was my question. onto the 100 year flood plain. It looks like we are adding 100ft Is that not right? Alan: No. Those are those which are exempt. To be exempt you have to be both outside of the special hazard area and more than 100ft. The 100ft, both of those are what trigger stream margin review. If you are within the stream margin or the special flood hazard area or you are within 100ft everything within there is reviewed unless we can exempt it. HISTORIC DESIGNATION ?: $2,000 isn't going to go very far to fixing up an old house if people don't have the money. Alan: That is City Council, not us. And if you feel that some increase to the award is appropriate--$2,000 is the number we use because that is the number that was in the prior grant program. If you think $2,000 is just a pittance towards the real needs, say so. Welton: Well, a new roof for a little miner's cottage could run $3 or $4,000. Roger: I think we should make a distinction between the reward for becoming designated and covering the need of the needy to repair the house. I don't think we should confuse those 2. Welton: Graeme, what would you think for something that has been covered over with asphalt shingles and lived in by somebody in a non-descript sense, do you think $10,000 would make much of a dent in making it safe and inhabitable again? Graeme: Well, you have got wiring and roofing and if the foundation is bad that could be it right there. $10,000 easy. Michael: I wouldn't have a problem dealing in numbers that large for somebody who is a senior citizen or somebody who has got some 3 PZML 3L89 kind of disability and living in a place they shouldn't be living in. Welton: Would you suggest putting a qualifier in this that they be a senior citizen or handicapped? Michael: I don't have a problem with the $2,000 for almost anybody. I don't even know if that is our decision. I think that really should be up to City Council. But to increase it I would be concerned about just having that money sitting out there. Again I wouldn't have a problem with giving money away from the tax from my pocket to a senior citizen or whoever the other exemptions we come up with. But I would have a problem giving it away to just anybody just to preserve a structure that has an inherent value to it on the property that is greatly in excess of. If they can't afford it then they shouldn't be living in it. I don't think the tax payers should have to subsidize somebody who is living in those conditions and can't afford it. If you can't, then sell it and move on to something that you can afford. For someone who is a senior citizen or who is handicapped then I don't really have a problem with it. Jasmine: I disagree. I don't think we should say who should be living in a particular structure. But I don't think $2,000 is unrealistic and we don't really have any information that says that we should change this number. I think it is reasonable as it is. It is a matching grant and I think that if there are enough people who have problems with he $2,000 then that will come up and that might be changed. But I don't see any reason to change it at this point. Bruce: How does this applicant demonstrate economic hardship? Alan: We really haven't gotten into the details of it. I think we have a hard time anticipating what those reasons might be. But clearly we are going along with what Michael is saying. If you have got an individual who is not fixing up a unit yet has every means to do so we really don't want the tax payers to be expected to pay for this. Welton: For this item to avoid the confusion I had that it was the same thing as the historic designation grant and to at least get a little bit more realistic, I would like to change the number to $5,000 matching grant. Michael: Don't you think then you are compensating one class of citizen that is the poor people who own the historic houses? How 4 PZML3L89 about the poor people who don't own an historic house and need their house fixed up? There is a degree of discrimination here. Welton: I think we are looking at this as a way of preserving historic houses. Mari: I think it is a public benefit as opposed to a private benefit. Welton: This is part of historic preservation. This is minimum maintenance requirements for historic structures for people are wanting to let historic structures deteriorate to the point that they become irreparable so they can get their value out of the land. On the other hand we have got people that would like to be able to maintain but perhaps can't afford it because they are on fixed social security income. Michael: That is like saying I want to live in the west end but I can't afford it so I want the city to give me some money so I can live there. If you can't afford it you shouldn't have it. Bruce: I don't know if the City can loan money but rather see some kind of loan program interest free interest loan that can be paid back at the time of sale. like the idea of just giving somebody the money. Alan: There is certainly an opportunity to do a loan program. I would or low I don't Roger: I do like the idea of a pay back on the turn over of the property that there be some ability to recoup that money from the property. That money has gone into the value of the property when it is sold or goes into an estate. It seems logical to recoup that money. Perhaps at little or no interest loan, long term whatever. But it gets paid back. And then they are getting the benefit of that money over the period of time. Maybe it should not be a no-interest loan some nominal interest. I would be in favor of upping the city's portion of the figure for a matching amount. Welton: I feel comfortable with that concept too with a higher figure and something creative regarding interest. Bruce: I also am concerned that this provision only kicks in after HPC and the building officials have determined that it is falling into disrepair. I don't want it to be an affirmative action kind of thing where somebody just comes in and says I want to fix up my place. I want to borrow the money. It only should kick in after they have fallen below the standards that HPC and the building officials have said you are below 5 PZML3L89 standards. This place is falling down. You have got to fix it up. Then they come in and apply for their loan or grant. I don't think anybody should just be able to come in and say I want to fix my place up. I have got some cheap money from the city. Jasmine: So we are changing the whole thing to a loan situation? Alan: Right. A loan program and the maximum is $5,000. And the individual has the opportunity to match it on their own. Welton: Is $5,000 consensus for the time being until we find out it doesn't work and needs to be $10,000? Michael: That is not unanimous. Graeme: Do you apply for only one amount or can you--I think you should be able to apply up to $10,000 if somebody is making a decision about it. To fix a drain pipe you don't need $10,000. You need to demonstrate it but then you need a judge to figure out all that stuff. Alan: We were clearly intending that this would go to Council. I can see that that is not clear in the language. Someone would have to make a request for a designation grant. We will clarify that. The council is the judge. They are the only ones that can give away that much money. Then I have up to $10,000 and they have to demonstrate to Council the relationship between