HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890307
~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 7. 1989
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr, Michael
Herron, Jim Colombo, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt and Welton Anderson.
Jasmine Tygre was excused.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Roger Hunt: #1. I had the pleasure of being at a meeting on the
28th of February hosted by the Skiing Company concerning the use
of the right-of-way. Their thrust primarily was for busway.
There are a lot of concerns about this proposal not the least of
which now is the position of Dwight Shellman's. Then do a 180%
turnaround 5 days later.
The major concerns about this is that we have well meaning people
who think there is an easy way out to our valley transportation
problems and are willing to jump to get anything done hoping
anything is better than nothing. The maj or problem I had with
this is that we are going to be diverting community resources now
to another study apparently--busway vs. train or railway. I
think a study at this point should be identifying which rail type
options we should be looking at.
I don't think the group had any concept of the expense that it
would cost to covert the Rio Grande right-of-way to a busway. I
look at that distance and see the width of the present right-of-
way and the width that RFTA would require for busses is 24 feet.
There is that earth moving and the conversion of all the trestles
and bridges to a 24 foot deck which isn't cheap. So all in all I
am very concerned about this.
The Western Slope Railroad Association is going to be meeting
with the County Commissioners on or about the 20th. The basic
goal of that meeting from the WSRA's point of view is to try to
get some guidelines from 'the County Commissioners as to which way
to go because WSRA is ready to start running a petition around
within 30 days for the establishment of an organizing commission
for a rail or transportation commission which would be valley
wide.
Things are going to have to move. I would suggest that anyone
interested in transportation issues go to that meeting. Tomorrow
evening the City Council and RFTA Board are having a public
hearing.
....
Tom Baker: The public hearing is for discussion of the Hunter
Creek Route and how that could be either reversed or made a 2 way
kind of route as well as looking at the Snowbunny and Highland
,
PZM3.7.89
>...."...
Routes and taking them ~rom Rubey Park east on Durant to Spring
Street then to Main and back out to Snowbunny and Highlands. Now
they just take off from Rubey Park and go west on Durant to Aspen
Street and out.
There is some speculation that there might be some comments at
that meeting which deal with the parking shuttle and with the
Hunter Creek route.
Roger: #2. Dwight Shellman who is against the downtown shuttle
would like to integrate the downtown shuttle with the hunter
Creek route--I assume 2 way. What concerns me about that is what
makes the shuttle successful is getting the re-visit times down
to about with RFTA it would be 10 minutes--with trolley it would
be 6 minutes. And to extend those times to a 20 minute interval
just seeds the system to failure.
Roger: #3. Graeme and I happened by the Hotel Aspen at about
the same time one afternoon and I pointed out the sound to him.
I think the sound is still excessive. It, to me, is more noise
than belongs in a residential neighborhood. It is from their
high speed turbine up on the chimney.
Cindy: We have worked with the manager, the architect and the
owners of the building to try to get something done and each time
they say they have fixed a little bit better.
Roger: It is improved. I will give them that.
Cindy: I will continue working with this.
Graeme: I
my bike.
pointed it
could hear it. I go by there every
I never heard it until you pointed
out now I hear it when I go by.
day twice a day on
it out. Once you
Roger: My concern is that there is a residential bedroom right
next to it.
Cindy: The question is whether or not the zoning issue as far as
what was represented that there would be no impact noise on the
residential area in that zone district. I will continue to work
with it.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Phoebe Ryerson: This is'a last minute effort to have the garage
go over at the level of the current parking lot--to move it over
to the north side of the down hill below the Courthouse because
it then would not obstruct, could still be accessed from Spring
and Mill as it is from the first dip into the Rio Grande instead
,.
2
PZM3.7.89
of lousing up the theatre pedestrian traffic that is far more
important. Then the theatre and the garage can share an elevator
and get everybody up to the Main street level.
There are very able people who say that that is a perfectly sound
solution to not destroy the idea of the theatre at the Main
street level so all the restaurants in town can give people
dinners and get to the p1ace winter and summer instead of down by
the Art Museum.
