HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890221
f{P
RECORD OF PI.'':::EEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 21. 1989
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were Bruce Kerr, Michael Herron,
Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre, Jim Colombo and
Anderson. Graeme Means was excused.
Mari
Welton
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
There were none.
STAFF COMMENTS
There were none.
CRESTAHAUS GMQS AMENDMENT
PUBLIC HEARING
Roger made a motion to remove Crestahaus from the agenda.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
HOTEL JEROME GMQS EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE AMENDMENT
PUBLIC HEARING
Welton opened the public hearing.
Roxanne: Made presentation as attached in record.
Primary to the change in use is mitigation for the 3 employees
-' that are required by the Housing Authority. And this is based on
a generation that the 5.25 per 1000sqft. This comes out to 60%
threshold employees.
The North star Lodge has been purchased by the Hotel Jerome and
we are recommending that either payment-in-lieu for the employees
that are generated be accomplished or that the units be deed
restricted at the North star as a possibility.
The applicant has submitted a letter in your packet which states
that they feel that their employees have been already taken care
of due to the lesser hotel rooms that were created in the Hotel
Jerome and that originally 13, OOOsqft of commercial space was
approved and they in fact built 0 of that.
We feel that the Housing Authority's recommendations are
appropriate in this case. We are also recommending that you
approve the conditional use for the office.
Secondly the Engineering Department has required 2 issues be
brought into compliance that were represented when it was
originally approved. One is the indoor trash compactor that
currently is not in existence. A second is the limousine/van
drop off parking situation that is currently happening on Main
street. They are recommending that this take place indoors down
below in the garage.
PZM2/2l/89
We further are recommending that the applicant and the
Engineering Department arrange for the installation of some No
Parking, Loading or Unloading signs on Main street.
In the Insubstantial PUD Amendment lists of variety of uses. We
have looked into them and have recommended deleting some of those
uses that they have proposed. (Both lists attached in record)
Roger: Concerning that use list: Are not most of those uses in
the Hotel Jerome supposed to be accessory to hotel type activity?
Roxanne: In reviewing all the files, that is how I see that
also. WE feel that antique store is considered an accessory use
in that similar antiques are used throughout the hotel. The
decorator who did the hotel is Zoe Compton and it is her antique
store and we feel it is an accessory use to that.
Roger: I have a problem with generic antique store being
accessory use to generic hotel. Given the problems with service
access to that hotel which at times is Mill street which I find
unacceptable. They in their presentation before us said that
they would adequately police the front of the hotel which has not
been adequate.
Now all of a sudden we are coming up with a recommended secondary
entrance to the hotel which I might point out to the rest of the
P&Z that I strongly urged and now it is coming back to roost upon
us. I have problems with any commercial space in that hotel
because they were given a higher number of rooms to make it
viable as a hotel and it was my recollection that the commercial
space was supposed to be accessory use to the hotel.
I must say it is stretching it finding an antique shop as
accessory use to the hotel.
Dick Butera: All we are asking for is to convert
office space. It is on the first floor of the hotel.
is right next to the antique store. It is next to
The point of that is the original John Gillmore plan
this commercial--13,000sqft more commercial.
an
a suite to
The suite
the lobby.
had all of
We thought it would work as a suite but it doesn't because it is
too noisy in the lobby. It is the highest-priced suite we have
in the hotel and it simply would work better as offices because
we built the hotel short of office space. We need more offices
for our help and because of the noise and the fact that the
public hasn't accepted that suite on the lobby we thought it to
be more appropriate that it go back to what it originally was and
that was commercial space. In this case we are just asking for
offices.
2
PZM2/2l/89
The whole first floor is zoned commercial. So under the zoning
we were permitted to do this in the first place. If you look at
what was approved when we bought the property from Gillmore, what
we propose to the P&Z and the Council as a revised plan and the
19 employee housing units were requirements of Gillmore. We
never discussed reducing that.
Approved is what Gillmore had approved and what we proposed and
eventually built was reducing the floor area ratio from 2.7 to
2.2. Reducing the square footage of the building from 128,000 to
106,000sqft--a '22, OOOsqft reduction. I want to emphasize that
this was all fully approved when we bought it. We didn't have to
ask for these reductions. It was all voluntary on our part so we
asked to reduce the square footage by 22,053 feet.
There was no on-site parking on the approved plan. We offered to
build 51 parking spaces all on site which we did. The original
parking plan on the approved plan was Gillmore's cars to be
parked at the golf course and buses to bring people in to the
hotel.
The number of rooms approved by Gillmore was 105. We asked for
94 and reduced it by 11. The open space we increased by 1,274ft.
The height we increased by 2ft. Retail space which is now a
garage was at l3,000sqft which we asked to be reduced to 0 in the
new phase.
The restaurant seating we reduced by 200 seats from the original
approval. And the meeting room space we reduced by 1,000.
When we asked for these approvals we did it in good faith and we
didn't ask for the employee housing count to be reduced
whatsoever. We left it at 19. We are coming back to you today
and saying "One of the things we did didn't work--that is putting
the suite on the lobby--and we would like to put in office space
because we are short of office space".
Now to be penalized with 3 employee housing units seems to us to
be unreasonable in view of the fact that a suite of that
consequence has its own employee generation in terms of room
service, maids, repairs and maintenance and all the things that
go with the room. So it is not that it is new space we are
adding. We are asking only to move my office, my secretary's
office and one of the other girl's offices into this space. So
we would ask you to give consideration to the reasonableness of
the fact that had we taken all these reductions originally and
asked to reduce the employee housing requirements it would be
reasonable for you to ask to push them back up again but the fact
we didn't reduce them from 19.
3
PZM2/2l/89
I would also like to point out that I think we are one of the few
businesses in town who is solving its own employee housing
problem without government requirement. We have an extra 11
units at the cortina that we are using for the Hotel Jerome. We
have bought the North star Lodge which is 48 units which we are
using for the Hotel Jerome. So we have proceeded to take care of
our housing problems regardless of any requirements that the
government put on us at the time we approved this. We think that
our showing of solving our problems ought to be taken into
consideration when you look at these facts plus the fact that we
have taken care of our own housing problems to a greater degree
than any business in town.
I would hope that you would see that we are reducing burdens on
the suite being converted from an active suite to office space.
We strongly object to the consideration that because we are
asking for the suite to be converted to an office that the
entrance to the hotel has to be discussed in this matter. We
can't imagine that you can have a luxury hotel with the guests
being dropped off at the back door. That is just not done
anywhere in the world. If we want to kill the Hotel Jerome's
economic viability, we certainly can do that by having us put the
guests through the back door instead of through the front door.