their request and ____mumble____ PUD VARIATIONS Roger: In 38 you say minimum percent open space. Why isn't it just increase in open space rather than minimum percent. Alan: That is a good point. I would say open space provided. Roger: Right. OK. Mari: What I would like to ask is what is the purpose for allowing an increase in FAR under the PUD in a lodge situation. In residential we do have the limit of density which creates a cap in effect. But we don't have any such limit to lodges. My question to the other Commissioners is what is the reason for allowing an increase in FAR for lodges in a PUD? why should there be any increase? Alan: Because typically there are some benefits that are achieved by allowing additional development on a property. To 6 PZM1.31.89 provide additional economic awards the developer will get additional public benefits. Mari: This is what I want each of you to look at because the purpose of the PUD does not say anything about trading FAR for economic benefits. It talks about flexibility and variations only for the purpose of including design. It doesn't say anything at all about economic benefits to developers. Welton: But it says "Quality of design, character and quality of development". Quality of development is additional open space. Mari: I don't believe that the intention of the PUD ordinance was to sell or trade our regulations for extracting benefits that cost money. In the purpose statement for the PUD it only talks about design issues. Graeme: There is some public good that you get in exchange for this extra density. My opinion is that we have been through that and we saw what happened. This extra density is worth so much that people will fight to get it and it has caused a conflict in the community. I don't think we need that kind of horse-trading kind of thing. I think there ought to be a cap on it. It is just like you have a house and you want to go in and make it a little bit bigger than you are allowed to and there is just no way and I think these kind of things that affect the whole community aren't up for sale. Michael: My opinion on Mari's question--my one criticism on what Alan did was and I think what Alan did was exactly what we wanted him to do with the exception of what the things are we trade off. And it seems to me that what we have done is we have limited those to open space to the height and I think there are other things that are trade-offs. I think we have certainly restricted the statute. It was unlimited with what you could do with FAR to now it is minimal or modest. And I think that that certainly is a great limitation. I think we should allow the developer to have options other than just height and open space that may be a benefit. I think we should leave it to the City Council to make the decision. PUBLIC COMMENT Dick Butera: I would suggest that in all the PUDs we have ever dealt with in the 28 years of them, the trade-off is the right to use the PUD. That is where the governing body has its time to extract the things that it wants for the right to use the PUD itself. That is enough. You don't need to say you can use the PUD and you can even make it bigger if we can trade. This is the subjectivity that gets the community crazy. Modest and something 7 PZML 3L 89 else words here is what keeps lawyers in business because who is going to define that. This Council can define modest one way. The next Council defines it another way and meanwhile we citizens have to go crazy through all of these things we go through. I think that the obligation of these codes is to allow the citizens to sleep at night trusting that what they read is what they read. If you question the citizenry size and scale is the issue they really understand more than anything else in this communi ty. This is opening the flood gates to the very core of the sensitive issue of the only thing we care about. Size and scale. All the trading can be done within the framework of the building code. Why does this one developer who does hotels get something that guys who do houses, commercial, industrial doesn't get? What is the purpose? You can accomplish everything Michael suggests by just saying "Live within the zoning code". You don't need to give bonuses. The fact that you have the right to use PUD in Aspen, Colorado means that the Planning Director is going to trade with you. You don't need to give him more is my point. You have already given them plenty. As Mari points out the day that you make it you are self- defeating the purpose of the PUD. Every time a building gets a little bigger your design flexibility goes down by its very nature. So I think you can use all kinds of words like modest and just keep every lawyer in town working forever and keeping citizens going to meetings to see what this particular Council means when they say "modest". I am sure in this room right now we have at least 5 different definitions of "modest". So I urge you to maintain the same controls of the other sections so we don't have to go to meetings every week. Chuck ?: I feel much the same way. I am curious that if it would be appropriate in hotels because you are doing a better project, why do you have caps in all the other zones? I guess what the distinction between the hotels offer in getting these pUblic benefits in a residential zone. Why are there caps in all the other zones? Mari: There is a density cap which effectively is a FAR cap. Alan: From day one this issue has been apples and oranges in density and FARs. They are 2 different things. Everybody keeps saying if you give this density opportunity to the lodge developer, we owe it to everybody else. That is just not true. You are just mixing up bulk and a number of things that go into the bulk. They have nothing to do with each other. Jim curtiss: I want a clarification if I may. Across the other 8 PZML3L89 zones do you have the ability to increase your FAR above the underlying zone? Alan: Sure. Why can't you do that on a commercial building and increase the number of businesses while you are building, build density. What I am saying if you increase the FAR on a commercial building from 1 to 1 to 1.5 to 1 instead of having 10,000sqft of commercial, now you have got 15. Don't you think there are going to be X percent more businesses? Butera: We are not concerned with number of hotel rooms. We are concerned with FAR. Alan: The FAR can very clearly be varied in residential, in lodge and in commercial. There is not a word in here about use or about zone. The PUD tool is available to everybody. curtiss: Then there should be a cap on all the zones. Alan: That is a whole other point. ?: I also would like to point out the SPA application very clearly limits density. Yet for a hotel essentially the density of a hotel is it's FAR. You are not limited in how many cubicles you put in a hotel you are building up into. So your density is your FAR. The FAR of a hotel is exactly the same as a commercial building. So you are allowing basically __?