It is a ridiculous new idea to put the garage where it is being
put. It is only 3 years old and the theatre has been placed
there for a great long time. A lot of people think it is insane
to take more care of a car than it is of the theatre.
STAFF COMMENTS
RE: WILLIAMS ADDITION
Alan: We are in the process of creating the ordinances to zone
the Williams Addition. After the last meeting in the context of
coming up with these ordinances we had one more idea that we
would like to pose to you. I am very troubled at the idea of
creating 4 new zones less than a year after we have just revised
the new code to try to get out things that were unnecessary and
to eliminate some of the special interest aspects of the code.
On the R-6A I think there is a real important planning thing that
there is a way to resolve it. (Alan passed out sheets to the
Commissioners.) If you don't like it, tell me and we will just
bring this to Council ,without any kind of comment from the
Commission in it's favor but maybe you think this is an
alternative that works.
I heard loud and clear as to why you didn't think that our prior
suggestion worked. It had potential ramifications on lots in the
west end. I think you were right. That was a poor solution to
the problem. This has no such ramifications and avoids the
creation of a zone district.
Welton: It doesn't address the unique side yard setback
situation.
Alan: It doesn't address the setbacks. And I looked at the
setbacks and what you are recommending there is so
infinitesimally minor in terms of difference from the code that
it is hardly worth a whole new zone. It was one thing when the
Aspen Grove neighborhood came to us and said "We don't want the
FARs of the R-15. We want to be 30% lower". That's a big effect
on a neighborhood. The difference in terms of setbacks is the
difference between 20ft total yard and 22 and 112ft total yard.
3
."".-
PZM3.7.89
-
And the fact that R-6A says now it can be 10 and 10 as opposed to
5 and 15. But it is the same basic side yard requirement. It is
the difference of 2 and 112ft of side yard.
The plain fact is most of that neighborhood is built.
Roger: Hm mmm. The Williams Addition isn't mostly built out.
Alan: I withdraw that comment. The plain fact is you have got a
zone district that says you have got a total requirement of 20
feet--a minimum of 5ft on one side and 15 on another. The R-6A
says a total of 20 feet--10 and 10.
Welton: When it is a minimum of 5 with a breakdown being--
Alan: 5 and 15 is what the code says now in the R-6. Or it can
be 10 and 10.
Welton: Or 12 and 1/2 and 7 and 1/2.
Alan: R-6A says it has to be 10 and 10. That is why we are
creating this zone district. It really doesn't seem to me to be
very good planning. I really doesn't make a lot of sense to me
to go that way. I wanted to give you this chance to look at it.
It you think it does, that is great. Then the commission's
recommendation stands. But we spent a lot of money and a lot of
time re-writing this code and slowly but surely we are going to
make it bigger, longer and more complicated.
Welton: I agree with you that the fewer zone districts,
fewer 5 page chunks we add to the code. And if the side
setback question really boils down to 2 and 1/2 feet I agree
your approach.
the
yard
with
Roger: The fact is that the setbacks between buildings under
this system can be as little as 10ft.
Alan: That is not true.
Roger: It was 10 and 10, right?--in the R-6A?
Alan: 10 plus 10 makes it a total of 20--10 on each side.
Roger: Right. And that means 20 feet between buildings.
Alan: You are suggesting that you could have a 5 and 5.
Roger: A 5 and 5 and that equals 10.
Alan: You are correct.
4
PZM3.7.89
Roger: And I heard from more than one of the public that they
were interested in keeping those larger setbacks.
Welton: So if someone builds to within 5 feet
property that was undeveloped, I would think that the
property would want to go 15 feet to keep that 20
between the 2.
of another
undeveloped
foot buffer
Roger: I agree with what you are saying but the problem is more
than a few people over there expressed the attitude that they
wanted 10 and 10 and that was very specific because they were
eastlwest orientation instead of north/south. And they wanted
those setbacks. They wanted, in effect, a minimum distance
between buildings of 20 feet. And how do we do that with the R-
6 in that area? We can't. That is why I have got problems with
it.