The front door of the Hotel Jerome is 100 years old and is
entered by a high percentage of the people of this community for
numerous activities daily and has been for 100 years. The guests
have been arriving there and whenever there is a hotel in any
community there is certainly a burden at the hotel's entrance
places on the community. But we can't have guests coming through
the back door to enter their hotel. So we think that would be an
unreasonable request.
There is a trash compactor inside the building. And we would
like to put in another one voluntarily. But there, in fact, is
one now.
On the issue of the tea room being converted to an antique shop
which we went through the city Council on please remember that
the use of the tea room historically and in the first 3 years of
operation was called "restaurant". A permitted code in the
commercial district which this is zoned CC. Anyone who would
think that the antique store has more impact than a restaurant we
would have to go through a full presentation for them.
An antique shop has 1 employee. The restaurant had 3 employees.
The restaurant has continuous traffic at a much greater level
than an antique shop. The antique shop is closed at 6: 00 at
4
PZM2/2l/89
night. The restaurant was open until the movies closed. So
there is no comparison to what we have now compared to what we
had for the last 3 years and incidentally what was there for the
last 100 years save 3 months.
Regarding the list as to what could be allowed in the future we
think the word "variety store" should not be excluded because
that easily could become a shop for razor blades and magazines
and it would be appropriate as any hotel in the world has a
variety shop. We don't have one there because the drugstore on
the corner pretty much serves that need. But if they should ever
close we would have to give serious consideration to serving the
guest's needs as a variety store.
In many of those stores they sell "Jerome T-shirts or other
little forms of clothing. So the word "clothing" troubles us a
little bit. That store had been a clothing store for a period of
time as "Uriah Heeps" and they sold in there for a number of
years. So it has been restaurant, clothing and now antique. We
think we are lessening the intensity of use and the impact on the
neighborhood by what we have already done.
There is no question that there are 2 employees to every room and
probably the suite has a higher level of employee attention than
any other room in the hotel because it rents for twice as much
money and the guests in that room demand a lot more attention.
-~
Dick: We are asking for approval to use it for any office space
we want to use it for. We feel as though legally we could use it
for hotel offices without coming here. We are asking for in the
future to have the perm-ission to use it for commercial office
space. It happens to be going to be used for my office as long
as I am there but that doesn't mean it won't be used for
something else within the permitted use of commercial office
space. I still think it is a lot less intense than a $600 a day
suite.
We are not adding 1,000sqft to the building. We are taking one
of the highest uses in the building intensity and replacing it
with what we consider to be a less intense use.
Michael: Alan, we just changed the ordinance at the last meeting
so that now when you come in for a PUD amendment you have got to
comply with the current but that is not approved by city Council
yet, is it? So under the application they are making they don't
have to do that.
Alan: The application they are making, they are not subject to
that provision. They are subject to the change in use provisions
of the code.
5
PZM2/2l/89
Andy Hecht: I am not sure that the calculations make sense. We
have talked with Jim Adamski and we had discussed that an average
hotel room is 325ft and we had 1,016ft divided by 325 is 3.13
times the. calculation in the hotel or tourist zone is .44 which
is 1.38 employees. We are using only 861sqft of this for office.
The bathrooms have other application in the hotel. They are not
office. So it seems to me we are 85% of what we are required to
do in the office zone with 3 employees per thousand feet. So if
you take the percentage that we are going to use with 2.55
employees.
If you take Roxanne's argument that we are using 2 employees per
room at the hotel, I can't even conceive that we are generating
more employees than we are trading in for.
Roxanne: The code states that it is 3 and 1/2 to 5.25 employees
in the CC zone district for 1,000sqft of net leasable. That is
where the calculations were derived from--from the Housing
Authority and the Planning Office.
Andy: Well, even at that it is 2.98 employees and we are a room
that is 3 times the size of a normal room and it is 2 employees
per room which you conceded.
Alan: If we give you credit for 2 employees per room, after 20
rooms we are going to be owing you employees.
Andy: That is why it doesn't work. What we are saying is you
had a hotel that had substantially more commercial space. There
are no real impacts in this change of use. And Dick is supplying
an enormous amount of employee housing around town
Alan: Deed restricted employee housing?
Andy: No. Real employee housing that is used. And I think that
the problem is that we are trying to find a way to hit him with
some employee housing requirements. And we are not really
looking at what is fair. The argument is valid that what was
approved originally was good then and it should be good now for
the purpose of employee generation.
Bruce: Without making a decision one way or another about
whether the employee housing is generated or not--if you are
already using the North Star as employee housing why not deed
restrict 3 units?
Andy: Then it would create a piece of real estate that has
completely different value. It may remain employee housing for
6
PZM2/21/89
20 years but it doesn't mean that it is deed restricted in
perpetuity.
Dick: It is very simple. That real estate is something we are
doing voluntarily. If you take and restrict it you are, in
effect, taking $80,000 worth of real estate away from us. If you
are going to charge me $80,000 to convert a suite to offices,
obviously we are not going to convert it.
It seems to us that we have performed over there from the very
first day we bought Gillmore out and reduced the building and in
good faith operate the building as the community expects. It is
not an economically viable hotel by millions of dollars and then
to come in here and ask just for an adjustment and be charged
$80,000 for it seems terribly unreasonable.
Bruce: Let me back up on the North star. Are there any units at
the North star that are presently deed restricted?
Dick: No. It is a piece of real estate that I own that I bought
to house my employees.
Bruce: If you sold that piece of real estate to somebody else in
the future, wouldn't they have to provide employee housing units?
I don't see how you are hurt.
Andy: It 'is an existing development or existing building 'that
would not have--
Bruce: No. It is a small lodge that has gone the way of the
dinosaur.
Andy: Right.
Dick: The point is that if we were to sell the Jerome, we don't
have to sell it with the North star. It is a piece of real
estate I bought to house our employees because the original
calculations of employee housing for hotels is wrong. The
present calculations are wrong.
Bruce: So the reason you don't want to deed restrict anything at
the North star is that it might effect the value of a subsequent
sale 20 years from now.
Dick: It is just a penalty that I don't think is equitable to be
paid because we just want to adjust a use. And if we are going
to adjust the use let's use 800sqft which is the real office
space here. Let's get credit for whatever--if they want to use
the formula on hitting us with employee housing but they don't
7
PZM2/21/89
want to use the formula when giving us credits.
whether you can go both ways like this.
Welton opened the public hearing.
I don't know
There was no pUblic comment and he closed the pUblic hearing.