___ PUD and that is inappropriate. When you talk about FAR bonuses keep in mind all the small property owners in Aspen who go to the Board of Adjustments and try to get a 100sqft variance. You can take 100,000 odd square feet for the Aspen Mountain PUD as has been approved as overbuilt--it will be overbuilt by 100,000sqft. I think the point really is to not make the PUD attractive by allowing variances but make it mandatory when you feel that a site over 70,000sqft should be controlled to height and setback. Butera: The Hotel Jerome happens to be a perfect example of this whole discussion. John Gilmore spent 8 years getting a PUD approval and we bought it and we took it to it's maximum and did everyone of these things that you can do. We reduced that plan by 25% across the board. The number of rooms--not 25% square feet but a significant number of square feet. And you know what we got? We got the little courtyard on Mill street which John didn't have the restaurant in there. We got a shopping center that was underneath there eliminated and we got a much better project there at the Hotel Jerome because it was smaller, more in conformity with the underlying zoning than stretching and pulling and trading to put this maximum size building on this site which 9 PZML 3L 89 was a horror play to anybody who had ever seen it. So there is proof in the pudding right here in this town. Smaller is better. You don't need to award developers FAR to get their fancy and get them to do nice things. If they don't want to do nice things, don't allow them to do PUDs, period. Joe Edwards: The proposal by the Planning Office is, in my opinion, a vast improvement over what we had in the past. To put "modest to minimal", obviously are so vague that they can be litigated about. And maybe it is more than 50% modest? I don't know. Those are vague terms but they do if you look them up in the dictionary means relatively small in comparison. certainly a 200% increase would not in anybody's mind be modest or minimum. So I think it is a great improvement. I would also suggest that you might want to add that if you were going to adopt the recommendation here that you would also add internal floor area because the impact as being only modestly increased. For example a lodge has half of it's internal FAR may be lodge units. 50% under zoning. If you were to not limit that also to a modest increase you could leave the building exactly the same size and change the internal FAR to 1 to 1 instead of .5 to 1 and double the affective impact of that use on that particular piece of property doubling in effect that was allowed. And so I would request that if you are going to follow this plan that is really your plan that has reduced the language that you add in there "internal FAR" as well because that controls density of the impact. It limits the massiveness of the impact of that use because that is the way we, in effect, control the size of the lodge use is through your internal FAR. Welton: Internal is in the list of dimensional requirements that can be varied. Joe: I know but variations--in the "variations in height and external area", there external and internal. sentence below that I would like to add Alan: Joe makes a good point. The internal FAR and the external are not the same. The internal FAR can't be more than 1 to 1. It can't be more than 100% of the building. The internal FAR is the relationship between the pieces. So the building might be 50% lodge rooms, 25% corridors and public areas and 25% employee housing. And it seemed to me that practically speaking you can't have a building that is going to be 100% rooms or you would never be able to get into them. 10 PZML3L89 Joe: The Ritz went to about 80%. It went from 50%-- Alan: It has no employee housing. So it is a good point. I don't have any problem adding that to the list. Welton: If you--up above if you deleted under "I" "Internal floor area", then the internal floor area that governs that would have to govern would it not? Joe: That is true. Then it would just be per zoning. Welton: balloon balloon So the exterior you can blow up the overall size of modestly or minimally but the proposed inside of that ratio will stay the same. Joe: The internal percentage that you could use would stay the same. It would also increase in the same proportion--in other words a .5 to 1 internal FAR--you make the balloon bigger, half of the bigger balloon is also bigger but at lease you didn't lock a percentage. So one way to do it numerically would be to take internal FAR out of an allowable variance. I personally would vote as Mari has suggested that "I" be stricken entirely because what you do when you vary FAR is you are granting for re-zoning. You are increasing the size of the development on the lot. And you are not doing it through re- zoning. You are doing it through a kind of vague and indefinite process. And PUD was created originally for dimensional variations to allow architectural creativity, to allow you to push the envelope around into different shapes to fit the land forms. It wasn't intended to give you carte blanch re-zoning to a greater use. That was not what was intended. I would recommend that you strike would be your best alternative. would be to strike "Internal FAR". "I" altogether. I think that The second best alternative Dunaway: If you are going to retain a variance of FAR and if you like the concept of minimal and modest, I really think you should adopt--go back to a percentage because minimal and modest are vague terms that nobody really knows what they mean. And if you said 15% or 25% you would have precision. Right now going to this, and I know that you wanted some vagueness before, but to be that imprecise in the code is going to lead to litigations. " Jim Curtiss: I observation--Chuck think it is really interesting in this __?__ and I make our living by representing 11 PZML3L89 the development community before the City and the county. Expressing our own self-interest we should be sitting here saying "Make it as flexible, as open ended, as negotiable as possible". That would help us out and put more money in our pocket. As a resident of the community and given the pressure this community is facing and given the history of the growth control in the community and how hard the community has fought to maintain that, it just kind of behooves me when you are talking about allowing an increase in FAR above what the adopted zoning is. I just have a hard time making the connection as a resident of the community. Richard Compton: I would like to second what Jim just said and your stand on it. It seems there is an assumption that increased FAR is something that can somehow be given away without being taken from somewhere else. I think we have a limited capacity for development in this valley. And when you allow anyone developer an increase in size in trade for whatever else--whether it is a park or nicer brick on the front of the building that it is not an even trade. You are giving away something which you don't have unlimited supply of in order to get a little bit of extra somewhere else. If you end up with an extra 10 rooms in one development and it is 10 rooms that cannot be built somewhere else. So you are taking from one developer and giving to another or taking from a resident and giving to a developer. I don't think this is in line with any rational zoning. Graeme: When Alan said "Across the board, you could get these increases" I think you meant if you are in the PUD process which kicks in at 27,000sqft-- Alan: It doesn't apply to any specific type use or zone district. Graeme: I think you are always going to be having a problem because what you are saying to the little guy is he might have a house on the corner and you say "Hey, I would like to have a couple