Alan: You can't guarantee it.
Michael: That is the same problem we can have in the R-6 as is
presently constituted. You can end up with 10 feet.
Alan: And then on the opposite side you can end up with 30. And
that is the whole point. The variety is fine. The opportunity
for choice within the setbacks was the decision that the
Commission made. I am looking for ways not to go through this
process of continually creating zones for every single problem.
The only difference is the duplex on a 7,500sqft lot which before
we came up with a bad solution to it which didn't work and the
setbacks. other than that they are mirrors of each other.
Roger: Are you re-notifying those people over there of this
change?
Alan: We will have to do that. The Commission's recommendation
would be the recommendation that we could say to Council that we
at a late date passed this before the Commission and they thought
it was a reasonable idea. But, no, it is not fair that we just
undercut it. You are absolutely right.
Roger: I don't think we should make the decision either without
additional input from the neighborhood.
Welton: I think it is a consensus among the commissioners that
this is a simpler, more straight-forward approach and that the
majority would like to pursue it.
Roger:
And that there is a minority who said that we have
5
PZM3.7.89
already looked at this approach and previously recommended 10 and
10.
Alan: We do want to schedule a site visit sometime in the next
30 days at 1010 ute and walk through the memo we sent you on the
"lessons learned" on the 1010 ute before we get into Spring's
development review season.
HISTORIC LANDMARKS CODE AMENDMENT
Welton opened the public hearing.
Alan: I think it is obvious that we do agree that an amendment
should be pursued and it should be pursued in the form of
reducing the exactions and tying them in some fashion to the FAR
reduction.
Then we talked about whether the FAR measurement should be based
on floor area including FAR bonus or excluding FAR bonus and the
consensus that I heard from the Commission was without the FAR
bonus.
Welton: Was that bonus for employee housing?
Alan: Yes. For example in the CC zone district the FAR is 1.5 to
1. It can be increased to 2 and that we would base the sliding
scale at 1 and 1/2 and go down from there. The applicant has
asked in our meeting last Thursday that if we are going to use
that kind of a formula, that we stick to the term floor area
throughout this code amendment. In our commercial growth
management system as a general rule we use the term net leasable.
But what that does is it means that if they would like to go
subgrade with their addition that will count in net leasable
assuming that it is going to be subgrade commercial. And they
argue pretty successfully that one way to reduce the need to
build around an historic landmark is to let them literally pick
the building up, dig under it, put the foundation back in and go
subgrade. This would be one form of incentive to the historic
landmarks. So is that an acceptable approach to your folks? It
is different but it works to the advantage of the historic
landmark.
Welton: Yes. In the back of my mind when we talked about this
before what about-we are talking about some sort of sliding scale
between 50% and 100% of allowable FAR. What if it is a
commercial building that is already close to the maximum FAR and
you had a change in use from one thing to another without any
increase in floor area because that historic structure was
already 1.5 to 1. Then exactions would kick in purely because of
change in use and penalize a structure that perhaps the owner
6
PZM3.7.89
didn't want to add any square footage to because he wants to
preserve the structure.
Alan: You are correct. I did not address the question of change
in use in here at all. We discussed it to some minor extent at
the last meeting. I think Joe had a couple of points about it
saying that it was inherent in their approach that change in use
would receive a waiver. I did not restate that in here at all.
The other point is that the larger buildings really don't get a
whole lot of benefit from this system. Everybody was comfortable
with the idea that a larger building, if there is an addition to
it, already had the benefit of a lot of space that they have been
earning income from over the years and that is not the kind of
building that this incen~ive really looks towards. But change in
use is one way to deal with that. That is something I want to
hear from the Commission. Is this something you want to waive
all landmarks.
Welton:
of which
they are
I think it creates
we look upon with
already too large".
2 kinds of historic structures. One
favor. The other one we say "Well,
Alan: It won't work for both.
Welton: Why not?
Joe: It is a change in use that receives a waiver then they only
pay for the incremental increase, it works.
Alan: I am saying in terms of additions. There are really only
2 systems that I can think of. One would be percentage increase
which would favor the large building over the small. And the
other is the sliding scale which favors the small over the large.