Roger: I would like to see the re-calculation for the whole
Hotel Jerome and see what net deficit we are working with with
respect to the new conditions and the new formula.
Andy: Roger, we can stipulate that it is way under--that we need
more employee housing and we have been buying it.
Roger: And it has been the attitude of this Commission that when
there is an amendment to a PUD that we should look at it with the
new conditions in mind.
Mari: It has also been the attitude of the Commission to give
incentives for any historical preservation to be viable. And if
the Hotel Jerome is not considered one of our foremost historical
renovations in the whole town and worthy of that type of
consideration, I don't know what is.
Andy: We want to deliver to the community what it really needs.
And we have been doing that. And the North star is an example of
.~- that. We are taking positions. And I don't think the community
is really going to benefit by either result. The result that
will benefit the community is the one that Dick is stimulated to
provide more and more employee housing and he is not taking any
away. The North star was an example of Dick not wanting to put
the employees into the community without housing them.
Jim: Maybe if the North star were to sell, displacing those
existing employees would not really be Dick's legal
responsibility. So we would actually be creating whole new set
of new problems.
Andy: Dick fully intends to keep as much employee housing
attached to the Jerome as he can to maintain that.
Michael: I am inclined to agree on the basis of what we are
talking about. We are talking about 800ft here and we are
talking about making a mistake for 1 employee and although in the
total picture' every employee counts, I think there are other
considerations in connection with the Jerome that kind of
overshadow the fact that, you know, it is not like they are
coming in and are looking to change the entire character of the
hotel where we are talking about major numbers of people.
8
PZM2/21/89
The reason I asked my first question is if they were just looking
to use it for office space for themselves I thought it was kind
of silly that we were discussing it. I guess by the same token
if they turn around and they rent it out to Andy for a law office
there is going to be a few more employees in there but there were
employees in there already.
Andy: But no traffic--no clients.
Michael: The basic thing you are talking about--maybe 1 employ.
I don't know that on a proj ect like this that that is of such
consequence that we should start being overly concerned about
making an exaction.
Jim: I have a tendency to a agree with that. But, Dick, if you
decide not to use that for yourself and at some later date decide
to use that space for a real estate office or something like that
if the control that we have on a number of employees generated by
that new business. You say for your own use you are talking
about yourself, a secretary and someone else in the office and if
your were to go ahead and lease that out we would have little
control at a later date that they should decide to put in
1,000sqft and 6 people which would be generating more employees.
Andy: We think that no matter what commercial use you put in
there by your formula it is a net gain of 1.6 in that 860ft.
Roger: We are still having to deal with the generic aspect of
this. And that is that the application is to change that to
commercial space. Now the fact that they want to occupy it
themselves, that is very interesting. But that doesn't correct
any problems. And the fact that Dick owns the North star Lodge
and has employees, in there right now, that is very interesting
but that hasn't solved any problem in the future either.
As far as employee housing from a community sense there is not
correction there. So if and when this is approved from a
community point of view we have a problem with housing employees
commensurate with the commercial aspect of that space.
If this is an accessory office use then
it. It shouldn't even be before us.
application.
Andy: We agree. What we are saying is that we think because it
was approved with Commercial use in mind and that was the number
that you required at that time that that has not changed. And
the fact that analysis may have been wrong at that time doesn't
mean that you have the right to change it on us. At the worst we
I have no problem with
But that isn't the
9
PZM2/21/89
are at 1.6 net gain if it were a commercial space for any
commercial purpose.
Jasmine: I think there are 2 issues here. One is, to my mind
what we have to look at is what the Hotel Jerome is now--what it
includes now and what this change in use is going to do in terms
of changing conditions and the effect that it is going to have
based on what exists at the present. And in that case I think we
have a problem going to an office use because it is not an
accessory office use to the hotel. I agree with all the other
members of the Commission who state that if this was going to be
solely an operations office for the hotel obviously there would
be no problem.
But it brings us to the second part of the problem which is that
in many of these issues we have to rely upon the good faith of
the applicant. But this particular applicant is not necessarily
always going to be the owner or the controller of this property.
And I have to say I commend the applicant for having bought the
North star Lodge and for using it as employee housing. But again
that is just dependent on his own personal good will and his
desire to do something for the community.
If and when he leaves the community, sells the property or
something else happens we have no control over the property. We
are not trying to control the applicant, we are trying to control
the property. I think our emphasis has to be in these situations
is to limit the uses and to mitigate the effect on the properties
in question. That is why I feel very strongly that we have to
take a look at what happens if and when. At some point this
office space could be rented by anybody who could do whatever
they want with it and we would have no control over it. Dick
would have no control over it. I think we have the
responsibility to take that into consideration in our
mitigations. Same thing with the employee housing whether it is
at the North star or anyplace else. Whatever method is used to
calculate however many employees are necessary, there has to be
some kind of deed restriction that is placed on the property.
And I think that there is a change in use going to office space
and a potential even greater in terms of employees that might be
used in that space.
Andy: But if you say,
employees per hotel room
now and it is getting us
for that?
and we would concede that there are 2
and that is the basis of this discussion
all in trouble. Why don't we get credit
Welton: I know it seems like the you are caught in a catch 22 by
what you are. That is the way the code is written right now and
that is the only way that we can deal with it. When there is a
10
-~,-~~.....,-
PZM2/2l/89
change in use from one use to another use it doesn't matter what
the previous use was, the new use has to as if it is competing
under growth management it has to reach certain thresholds in
order to be permitted. You are exempted because it is historic.
But it is treated as if it is going through GMP and you have to
provide 60% of the employee--
Andy: But we get credit for what we are--
Butera: In a catch 22 like this I agree with you. But Jasmine
referred to good faith. Maybe that is what we are saying here.
We took out 13,000ft as commercial voluntarily in good faith. We
didn't ask to reduce the 19. The 19 was there with Gillmore. We
dealt in good faith. We didn't say "Hold 3,000 in case we are
making a mistake here and we need to come back for the economic
viability of this building". We didn't say that. We dealt in
good faith. We are, saying to you we dealt in good faith. We
have delivered in good faith. We are asking you to consider good
faith in saying "It is not a big deal".
There is certainly offsets here technically. But we already
reduced the building by 25% and didn't hold anybody hostage or
any employee housing units hostage when we did that. What we are
saying now is there is a little minor 800sqft adjustment. Can we
adjust it in good faith. If you don't feel that way then we
won't do it. It is just that simple.