extra square feet and I will chop my corner off, a little sculpture here and little park". It is nice for the people. You can't do that. But anybody--the big guy, he can do that. And why should that be? And I think that as long as this is in there, the little guy is going to be pissed off that that big guy is able to do that. And we have already seen that. We have seen what this kind of horse-trading and trying to define how much extra they can get. We have seen what has happened and I would like to see "I" gone. 12 PZML3L89 Alan: I think I bring up the issue on an earlier page of my memo. It is one for discussion and questioning. Lots of people have questions. What is the magical number? What is 27,000sqft other than the fact that it is half of a city block. Is that the only size property--that and above to be a PUD? The only answer that we have ever been able to give is that a PUD can work to be variation here and an exchange for something else there. There is enough land area to cluster and work with the property. Graeme: I disagree. I can say "Here is a nice little park bench where you can come and sit and there is nothing here that substantiates that. I would also like to say that most of the people I know who are in favor of the hotel start their defense of the hotel by saying "I think it is too big but--and then they go on with the fairness thing that we have gone this far or whatever. And I think if all those people could go back to a ground 0, the thing would be dealt with a lot differently. And so I just think that the divisiveness that this kind of horse trading-- trying to define and I don't think 15% of FAR is maybe worth 15% of setback or height. They are just 2 different things. So it is hard to set up-- Dunaway: I meant that 15% was a percentage restriction on the variance--not on the compensation. Alan: We were suggesting 15% as opposed --mumble--25%. I thought the number was measurable and something people could work with. But the Commission was afraid that if you put the 50% in there that is what people will design to. Welton: If you put none in, it is none. Mari: Yes. That is why we should make it o. Roger: Why don't we drop the allowable FAR or lower the allowable FAR and add the 15% on top of it? Mari: Then you still have horse-trading. What is wrong with the zoning code the way it is meant? To control FAR. I just wish everyone would look one more time at the purpose as it is in the code. What the purpose of it is. It doesn't say anything about horse-trading for ice rinks. It talks about design only as it relates to development. I just wonder if I were going to build a house and I wanted more FAR than the zone allowed and I said "Well, look I will donate $5,000 to the library--if we are going to be in the business of trading things for zoning variations--I mean that is what we are doing. We are selling it. And if we are selling it, why don't we be honest about it. 13 PZM1.31.89 Roger: Ok. Let's be honest about it and then put down the price list. Maybe that property can justify a certain number of units providing they take care of some of the affects off property. Why shouldn't there be a price list that if the limitation to the number of units allowed on that piece of property is because of transportation problems or something like that--if they want to put in a transportation system then maybe that should be the price for a certain number of more units. Bruce: A partial response to Mari' s question is one of the purposes to promote a more efficient use of land. I would respond--forget about the Ritz for the time being. There may be a time, we are already there, when we have a shrinking resource of land. And one of the things that a PUD perhaps could do would be to allow that land, and there is only so much of it, to be used more efficiently. That means more floor area, maybe the more density. I think that is a legitimate purpose of a PUD. We can debate the Ritz back and forth all night long. I don't think that is what we are talking about right now. We are talking about the purposes of the PUD and I think that is one of the purposes as stated in the code. More efficient use of land. Jim: In my thinking as a professional in land use planning traditionally if that can be a conscious decision of the community the procedure to accomplish that has been a rezoning procedure that defined--we want this piece of property to support additional use for these reasons. To me you are trying to have a PUD process be a negotiated, horse-trading, rezoning process. And I think there is a real problem in that. Traditionally PUD has been primarily to encourage profitable or more creative architectural design. Jasmine: No. Welton: I would like to take a straw vote at this point after having heard all of the very well thought-out comments of the public and commission members. I can see 3 simple alternatives that were discussed tonight and they all hinge around "I" on page 77-52. One is to leave it as is. #2 is to strike "internal" so that "external" is addressed and "internal" is--if there is an internal FAR required then that ratio remains. And a 3rd is to strike "I" altogether which I think addresses the concerns of most everybody who has spoken tonight. Mari: I would move that we strike "I" altogether. Only 2 voted in favor of this on a straw poll vote. 14 PZML3L89 Welton: Those in favor of striking the internal portion of that sentence? Graeme: I still don't understand the difference between internal and external and how that affects everything. Alan: It is just how you cut up the pie. A pie can be no bigger than 100% and it can be 50% rooms and 25% corridors and 25% employee. It can be 60, 20, 20--whatever. But it can be no more than 100. What is the external FAR is the relationship of the building to the site. Jasmine: The thing about hotel rooms though is that regardless of the size you can put as many people into them as you want to. And anybody who has operated a lodge in this town will tell you that a room with 2 double beds will take anywhere from 1 to 6 people. So that doesn't really affect the problem of the impact of usage. Alan: Was there anybody else in favor of striking "I" altogether? Graeme and Mari was the answer. Welton: And I joined in on striking internal floor area ratio. The 3rd possibility is to leave I and the rest of this as Alan has amended it. Alan: Or do you want to put a numerical-- Wel ton: I didn't feel comfortable with it 3 weeks ago and I don't comfortable with it now. I have a note here saying "Definition" next to "Modest" and "Minimal". If you will look back to the 10th of January you will remember a LP Lodge that was before the Commission that was coming in for an expansion and the discussion hinged around what is the definition of "Limited expansion" and you got the applicants to cut it by 1/3rd by saying what they came in with was not limited. I think "modest" and "minimal" by Webster's def ini tion is much more precise a definition than "limited" is. And "limited" created the desired effect in reducing the size of that application. So I feel more comfortable with "modest" and "minimal". Roger: I do too. Wel ton: Let's decide that question. percentage figure on this? Who would like to put a 15 PZML31.89 No one voted for this. Alan: Extremely minimal. Welton: Who feels more comfortable with leaving it at "modest" and "minimal" and the Commission