Neither one handles both. But by addressing the change in use
issue you could at least provide something for the larger
building.
Our desire here is to
encourage conservation.
substantial additions.
encourage adaptive re-use. It is to
It is not to encourage additions or
What we are saying is you have got a building that is commercial.
It is rented out entirely as retail, etc. And the owner makes a
decision that the best use of that building is residential.
Right now to convert from commercial to residential you look at
the net impacts of that change. Commercial probably has higher
employees as does residential. So an owner doesn't have to pay
affordable housing impacts. Residential probably has a higher
parking impact than does commercial and so there might be an
exaction required there.
7
PZM3.7.89
What we are suggesting is that you provide the opportunity for
the owner of that historic building to change that use without
having to pay the exactions. I think it is consistent with the
approach to not kick somebody in here for changes in uses. Where
you really want to have them mitigate their impact is when they
are doing substantial expansion. That is consistent with the HPC
philosophy.
Welton: The boogie man that we are all afraid of seeing a repeat
of is Elli's. And maybe the Aspen Block Building. Maybe those
apartments on the second floor have become offices. There is no
additional square footage. The thing is already at 90% of its
allowable FAR. with the wording as it is now if they want to
change from residential to office and restore it to its original
use then they would not realize any of the benefits of this
historic preservation.
Alan: It is quite clear it needs a direction. The current code
absolutely says that they don't receive any of the benefits. And
the proposal is silent on the issue so I need to at least have
advice here.
Jim: The change of the community and the change of the needs of
the community are going to dictate different types of uses for it
over different periods of time. If we are going to restrict the
types of uses over periods of time then we have automatically
limited how long of a generation of use any building can have.
So I think that just by the fact that we are talking about
historical buildings being around for a great deal of time it
makes sense to waive the change of use.
Alan: Another example is if you take the Independence Hotel and
let's say the hotel fails. If people want to preserve and re-use
that building, would you want to make them mitigate the impacts
if the best use turned out to be residential there? Or the best
use turned out to be commercial. If the answer is "yes" then you
ought to tell us to have change of use mitigate impacts. That is
a typical kind of example you will see some time over the next 5
years.
If you think that it is better off that that building be adapted
to be re-used to age freely with the market then provide them
with the opportunity to waive.
Up until last year there was no impact mitigation for that. Up
until a year ago the Independence Building or the Aspen Block,
they came in, they did it. That was their incentive for being an
historic building. Last year we changed it because of the Elli's
situation in principle.
8
PZM3.7.89
"'~""/
Now the question is did we go too far.
Mari: The Elli's was not just a change of use, it was an
expansion.
Welton: That is my point. I think if something is close to its
maximum FAR, it shouldn't be penalized if they are not planning
on doing an expansion. If they are planning on maxing it out,
yes, then you start doing exacting.
Mari: I feel that exactions should only be made for expansions
and not for changes in use in historical.
Welton asked for consensus.
Alan: A subgrade net leasable approach? That's OK.
Roger: The most radical change of use I could perceive would be
something like from residential to restaurant or vice versa. For
practical purposes in the Main street Office Zone they have that
as a conditional use so we can identify it there. What about the
C-1 Zone?
Roxanne: We have 3 or 4 designated landmarks in C-1 but not in
any large numbers.
Roger: What would be the effect of those uses in those areas?
Alan: The point is if somebody could make one of those small
structures work as is by just changing the use to commercial--
isn't that better than another duplex down there. A small
Poppies is more in scale with Aspen than it is another duplex
like the one across from KSNO.
We talked about parking and there is a question that comes up
here as well. We agreed that when parking would kick in a cash-
in-lieu requirement that there will be an opportunity to waive
that. We try to obtain through the site design review process as
much or beyond site parking the surface parking we should say as
we can. We obviously are not going to require that they build
subgrade to meet their requirement.
The question came up "Who is going to give that final sign off?"