Michael: We have talked about community benefit. I certainly
think that the community benefits from the Jerome. The Jerome
makes Aspen viable. It certainly picked up the victorian thing
that we want for our town. They spent a lot of money to enhance
it. And I think we can talk about a change in use. It is one
thing if they came and said they want to change the Jerome Hotel
into a factory or something. We are talking about 800sqft here.
And I think there are enough other benefits that the community is
deriving that I don't know that we have to get into a heavy
battle over the one employee that we are talking about.
To a degree I am concerned about the fact that they could change
that office that Dick and 2 secretaries are in into a commercial
office space. But I think the reality of it is that it is always
going to be by virtue of where it is somehow an accessory use to
the hotel. I can't imagine that accountants are ever going to go
in there or lawyers are ever going to go in there or it became a
real estate office. "
Whatever might go in there will have
source of business as opposed to
basically I am comfortable approving
minor application.
to draw from the hotel as a
the general public. So
it. I think it is really a
11
PZM2/21/89
Welton: Mickey, I would like to approve it. And I would like to
approve it based on the applicant's logic. But, Alan, is there a
way of approving it? Is the portion of the code that talks about
change in use and exemptions from GMQS--can that be waived? Can
that be a trade for the employees that are there now for the
employees that might be there in the future?
Alan: You have got to make a finding that the employee housing
requirements have been mitigated. If you determine that the
existing development compared to a new one it is a negligible
impact you can do that. The trade-off is certainly there. But
so much now that employee housing has been provided at
2 per room to give credit 2 per room.
Mari: A suite has 2 rooms doesn't it? So you could make the
argument that it is a lessening of the impacts.
Michael: That 2.2 employees per room is not the code. It is
just something that Dick once said. It may well be true but it
is still not the code.
,
Alan: The code is going to tell you credit it anywhere from .2
to .4 per room which obviously doesn't represent the service
level that is being provided in the hotel.
Michael: But it is the code. We can't deal with what we think
it should be. We have to go by what the code says.
.#
Mari: The other thing that I think we should consider is the
fact that the office space is a permitted use in the CC zone.
And I don't know why a PUD would restrict the use. In most cases
PUDs expand use.
Andy: You can make the finding that changing this use has a
negligible impact. And that is the truth. It does not have the
employee generating impact. And that is what we are asking you
to find.
MOTION
Michael: I make a motion that we approve the application and
find that the change in the employee generation is negligible. I
would like to leave it to be where the CC zone is what the
underlying zone is there anyway.
Bruce seconded the motion.
Roger: When are we going to address the existing situation which
12
PZM2/21/89
is not up to the representations of the original PUD?
going to address that?
Michael: No. If it is a representation of the PUD that they can
enforce then they should go out and enforce it. I don't think we
have to do anything about it. I am not sure that it makes any
sense to tell them to drop people off at the back of the hotel.
I think it would make sense to ask them not to park vans in front
of the hotel. The reality of it is that they are a hotel and
they have to function as a hotel. '
Are you
Roger: That I don't disagree with you with. My problem is that
the representations during the original PUD was that they were
going to police the front of the hotel and that was just
basically going to be for drop-off. I have seen fairly long-term
parking of Aspen Club van which I assume is also the Hotel Jerome
van and things like that and it is time to get them to comply.
And now is one of the times to do it.
Michael: I agree but I don't know how we can make them do that.
I think they have already agreed to do that. But if the City
isn't forcing them to do it I don't know what more we can do.
'.
Alan: On the use list. I am really disturbed that a use list is
the CC zone use list. The representation in the application that
was made in 1985 was that this would be a quiet corner. Because
of the significant addition to the Hotel Jerome we all recognized
that the impacts of principle commercial needed to be kept down.
So what you are saying here now is that all of the commercial
space in the Hotel Jerome with this addition to the PUD can
change within the uses allowed in the CC zone. Which means that
clothing stores, financial institutions, record stores,
professional offices can come back into here.
........
Think about it. That corner is terribly busy. It cannot handle
just the impacts of the hotel. I plead with you not to add
principle commercial uses to that corner. It is a terrible
mistake. If you are considering it, I suggest to you that you do
not give me the authority to sign off on it because I will have
to take it to city Council. That is a substantial change to the
PUD.
Michael: But,
allowing them an
commercial use.
Alan, didn't you sign off
antique store to be there?
on it already by
That is a principle
Alan: No. It is accessory and that argument was reasonable.
Dick: Is
restaurant?
there any use that would bother you more than a
We were approved and we had a restaurant there. We
13
PZM2/21/89
were approved for it when we came in and that is what you
approved. We have reduced the intensity from restaurant to
antique or restaurant to variety. You can't argue that there is
any greater use of space in this town than a restaurant. It
generates more employees, more traffic, longer hours than any
business I know. And that is what it was approved for and is, in
fact, approved for. We have reduced it to a quiet antique shop
or a quiet variety shop maybe.
Alan: It continues to be my opinion that the representation was
uses accessory to the hotel. The record is terrible when it
comes to enforcing that. It is my belief that we talked about
these uses being accessory and not being the principle uses.
Welton: I could support your first motion but the addition of
the entire CC to the PUD seems a little rash and needs more
consideration and I would not support the motion with that issue.
Mari: Can we do that with a separate motion.
Michael: Do you have a problem with eliminating record stores?
Or a hobby shop? Or a shoe store?
"
Andy: We know the intent is to have a quiet corner. It was
approved for a restaurant which is not a quiet use. And it is
tough for you even to analyze what is quiet?
Dick: I think the greatest policing factor you have is we have
got 26 million dollars invested in this and if we are going to
put some screwy record store on the corner of a 26 million dollar
investment we really have a mental problem. It just doesn't make
good sense.
..
Michael: I will do it either way. Either make it a separate
motion or eliminate hobby, record, shoe store.
Bruce:
shop.
variety store. They have got that covered with gift
Variety store is Wall Mart. So does sporting goods store.
I go along with the Planning Office's recommendation other than
professional offices.
I go along with everything the Planning Office recommended to
eliminate from the list of uses---
Jim: Are you saying professional offices are approved for this
space or not permitted?
Michael: Permitted.
,
14
Roger: I WOUld like t
a~e sUPPOSedly ell' I 0 Se~
lIst. III
~
I
PZM2/21/89
Roger: I would like to see the end use list here--I know what we
are supposedly eliminating but I don't know what we have on the
list.
Mari: Right here on page 4.
(attached in record)
Roll call vote: Bruce, yes, Michael, yes, Jim, yes, Mari, yes,
Roger, no, Jasmine, no, Welton, yes.
HISTORIC LANDMARKS GMOS EXEMPTION CODE AMENDMENT
Welton opened the public hearing and continued the public hearing
until March 7, 1989.