decide at the time of the meeting that "Yes this is or no this is not". General consensus was arrived at on this. Jasmine: I think part of the problem is that the concern was-- PUD was a design element only as something that is restricted to physical dimensions, physical capacities of a particular piece of property which was, I think, the way as it was written that was the original intent. I think it has changed somewhat as the community has changed. And Bruce's point about the utilization of land I think is an important one because I think what happens and what is going to be happening increasingly is not so much development as re- development. Therefore we have to take a different look at some of the things that we include under PUD. And one of the problems that I have with this approach is that I think what we are taking into account here is that the variations in what tends to be the large parcel, 7,000sqft, tend to be more publicly oriented buildings even if they are not public in ownership or necessarily public in nature because of their very size. These parcels have more of an impact on the public a~d therefore I think governmental bodies feel that a PUD process 1S a way to take into account the affects on the community and the potential benefit to the community. And the thing that bothers me about that is that I don't think the City generally has been very good at the horse-trading. And I don't think that the public policy has been explicitly expressed. I think somehow if there was a way in which there could be some kind of an expression of the fact that these variations are not necessarily limited only to the physical characteristics but the community benefit or the best interest of the community, maybe expressed in other ways. Perhaps through the provision of additional employee housing which I think might be a way in which the community can come to grips with something like employee housing or an ice skating rink or whatever it is. I would feel a lot more comfortable with these variations if there was a more specific definition of community interest and a way or community benefits in a way in which the developer could 16 PZML3L89 take advantage of the flexibility but within a sort of stated policy of community benefit. Alan: In effect--the price list. Roger: Yes. The price list. Mari: So in other words you just think it would be a good idea if we just published how much--OK employee housing is $25,000-- Jasmine: If that is the policy. Maybe it is transportation. Mari: For $25,000 you get 2,500 extra square feet. Jasmine: The point that I am trying to make is that community benefit does not necessarily only limit itself to design. And it is obvious in the past that attempts have been made through the PUD process to obtain community benefits from development. I think that that is going to continue because of the question of development and re-development. And I would like to see us take an approach to it that really is a community benefit. I don't think that anybody can come up with a specific price list now. But I think that there should be some sort of establishment of community goals and priorities. Michael: I think that goes almost back to my initial comment that I was comfortable with what the Planning Office--what Alan had done--I was comfortable with "minimal" or "modest". And I would like to suggest that we add language--I am not telling you that this is specific language but something to the effect that in addition to the decreases in height and the minimum or percent of open space that we have language something to the effect that says such other non-economic compensation in the form of a community benefit as the city Council may consider appropriate so that we can have a developer come in and say--if for example he was going to come in and build a 100,000sqft hotel that maybe he could build a 110,000sqft hotel if he put up some kind of substantial employee housing. To me that is a trade-off and that is a trade-off that is a community benefit that I would be satisfied with. Welton: That was my thought in reading this that the benefits back to the community were limited SUbject to decreases in height and increases in open space and there is a whple spectrum of benefits that are possible for PUD. Graeme: I think when you start talking about community benefits you are talking about something that not everybody is going to agree on and again you are going to go right down this same tube again. 17 PZML 3L 89 I want to point out something to do with Jasmine's ideas. Going back to the purpose of the PUD. A. "Promotes greater variety in the type, design and layout of buildings. Improves the design, character and quality of development." It does not include the word "quantity". It talks about the quality, the type, the design, the layout. And it never talks about increasing the size of the building. And if you go back the Planned Unit Development, the purpose for it then that is pretty plain. Michael: All we are doing is restricting that initial thing that the city Council passed. They passed the PUD that said you can change FAR and we are now restricting that so it says you can change it but minimally or modestly. So we are restricting what they have already got there. They could have an initial PUD that said you cannot change FAR and we are doing that. What the problem in the community is you proceeded with the hotel is that they change the FAR and the hotel too much. And now we are saying to limit it to a minimal or modest increase and we are defining on what basis they can do that. Graeme: From what I understand the original intention was not to be able to increase the FAR. Michael: Then why does it say they can? Graeme: Because of a language problem. Welton: No. Michael: The language says "Increase FAR". Just FAR. Welton: Aspen is not the only place in the world that has PUDs. We learned about PUDs in architectural school in planning classes. PUDs happen everywhere. PUDs are not distinct to Aspen. We have 3 choices concerning "I". with a final straw vote on leaving That is 4 I on attachment 40. I would like to wrap this up this paragraph #40 the same. All in favor of leaving it as Planning Office's memo with the suggestion that other community benefits be not limited only to setback--more horse-trading. Alan: A suggestion--if you are not willing to strike internal or external FAR as waivable, will you include them in the list of things that can only receive minimal or modest increases. That 18 PZML3L89 was a suggestion and hasn't been accepted or rejected. it is a good idea. I think Welton: I think it is too. Alan: We have already said external but to add internal to the list of things that must be modest when they are varied. Welton: Those in favor of adding that to modest. Michael: I don't really have a problem with adding it. I am just not quite sure--what would happen if you increase by say 5% the FAR-- Alan: That doesn't affect your internal FAR ratio at all. You can still be right on line. Michael: But you are not going to get a developer who can increase his external FAR by 5% and who can only then increase 50% of that by 5% who is going to build lighter hallways. Alan: He can also come in for a variation to his internal. He can go to up to 60% maybe 65% but he is not going to 80 or 85%. That is what this does. It is a pretty big change. #42 is an idea that we have