ZONING OF ANNEXATION AREAS
LONE PINE, WILLIAMS ADDITION, LAURISKI PARCEL,0015 HARBOR LANE
PUBLIC HEARING
Cindy Houben made presentation as attached in record.
At the last meeting the Planning Office had recommended an RMF
zone district for the Williams Addition. And after the meeting
with the Planning commission there was direction to take a look
at allowing duplexes on Lots of 7,500sqft as well as looking at
the setbacks. The setbacks were a specific problem for the
Williams Addition.
We came up with what we call the R-6A zone district except that
it allows duplexes on 7,500sqft lots and did a new sliding scale
starting with 10ft side yard setbacks which address some of the
concerns for the setback to the south so that they could take
advantage of the southern exposure.
There is another option which is just to go ahead and amend the
existing R-6 zone district which allows now on a parcel of
8,000sqft that was created before April of 1975 a duplex on
8,000sqft. So what we would be doing is changing that by 500sqft
and amending the existing R-6 zone district with that condition.
The side yard setbacks in the R-6 option is ignored in that we
feel that you have the ability under the R-6 now you have to have
a maximum of 15 total feet for your side yard. So you have the
ability if you wish to go ahead and place your house 10 back on
the southern side.
Roger: I disagree with going to the R-6. # 1 that means on
15,000sqft you could put 2 duplexes instead of a duplex and a
house.
15
PZM2/21/89
Cindy: Not unless it was created prior to April of 1975. That
would still be the regulation. It would not allow you to come in
with a new subdivision.
Welton: You could do a lot split with a duplex on 1 and a single
family on the other. You couldn't do 2 duplexes without going
through GMP. But the critical thing to me is that in the west
end there are more 7,500sqft lots than you really can imagine.
Cindy: Then the R-6A would work better.
Jasmine: One of the things I thought that was attractive about
R-6A was that it recognized this is a very special area and that
it has because of the way the lots are laid out and because of
the kind of development that has been there traditionally, that
it is not like any other parcel in town. I think it is deserving
of its own little district.
Welton opened the public hearing.
"
Ward Hollenstein: I feel
personally would be better.
fallen into the cracks that
and 7,500sqft parcel.
that the R-6A would be for us
We are one of those people who has
you are talking about between 8,000
..
Bob Kopf, represent the owners of some property over there: I
have been around here for about 40 years and everybody says that
Williams Addition is a special place and we have got to preserve
it. And you see how it is preserved. We have got high density
and traffic all around us. And we feel, I think most of the
owners over there feel like we ought to be entitled to pretty
high density too because there is a couple of factors. It is
unique in that I don't think anybody over there is going to try
to build a tremendous high rise or anything like that. And even
if somebody did build one it wouldn't hurt the district. People
who live there kind of want to keep it like it is.
In case somebody there has to sell, they want an honest price for
it. I think they should have the highest density possible or
compared to what else is around there. The centennial, The Lone
Pine, The trailer court, the whole works. I think it should be a
neat little spot. It can't be a unique little spot any more. It
is surrounded by all this.
Dan Lauriski: I agree whole heartedly with Bob. Several years
ago, yes, that area was very unique. Anymore it is not with the
high density over there. There are over 600 units in that area
alone. You surely should know that. The trailer court, Hunter
Creek, Centennial. That is just a small portion. The larger
portion of the building that has been done over there--some of it
16
PZM2/21/89
has taken the brunt of that to the City and through the County as
to what they have done to us over the past years. They have
also, the city when they took the trailer park in, let Lipkins
put 17 units back there. They moved in 17 mobile units back
there in a very extremely small area.
Then you turn around and say "You guys can't do this. We are
going to give you R-6A". Well, I want the maximum I can do.
That is not saying I am going to put it on the market or put 8
units on my property. That probably won't happen. But I think
that I should have that option to do that if it comes about. I
have been there an awful long time and have seen what the
government entities in this community has done to that very
unique place which it was at one time.
And I think that we ought to have that option. I don't think
that we ought to be R-6A. I think we should have the maximum
that we can possibly get on it just for the simple reason we
should be able to do with our property what everybody else has
done around us.
Bill Dunaway: As the owner of a duplex in the area I would like
to remind the Commission that this is supposed to increase
density. That is part of the annexation plan. These people are
zoned R-15 now I think and by giving the R-6A zoning you do
increase the density. But I certainly would not like to see more
apartment houses there and even if the current owners don't plan
on building apartment houses they may sell and the new owners
would certainly want to build apartment houses. And frankly
there are plenty of apartment houses there now. So that the
property owners shouldn't be penalized more for the fact that
some apartment houses have already been permitted. You don't
want to compound mistakes by more mistakes.
Carl Wright: I have worked there for 20 years in the Williams
Addition. I am more for the R-6A to keep it more of a residential
area. If it does get bigger, we already have enough traffic.
You go down Gibson and onto Mill Street and what with the new
parking garage, library and everything else you are going to have
more traffic, more people down there and I don't think we are
really gaining anything. I would just as soon it stay a
residential area.
Ella Skufka: I agree with Bob and Stan Lauriski here.
Everything around us is high density. Well, I don't think that
our small spot should--I think we should have it too. And I have
a 7,500sqft lot and I could have a duplex there and then I have
my house next to it but I don't think I could have a duplex on
there because it is just part of the 15,000sqft too. Could that
be done? A duplex where my house is?
"
17
PZM2/21/89
Welton: If it is on a 3,500sqft lot with the R-6A it could have
a duplex on it.
Mick Bennet: I also live in the Williams Addition. I just want
to go on record as being for R-6A. I would like to see things
stay more or less as they are.
Jon Busch: Williams Addition is a buffer in away. It is a
small single family local oriented neighborhood. And I feel it
is really an anchor in the community which is surrounded by high
density, a lot of rental units, a lot of absentee owners and I
think if you look at the whole area what you really see is a very
high density with very little open space. And in fact the
greatest openness in the area is in the Williams Addition. So I
really feel it is important to maintain that.
As Bill Dunaway already says you are already giving most of the
Williams Addition homeowners a windfall by allowing duplexes on
7,500sqft lots. Most of the owners who have spoken today in
favor of the higher density zoning will already do very well
under R-6A.
I would.also like to support the Planning Office recommendation
that Stan Lauriski's lots also be zoned in the R-6A. If you look
at your maps and if you think about the neighborhood over there
you will note that Gibson Avenue from the top of the hill all the
way to Park Circle is single family homes. Even in that small
area where the trailer court borders Gibson only 2 trailers are
seen and they are both very far set back from the road. The
homes for the most part are single family, small homes and when
you drive down the road you don't see the trailer court, you
don't in fact even see Centennial. To drive down Gibson Avenue
is to still be in a small residential character neighborhood.
By taking a chunk out of the middle of that and allowing RMF
condominiums to go in it breaks up that continuity and also
further isolates Williams Addition by locking it into a whole
circle of high density.
So I do urge you
Planning Office.
gets something out
to approve the
I think it is
of it.
current recommendation of the
a good compromise. Everybody
Minnie Considine: I am for R-6A.
Lauriski: Has the
Griffith or Max Bond?
commission received a letter from Angie
If so would they be read into the record.
18
PZM2/21/89
cindy: I believe those were in our last packet. And they both
expressed RMF zone district as the most appropriate.
Welton asked if there was any further public comment. There was
none and he closed the public hearing.
Roger: On the R-6A regarding accessory buildings: And I
understand this was carried over from the R-6. Maximum height on
accessory building 21ft on the front 2/3 of the lot, 12ft on the
rear 1/3 of the lot. My only comment about that is that in the
Williams Addition it is hard to figure out which is the front and
which is the rear end of the lot.
I was also wondering how we came up with 21ft on the front and 12
on the rear. I think we should discuss this as to how it applies
to the Williams Addition.
Tom: I talked to Alan about that and we don't recall the
specific reason for that.
Welton: When you are talking about setbacks for a corner lot it
is up to the property owner to determine which is the front and
which is the side. The same thing I think would be applicable
here and they could choose themselves whether this is the front
or this is the back. It is not up to the City to say which is
which. When there are streets on both sides then it is up to the
owner to determine.
Tom: We might just want to consider just pulling that.
Jim: I think that Welton's solution is going to solve the
problem. There is a very small number of lots that have the
problem and I think we can leave it up to the owners to make the
decision.
MOTION,
Welton: I would entertain a motion to adopt the R-6A zoning
designation for Williams Addition and the Lauriski parcel.
Roger: I so move.
Jim seconded the motion.
Discussion.
Michael: I am going to support the motion and I think it is
certainly appropriate because I think under the guidelines of
what we are supposed to do in re-zoning is to make sure that the
property matches pretty well. But I think that particularly Mr.
19
PZM2/2l/89
Lauriski is concerned that his property may well be the kind of
property that would be an appropriate subject for zoning change.
And I think that if we were considering a zoning change where the
criteria is different and the surrounding neighborhood is a part
on it that it may well be appropriate that that shouldn't be 6A
but for purpose that what we are doing here today I think that
whole area should be 6A so that it is compatible now with the
City with what it was in the County.
Jim: I still say that the Lauriski property that it would be
appropriate at a different time for a zoning change. Also I have
just a clarification--if we have 2 7,500sqft lots in 6A and they
were to merge, they would still be required to go through GMP
process for them to put 2 duplexes on each site?
cindy: The way that it reads is that you have to have had a
7,500sqft lot as of April 25 of 1975 to qualify for duplex on
7,500sqft. So ;you can't go out and create new lots.
Jim: You can do lot splits. You can still request a lot split.
If you want to go for 2 duplexes you have to go through GMP.
Then I support this.
cindy: I wouldn't say that the second lot could ever have a
second unit on it because it was a lot that was created after
April 25, 1975.
Roger: I just want to point out also that one of the major
differences between R-6A and R-6 is the minimum side yard setback
and that is in response to the orientation of the Williams
Addition. Just for the record.
All voted in favor of the motion.
LONE PINE/HUNTER LONGHOUSE
cindy Houben: Made presentation as per attached.
Jim: I think that the incremental changes from the 3 acre
parcels down to the 18 acre parcels are reasonable. They
represent 3 one hundredths of a percentage change. The one from
27,000sqft to 27,001 represents almost a 70% change. Could we be
more equitable if we did something on a sliding scale up to the 3
acre point?
Tom: We have tried the sliding scale and it really got--in order
to make Hunter Longhouse and Hunter Creek conforming you then had
a huge build-out potential for Lone pine and Centennial. What
you are saying is a little different. You are saying only do the
sliding scale up to an acre or 3 acres.
20
PZM2/21/89
Jim: To the 3 acre point at which point a reasonable incremental
change to go 3 one hundredths of a percentage and decreasing the
FAR buildout. What you have got is over 70% or 64% increase or
depreciation of buildout in 1 foot change.
Welton: I agree with you the sliding scale is in general more
equitable but this we are looking at 2 real world examples and
they will be the only 2 real world RMFA tracts. And I don't
think we need to design this for all possibilities. But if it
works for those 2 parcels then fine. There is no such thing as
RMFA yet and these are the only 2 RMFAs in existence.
Jim: There could be subdivision of those parcels that exist.
Tom: Our concerns with that stepped FAR scale was that someone
would come in a try to take advantage of smaller lots sizes and
subdividing of a larger parcel to a less than 27, OOOsqft lots.
That is why the disclaimer at the very beginning is there. We
tried making a sliding scale work because that is the most
equitable but then Lone pine would be able to double their floor
area and Centennial would be able to add a couple of hundred
thousand square feet. It just didn't work.
Cindy: So we thought we could take care of it through the
subdivision process.
Tom: The Hunter Longhouse site was about 75, OOOsqft. So the
sliding scale up to 3 acres is still skewed. And the Lone pine
Hunter Longhouse dilemma is still there.
Jim: What are you going to use for rational when anything does
come in for subdivisi~ process? You still have to have
something going. If someone comes in with a subdivision under 3
acres and the sliding scale that you came up with doesn't work,
what are we going to use for a basis of decision at the
subdivision process?
Tom: It looks like they will just try to manipulate the process
to maximize the--I don't have a good answer for you.
Jasmine: I think you have done a very heroic job on all of this.
I know you can't anticipate everything but I think Jim's point is
very accurate because whenever we don't do something by the time
it starts happening we are already up to our armpits in it and
helpless. And I think we have to start addressing that now.
Roger: What right now fits into the 0 to 27, OOOsqft as far as
developments over there?
21
PZM2/2l/89
cindy: That we are proposing in the zone district--none.
Bruce: Well, why don't you change the minimum lot size to
27,000sqft in the RMFA. That would keep somebody from splitting
off a piece.
Welton: That is a very good idea. That is inspired.
Welton: Does anybody have a problem with that approach?
cindy: There is nothing smaller than that.
Welton opened the public hearing.