had in the office. We have sug~ested combined conceptual and final as a way of reducing the reV1ew on certain types of applications. It is suggested that you allow that to happen whenever staff finds that you have got a mandatory PUD site and there really are not significant issues and it is just pointless to have somebody come in, throw a concept at you and then come right back and do a final. A second way of looking at this would also be when there is a significant community purpose to be served by consolidation. council decided not to consolidate the Red Roof process after you have consented to it. But they want to put it through all 4 steps because they don't feel the code really provides for that. I think there are going to be times when for the benefit of employee housing or for some other pressing community need, you may want to shorten from 4 to 2 steps. Alan: Then they would only have done conceptual and they would have to come back for final. We could put that in there. I think that is a good point. Graeme: If P&Z does feel that there is a problem then they could say that and then that would just put the applicant back to a 4- 19 PZML3L89 step process rather than a 2. But at least they would know that right away. Alan: I think that is a good point. The Planning Dept will make the determination as to whether it is a 2 or 4-step process but the P&Z and the Council can overrule. PUD final. We are suggesting in this list of zone districts we waive the 6 month minimum lease restriction by meeting a series of standards. Actually the way you get out of a 6 month minimum lease restriction in the commercial core is by having a conditional use approved. And you never look at these standards except when you are a historic structure and it is a conditional use and you can waive your restrictions. So this never should have been on the list in the first place. #46. In the condominiumization provisions there was a required fee to be paid for condominiumization of residential units and there was also a provision that allows you to not pay the fee if you agree to restrict the unit as a resident occupied unit. We have had some people who have said they might restrict but someday may want to sell to a non resident. They want to know if there is the potential for reversal if I pay the fee that I would have had to pay anyhow. And we felt that that was reasonable. We would rather see people be willing to restrict the units to resident occupancy knowing that they can some day pay the fee than to have them say this whole process just doesn't make sense and not have residents not occupy the units in the first place. #47 is a pretty significant one. The Commission originally recommended on the commercial and office GMP competition that it be done based on a net leasable square footage. The feeling being-why make people compete for bathrooms or storage areas. Council though said "If we change this to net leasable, be effect is that before where people were competing for 10,000sqft building they will now only be competing for 8 of the 10,000sqft. The net effect being more building. And they were right. But by not realizing what it meant to get rid of net leasable in the code we have ended up with a regulation that is not very easy to use. Right now it just says square footage. And people have said is that FAR square footage is it above grade, below grade- what is it? It is obviously everything in the building above or below grade. If you have a below grade restaurant it is obviously still commercial square footage. We found square footage is really a poor way of dealing with the situation. We would like to go back to net leasable. 20 PZML 31. 89 We came up with the idea of 85% is what to shoot for in terms of net leasable space you can get out of a commercial structure. Then rather than just allocating it right across the board, which would have made for example the office zone district, you would have really dropped it down to almost nothing and Office is one area in the community where we are really starting to get real short falls in space, I left Office a little bit higher, dropped the CCC-1 where we are seeing an enormous amount of development and dropped that a little bit more. This doesn't deal with the question of growth rates. So we may be coming back to you with a further reduction on some of this. Michael: Isn't there a potential problem that could exist. You have got a developer who comes in and he competes for 2,000sqft of Office of net leasable and he has 1,000sqft or non-net leasable as regards the definition and then he leases out to his tenant a lot of that stuff like the storage. Are we looking to restrict future development through the growth management quota being defeated by allowing him then to take that space and say "You rent your office at 600sqft but you are going to pay for 600sqft and this bathroom that I am giving you so you are going to pay for 700sqft and he didn't have to compete for that. Alan: Our concern is not rent. Our concern is we want to have them compete for space that is impacts. And we want storage to be for tenant on site. We are concerned about space that creates automobiles, employees, water and sewer. That is what GMP regulates. Sunny Vann: When you eliminate the ability to reconstruct there are older commercial square footage or commercial buildings in town that at some point are going to outlive their usefulness and should be re-constructed. The way we are restricting the quota, the ability to do that, is substantially precluded. What it does is it winds up costing all of us more because the resident of the space pays a higher rent and therefore the only person who can afford the space is the high-end jewelry store or whatever. When you went to 60% employee housing, the landlords all bumped the rent. You can't do this on a vacuum. You have to understand that when you preclude the ability to re-construct or you substantially limit the quota, what growth that does occur is not enough to meet the demand for the space and the rents go up. Alan: I think that is a real good point. I would be willing to bring that to council myself. 21 PZM1. 31. 89 !/48 is something that came up after we did an incentive last year that allows 2 detached units on a lot--historic landmark lot. We realize that you had to compete for the 2nd unit through GMP which obviously wasn't anybody's intention. So we have clarified that exemption. !/49 is a suggestion and everybody agreed that the change should be made. And we never did it. It talks about a vacant lot formed by a lot split. The old interpretation was that only when you have a unit on a lot can you get a lot split. !/50 simply says that a project requires HPC approval. They have to get conceptual before they can submit for scoring. !/51 is the net leasable, commercial and office which we have talked about. And we want to add to that storage area is to be used solely by tenants on site. !