Mark Freedberg: I own property along Red Mountain Road next to
the Rio Grande Trail and all of that respective property are in
excess of 30,000sqft. When Ron Mitchell first had a meeting to
discuss the annexation we all three of us told him that we didn't
want to be piecemeal annexed because the Lone Pine/Hunter
Longhouse, Hunter Creek Area is so dissimilar for (much noise
here) fell on deaf ears and the lines were subsequently drawn by
Jim Breasted to include our properties in this area.
We have not been given as yet a logical explanation for why the
line was not drawn along Red Mountain Road because the
Hunter/Longhouse RMF area is an area that is nothing like ours.
Our concerns are that we do not want to see any increased density
at all. The R-15 zone and our very rural kind of feeling
certainly does not lend itself to that and we would not want to
see the opportunity for a duplex spelled out on that property.
So our first point is that we want to go on record again as being
opposed to being included in this annexation because we feel it
was ill conceived and we were just basically overlooked and
ignored and basically slipped through the cracks when the lines
were drawn. Secondly if we are going to be annexed because of
the way this annexation is being constructed where we don't
really have opportunities of objections we want to make sure that
whatever zoning is given to that property below Red Mountain Road
which is the Rowlins property, Skully property and Freedberg
property that we get some special designation that prevents that
property from being duplexed and that it can only have single
family zoned.
Cindy: Mark and I have had several discussions and including our
suggestion that this be an R-30 PUD area which is 30, OOOsqft
minimum lot size vs. the 15,000sqft. Although the R-30 does
allow duplexes to occur in that zone district as the R-30 reads
now. So it takes care of one concern however duplexes are
allowed in the R-30.
..
22
PZM2/2l/89
Welton: How about R-30A? That is what happened when R-15A was
created in order not to generate large scale duplex structures in
an east end annexation. So I think that would be entirely
appropriate when the time comes for your property.
Mark: I agree. Whatever it takes we will make sure that there
is an upzoning and development for potential users which we feel
obviously is in conflict that the City ought to see anyway. So
if you would attach the A, but I would like to know from the
Planning and Zoning Commission, am I right in saying that if this
comes that there is nothing that we can do physically to get the
line redrawn so that it does go along Red Mountain Road and not
have this peculiar inclusion which really doesn't have any logic
to it whatsoever.
Michael: Mark, what is the problem if we correctly zone it--I
mean if you were just annexed with this group as opposed to the
next one?
Mark: We just feel that service wise having that little island
down below there it really logistically doesn't make a lot of
sense in terms of the City and the County performing the services
for that area. So being annexed with Pitkin Green makes much
more sense. Then the whole area will get the City services
simultaneously.
Michael: I agree. But I don't know how that logic works with
the annexation process and I don't understand that you should
think it is better to be annexed than not annexed.
Tom: It is really a mute point because the citizens have brought
forward a petition that includes this area. And whether we
include it now or in 3 weeks it is going to happen. So we have
got to deal with the zoning issue.
Welton: However that group of people want it zoned it will quite
likely end up being custom designed to fit them.
Welton asked if there was any further public comment. There was
none and he closed the public hearing.
MOTION
Welton: I would entertain a motion to zone the Lone Pine/Hunter
Longhouse area RMFA with the amendment that the minimum lot size
is 27,001 square feet.
Jasmine: I so move.
23
PZM2/21/89
Roger:
zoning.
Isn't the R-15A essentially the same as the County
cindy: The R-15 is essentially the same as the R-15 in the
County lot size. The reason I went to the Odene parcel in a
different light than Mark's area is because that parcel has
already gone through subdivision. It has already gone through
the County process for a lot split to create a smaller parcel.
Roger: So there is no effective up zoning by making it R-15 as
opposed to R-15A.
Cindy: Right.
Welton: Would you amend your motion to include R-15 PUD for the
Odene parcel and for R-30A PUD for the parcel south of the Red
Mountain Road.
Roger:
parcel
Road.
That amended motion is to include R-15 PUD for the O'Dane
and for R-30A PUD for the parcel south of the Red Mountain
Cindy:
And the change for the R-30A is
?
Roger: Right.
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor.
HARBOR LANE
Welton opened the public hearing.
Tom Baker: The staff is recommending R-15A PUD in that area.
(attached in record.)
Jim: We have 25ft setback in front and 20ft setback in back.
10ft side setbacks. 4,400sqft lot.
Tom: I believe this is 6,000. The Alterfor parcel is 4,400sqft.
Jim: But don't the setbacks apply to that also? If he ever
wanted to do anything he would have to meet the existing--the new
code requirements for setback. otherwise he would be non-
conforming. But if he ever wanted to add to that home he would
have to meet existing setbacks or he would be a non-conforming
unit and wouldn't be allowed to increase. So it goes to the
point of which you have to take the smallest lot the existing
4,400sqft and the setbacks at 10 on both sides and 25 front 20 in
the back would apply if he ever wanted to do any increase in that
24
PZM2/21/89
building. This means you have got a pretty small area to build a
house on.
Tom: It was our responsibility to preserve the zoning patterns
and riparian zone.
Roger Kerr: Along the lines of the lot being restricted, you
have got the Castle Creek stream Margin to maintain there too. So
we are left with about a 25ft wide strip of land.
Someone said 25 by 50.
Roger Kerr: What there is now is about 7 and 1/2 foot existing
side yard. With the R-6 he would be allowed to build a second
story addition to follow the existing building line.
Jim: That would be increasing a non-conforming use.
Roger: Not if it is R-6.
discussion about R-6 vs.
preferable to go to R-6.
Jim: What the Planning Department is saying is R-15 which would
be a 10, 10, 25 and 20. And what you are saying would be 5ft on
one side. Which by doing that house buildable, if you want to
make that house conforming #1 you are already creating a non-
conforming structure already.
R-6 allows a 5ft. There was some
R-15. The R-15 is acceptable but is
Tom: Not creating. It is already non-conforming.
Jim: You are increasing a non-conforming as a matter of fact
because of the great restrictions.
Welton: I agree with Jim that there not enough land left over
after you take the setbacks out to build what you are allowed
under the FAR and zoning it R-6 fits the--it doesn't exacerbate
the side yard situation and creates a conforming lot.
Cindy: But do you want to encourage the R-6 zone district in
that area where you have a minimum of 6,000sqft lots. I guess my
opinion is that the applicant in this case if it is really a
hardship that is created by the zoning because of the
restrictions that you have with the stream and your easement from
your road on the other side, that is a perfect Board of
Adjustment case. (Cindy said more here but I couldn't hear what
she was saying through the laughter)
Welton:
is RMF.
hardship
To the north of it there is some R-6. To the east of it
To the west of it is R-15 and below is R-15. The
is created meeting the R-15 setbacks on a lot that
25
PZM2/21/89
small. I can't see that this would let a stampede out to rezone
the valley bottom--
Roger Hunt: Assuming that this is all annexed, then there is the
piece under the bridge that is still in the County. Is that
legal to completely surround .land without annexing?