/1 is when the single family duplex thing was dropped out of the Ord that single family duplex can be demolished and there are no effects on the owner from the new ord 47. There was a suggestion made that because there is so few of these left in the commercial zone and we want to encourage their preservation that we make their demolition a conditional use and subject them to review for impacts, compatability and all of those kinds of things. There is precedent for looking at the commercial zones a little bit differently because the natural tendency in the zones is that in the past people have lived in the downtown areas and the commercial entities force them out. In most communities, and I think we are one, like the idea of having some permanent residents in the commercial areas. This is one way of gaining greater control. Council liked this idea. They said they would like to do this. You might want to put a disincentive to duplex. I wouldn't do it to the single family because that is really the little person that is trying to maintain their home. If they do a significant addi tion then we are going to put them through the conditional use process and public hearing. Sunny: You have a handle on it by putting a different slide scale FAR for single family/duplexes in the O-C1 and RMF zone. You have basically stopped the Troyer type of duplex because the value of the land can't be supported by the square footage that could be built as a single family or duplex anymore. Alan: Duplex is prohibited in the CC and permitted in the C-1 and Office. 22 PZM1. 31. 89 Roger: I tend to like the idea of conditional use in the C-1 and also the Office because we look at a case in hand where C-1 is supposed to be a Commercial zone oriented towards local type businesses. I am seeing probably what is going to happen to Aspen Supply it is going to get booted out for boutiques, or it is going to get boutiqued out, and the C-1 zone being the zone that we would like that type of activity I find a duplex apparently that can compete very well in that zone district yet it is not a particularly beneficial locals oriented use. So through that round-about way that is why I tend to like the idea of the conditional use for duplex at least in the C-1. Welton: Alan: A Welton: What about duplex? Yes. doing the same thing in RMF? Cindy Houben: I guess my reasoning for C-1 or Office would be there are better uses for that land. We are trying to get the intense uses there but RMF is a zone district we see as a multi- family residential zone district. ....,...,- Welton: But the better uses for all of the RMF particularly in the east end than duplexes that are exempt from GMP. Multi- family would be better than duplex and it would be if it was employee oriented it would be exempt and if it was big fancy townhouses then it would have to compete. But right now it is slipping in under the exemption for duplexes. And we are losing all the affordable housing. Jasmine: I agree with Roger and with your point also. It seems to me that the criteria for situations like this is that somewhere along the line we have to come to grips with permanent housing as opposed to second homes. And I think in conditional uses if you are in a C-1 area where there are primarily or weren't primarily local uses that I think that that is one of the criteria you could apply. If you think about those townhouses over on east Hyman, wouldn't that have been a nice place to have the hardware store moved to which is C-1 rather than having houses that are empty all the time. Every time you walk by there except for Christmas time there is nothing going on there. That would be a situation where if you were going to put houses in there they should have been permanent resident housing. Alan: I hear several people saying C-1, Office and RMF duplex, conditional use construction of. Consensus? 23 PZM1. 31. 89 Roger: It is heavy duty. Michael: I don't like fooling around with the RMF. I agree with cindy that is an area that is multi-family. I don't like making those kind of subjective evaluations in the RMF. Wel ton: That is one dissenter and a lot of silence. And acceptance by acquiescence from everybody else. Alan: This is a suggestion that Rick Neiley made to the Council repeatedly during the review of the Ord 47 and finally they suggested that we take it back to P&Z for further consideration. What Rick is suggesting is that because of the requirements of the Ord 47 which says that a portion of any development on site where there has been mUlti-family demolition must be affordable housing. 50% of the new development must be affordable housing. We really need to provide some additional flexibility for the developer to be able to build units and not just to build a 1- bedroom unit to match a 3-bedroom unit which is the minimum requirement in the Ord. But to built units that people will really want to buy and live in. To build high quality affordable housing units. He is suggesting that we increase the RMF FAR by some review mechanism to 1.1 or 1.15 are the numbers that I have bandied about. Only when that increased FAR at least some portion maybe not all of it but some portion of it showed up in larger than normal or larger than minimal sized affordable housing units. Roger: I don't have too a problem with a bonus FAR providing that the greatest amount of that bonus ends up in employee housing as opposed to the free market units. How do we do that? Alan: That's what I couldn't figure out. How do we do it? Mari: All of it. Alan: I still don't know how you do it. There is no internal FAR ratio for mUlti-family projects so they put as much as they want into the free market units to start with. And by giving the bonus FAR you must require the unit to be more than minimum size is all you can say. I don't know how else you can force it. cindy: But they can get maximum and 15% over that has to be within the employee housing. Alan: Already a portion of their--up to the maximum has been employee housing. What you are saying is instead of building a 400sqft studio you want--if they come in with a studio it has got to be 5 or 6 or 700sqft. Or if it is a 1-bedroom, it has got to be 7 or 8 or 900sqft. We have got minimum standards in our 24 PZM1. 31. 89 housing guidelines. I think all you can say is the Commission is going to judge whether the amount of the FAR asked for has resulted in larger units. You know everybody without a bonus is going to come in and say "Look I will give you 1-bedrooms but the 1-bedrooms are going to be minimum size". Now you have a way of saying they can't be minimum size. Frank Peters: Well, at the Hotel Lenado we have a 2-bedroom employee housing unit that one part of it is GMP application and it is 350sqft. Now by the Housing standards that is tiny. But it is the most popular. We have 3 housing units--3-bedrooms at the Lenado, 4 at the Sardy House and that unit is the most popular of all of them. It is small and they can take care of it. It is a combined kitchen and dining room and 2 bedrooms. I think that the Housing Authority guidelines for the size of the units are extravagant for a certain type rental market. And I would suggest that you not try to make units--mandate units bigger. Just make sure that square footage goes to employee housing and perhaps allow more density on the site. Have the FAR allowed for density for additional employee housing. I don't think you should be giving FAR bonuses for condominiums, free market units. Alan: Just so you know I have been fighting this prov1s10n all the way through. And I continue not to believe in the idea of FAR bonus at all. But the Council has asked us to bring it back to you. The last time we brought it to you guys you were not in favor of it either. This has got a twist though because it is oriented towards getting something back for the FAR in terms of greater sized employee housing units which I think is real important for the community. Frank, for your purposes for people working in the lodge I can understand the size is not important. For people who want to live and have a stake in the community by buying a unit or renting a unit for a period of years I think the size of the Housing Authority's guidelines are much too small. Rick Neiley: What I can see is that when proposing this to council there was some mix of applying a portion of it to the affordable housing units and some portion to the free market. If you are taking the existing affordable housing requirements out of free market, in order for it to really work they have got to be some acknowledgement of what at least Council is promoting is the Robin Hooding of affordable housing and that is that you have got to give some incentives to develop the larger affordable housing units. 