Tom: They are surrounded now. That L shaped piece.
annex them if it is less than-------
We could
MOTION
Michael: I move that we zone this R-6.
Jim: Are you talking specifically about the Alterfor property or
Harbor Lane?
Michael: The Harbor Lane.
Welton: Just one 6,000sqft lot--zone, it R-6.
Jim seconded the motion.
Roll Call vote: Bruce, no, Michael, yes, Jim, yes, Mari, no,
Roger, no, Jasmine, no, Welton, yes.
Motion fails 4 to 3.
MOTION
Jasmine: I move that we accept the Planning Office
recommendation on zoning 0015 Harbor Lane to R-15A PUD.
;
Mari seconded the motion.
Roll Call vote: Bruce, yes, Michael, no, Jim, no, Mari, yes,
Roger, no, Jasmine, yes, Welton, no.
Motion fails 4 to 3.
Welton: Roger, would you give us an explanation for putting us
in parliamentary hell?
Roger: I don't like either solution.
Welton: Then come up with a solution we can get 4 votes on.
26
,...~---~-.,"~._~,~-~;-"><
PZM2/21/89
MOTION
Roger: I move to zone this parcel in question R-15C being all
the parameters of an R-15 with the exception that one side yard
can be a minimum of 7 and 1/2 feet.
Jim: That means that the other one has to be 12 and 1/2?
Welton: Which is fine because it is in the river.
Jim seconded the motion.
Roll call vote: Bruce, no, Michael, yes, Jim, yes, Mari, no,
Roger, yes, Jasmine, no, Welton, yes.
Motion
Bruce:
cindy:
Roger:
Welton
finally carried.
Do you mean to include the pun after the R-15C?
It is on the river.
Ok. Yes. PUD. Yes that was intended in the motion.
closed the public hearing.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT
Tom: What staff would like to do is get input from P&Z tonight
to see if there is any interest to pursue this affordable housing
zone district. Presentation as attached in record.
Jim: What you are suggesting then is a open non-applied at this
time zone district that someone who had a project in an existing
zone district who wanted to create an affordable housing project
would come and request an overlay of this?
Welton: A rezoning.
Tom: For example if you owned a 20,000sqft parcel and it has a
single family unit on it somewhere in town. And I needed to do
more than just a single family unit to make it work. Say it is
an R-15 zone. If we had this zone district he could come in and
propose 3 units on that parcel--100% affordable and we would then
have that mechanism to allow that to happen. That is not the RMF
zone. It doesn't have free market influence and perhaps the
potential impacts of upzoning requests because of the RMF zone.
Bill Dunaway: I have one very serious objection to include
middle income when you are talking about affordable housing.
Middle income guidelines really are not affordable by most
employees. If you are going to start giving them special zoning
for affordable housing which in essence is employee housing I
think we should just limit it to low and moderate income levels.
I feel strongly about that.
27
PZM2/21/89
Jim Adamski: Dunaway and I have had this argument since I came
to town. Our middle class is our middle income people. They
need housing that they can afford. And we are striving to hit
the low end of it and the upper end. We have a number of units
in $1,100 of which are in that moderate income category.
Bill is absolutely right. We have to hit the low income end of
it. But the middle income is also needed. What we are talking
about are people making around $60,000 a year. A 2-income family
can't even exist in this community much less live decently for
much, much less than $50,000.
So I am against Bill's recommendation.
Michael: I understand Bill's recommendation but I am against it
also. But I would like to see if maybe we could work on where
you would have a mix.
The other point I wanted to make was back in line with what Jim
was talking about making a jump of 27,000sqft where you can make
units of one size and if you go to 27, 001ft you have got a
greatly reduced dimension requirements. I don't know whether it
would be appropriate to have some kind of sliding scale so we
don't penalize somebody who has got a 28,000sqft.
Tom: I think the FAR thing can be looked at again.
Jim: I don't think we are going to have these real large acre
parcels in the city. And so if we went down to the 3 to 6 acres
at your maximum I think then you can work on a sliding scale that
wouldn't be too exacerbating.
I would like to support the Planning Office's efforts in doing
this and encourage them to work on these same guidelines and come
up with a sliding scale for multi-family that seems reasonable
and to put in a stipulation or contingency that would allow
special review for projects to at least get into the process.
Michael: I would like to see this go forward too but I don't
think that restricting it--if it is a public piece of land that
the Housing Authority owns. They don't have to restrict it but
if it is up to the private developer who comes in and says "I
want to go ahead and get this density bonus and build enough
units for my employees" then it is certainly going to benefit us.
As long they are deed restricted it can never come up and we are
never going to hurt from it. Any employee unit is going to be
helpful.
I think making a mix of all of them certainly makes the project
more attractive to the neighbors, for the people who live there.
It makes a community that way. If you make it all low cost
28
PZM2/21/89
housing, it is something the neighbors are going to fight and
nobody is going to end up wanting to live in it.
Jasmine: I agree with Mickey. This is one of the problems that
I have had because one of the first projects that I ever saw when
I got onto P&Z was a project of employee housing where you had
to be making $50,000 a year to afford these units because they
were all moderate.
What is the point of having employee housing that no employee can
afford?
I think that you do need to have some kind of mix. It is more
palatable socially for the people in the proj ect and also the
neighbors. I think that tends to diminish the opposition to
these projects and tends to mitigate the back yard syndrome.
I know that costs have gone up tremendously. And I know that
wages haven't. And I am not sure that we have any accurate
information currently about what wage levels are. The people who
were making $7 an hour 5 years ago are still making $7 an hour.
If you own a small business you can't pay somebody $20 an hour to
come in and sell sunglasses. I think we need more information
about the actual wage structure in this town so we can make a
better judgment about what the income levels are and what is
needed. That is the information we don't have.
Bill Dunaway: I don't think anybody is going to build affordable
housing unless they can house some of their own employees.
Welton: I would entertain a motion to direct the Planning Office
to set a public hearing regarding Affordable Housing Zone
District.
Roger: Concerning the mix: As much as I prefer the lower income
housing, which tends to be my preference, what the mix does is
allow the average density of the property to be reduced.
MOTION
Roger: I will so move
Mari seconded the motion
Meeting was adjourned.
with all in favor.
Time was 7:00pm.
29