25 PZM1. 31. 89 People are actually going to build the smallest amount that they possibly can for what people sell in this town for square footage. By requiring a certain portion of any FAR bonus to go directly into increasing the size of affordable housing it is my view that you create better more desirable affordable housing. If you look at what the Housing Authority has done to try to address the immediate crisis issues in affordable housing we see things like the Red Roof and the proposed Marolt development which really address that transient, smaller unit employee population. What we can see for this was that if there was a better ability to create larger more desirable units and very possibly units for sale as opposed to simply rental units that we create a benefit for the affordable housing ord not going to get an ord 47 without some kind of bonus. I thought a 15% FAR bonus was fairly reasonable. It is going to apply to relatively few properties and the benefit that the City might receive is that the affordable housing market you would like to see is going to be substantial. If you take a 500sqft ".~, and you say that you get an FAR bonus, you have got to make ita 700sqft unit that substantially increases the living space. I think that you can have a much better living situation. I think that a 50/50 split is realistic. You will actually encourage people to build a larger unit as opposed to simply saying there is no cost advantage and face it, even though your mandate is not to consider economics what is going to determine the desirability of these units is the property owner's willingness to incorporate the larger units and to pick up some of that cost of building those larger units. And bear in mind that City Council has designated that all the units that are created under Ord 47 must be low income guideline units. That is $68 a sqft for sale and .60 sqft for rental so you are not talking about any certain economic incentives to create larger units unless you permit some of that additional FAR not to go to the free market. Welton: I have always been in favor of some kind of carrot and stick kind of approach. And we have kind of turned it around and reduced FARs about 25% to get at the same end result. But I continue to be in favor of a 10 to 15% bonus particularly if it is split at 50/50 mix. Alan: So what you would say--let's say you give a 10% bonus on 20,000sqft lot which would mean that there would be 2,000sqft of 26 PZM1. 31. 89 bonus that 1,000sqft Authority. all of the employee units would have to have at least above the minimum size guidelines of the Housing Roger: Alan: The sum of the employee. That is the only way that we could do it. Roger: I would prefer that the proportion a little more weighted toward the employee unit. ~ Jasmine: I would like to see the proportion go more toward employee unit. But I think that Rick's points are very well taken. I think that as a social benefit the value of having a larger unit will accrue not only to the people who are actually buying them but I think that as far as the free market units that that will make the presence of the great unwashed more palatable to the people in the free market units as well. I am speaking as one of the great unwashed. I think this is a desirable thing because I think that that sort of thing may tend to lesson the kind of "I don't want employees near me" type resistance that you might get. And I think that if the employee units are larger and then theoretically nicer, regardless of the income level, that it will be more reassuring to the people who will theoretically be buying these free market properties. I think to whatever extent you can minimize the conflict between free market and deed restricted I think that is a very worthwhile social goal. Wel ton: Let's have a straw poll to see who wants 15%. your hand. OK. 10%? Alan: OK 10%-- Welton: No percent? Any other percent? Michael: I voted with Mari for 15. It is a first. Raise Alan: Right now parking cannot count towards open space. Rick suggested that when the project is 50% or more employee housing units that parking on site can be open space. It is one of those trade-offs. He is suggesting that it is a way that you won't be waiving parking quite as often as we are. But the trade-off is that we are losing open space. Graeme: I tend to side with the open space here. These projects come in with cars parked all around them and I really think that the open space is important enough. I am in favor of that. You lose grass, trees, ventilation and light. And now you are talking about granting an increase in the FAR and I think we are just going to go back to kind of "beasty" looking buildings surrounded by automobiles. 27 PZM1. 31. 89 Roger: And being employee housing there will be automobiles. No doubt about that. Mari: And they will waive the parking for them. Rick: There are a lot of beasty-looking apartment buildings out there. And to encourage people to design a project that involved parking for those units, if not waiving the open space requirements that would be taken up by those additional parking spaces, having some percentage of it would certainly encourage people to get cars off the streets. A lot of people would say it is better to have them off the streets and in a parking lot and leave a little bit of open space than continue the parking problem we have got right now especially in the east end. Welton: Is it 10% of the open space or 15% of the open space? Michael: I think we should keep the cars in the street where they belong. .. Mari: We are going to have to build a parking lot for employee units eventually. Roger: What we do need is a storage facility or a storage parking lot. Mari: Because we are wa1v1ng parking for employee housing which are the places that are most likely to have cars and there is no place for employees to put their cars and now they have started enforcing the street parking. Welton: Is there a solution? Is open space land that can be sacrificed in order to solve that parking problem? Roger: Along with that I think somehow or another planning-wise we should start addressing the long term storage of automobiles and figuring out where that can be done in our system. Whether it is the Airport Business Center--some sort of a controlled lot or relatively secure area on the transportation system where people can take the transportation system to pick up their car. Welton: Barring any objection meeting is adjourned. Time was 7:20pm. 28