Are you satisfied to let a project get reviewed in the downtown
core and for the HPC to make the decision that parking is waived
in the Office Zone District? The parking is waived and you don't
see it. Are you comfortable with their ability to place the
proper number?
9
PZM3.7.89
If we have all got the same goals and
it, we can save everybody a lot
unnecessary review.
I think HPC can sign off on
of time in discretionary
Roger: with parking I also, because it is usually on alleys,
include in my thinking service and how is it going to be
serviced. So how do we address that feature in the future if we
don't review parking?
Alan: The only way you would ever see it would be if you are
dealing with a restaurant conditional use. I will look at some
language to try to talk about both parking and service. You will
We talked about the open space requirements that kick in only
when someone wants to reduce their required open spaces--25%
requirement in CC. And if someone wants to provide less than
that they can do that through cash-in-lieu.
We all agreed that the design guidelines that the applicant
proposed weren't needed and HPC had plenty of design guidelines
to work through this process.
We all agreed that we needed some kind of a legal mechanism to
guarantee this FAR reduction goes with the land and not simply
with current approval. I doubt that we will have a conservation
easement written into this particular language. That is
something Roxanne is working on for general applicability and
historic preservation. We will probably use deed restriction
which is our standard technique in land use right now. But be
looking towards conservation easements over the next couple of
years.
One last thing that I put in here. There wasn't total agreement
about it but was in the memo. If it so happens that someone does
have to pay the affordable housing exaction because they have
exceeded the amount of the standard that gets you into the waiver
and they don't want to provide it on site and P&Z and Council say
"Yes, cash-in-lieu is the right answer" then it gets assessed at
the middle income guideline which is different than we would
assess most commercial buildings. We normally assess it at the
low.
Bill Dunaway: Why is that? Do they pay less for middle income?
Alan: Yes. It is another way of returning more money to the
owner or to the developer.
Regarding chart: Basically I tried to illustrate the applicant's
proposal and then 5 alternatives to that. This chart compares
basically the percent of the FAR that is allowed on the site that
10
PZM3.7.89
is the lower access as opposed to the percent of the dollar
exaction required.
That is the one that can be confusing because the dollar exaction
required is also a percent of something else. You are required
by the code right now to house 60% of the employees. So you
don't house 100% of the employees. So for example if you fell
out on this chart at 50% of the dollar exaction that is 50% of
the 60% of the employees or actually you are paying the cash
equivalent of 30% of the employees you generate.
Jim: Is it true then that if you construct 100% of your
allowable are you going to pay 100% of the exaction?
Alan: The applicant's first proposal was that #1 they include
the FAR bonus. That is why it went up to 133. You will have to
go from 1.5 to 2 which is 33% above the 1.5 and in case of the
Office Zone it goes from .75 to 1 which is also conveniently 33%
above.
So they started out at the full FAR beyond what you agreed to and
they said at that point you would make 50% of the housing
exactions. And then they went back to if you go to half of that
which turns out to be 66 and 2/3% of the allowable FAR that is
when it is 100% waived.
So their scale went from the FAR with the bonus to half of that.
First of all you all said we wouldn't be looking at the bonus so
it was easy to cut that back to just looking at 100% of FAR. Now
the scale is going further than 100% on the right.
So it is a question of where we go on the left. How high is the
ante going to be? #1 is a real simple alternative of their
scale. It also doesn't go any higher than paying 50% of the
exaction which is what their proposal was. And it cuts it down
from the 100% down to 0 in an increment of 50. So it is actually
a mirror image. It is 50% gets you there.
What I heard from HPC and from you is that when there is 100%
build out, yes, you do pay 100% of the housing exaction. Just
the housing exaction. And their feeling was that we don't want
to be encouraging IGrge expansions. Their mission is
conservation and if conservation requires small additions, they
understand that.
HPC members really don't want to encourage large additions.
Given the fact that we are talking about growth management and we
are talking about additions and enlargements as the basis for
even debating this issue at all, their direction here was that
11
PZM3.7.89
they would like to see this code amendment to the maximum extent
possible encourage smaller additions or no additions.
They don't want to give great benefits or any benefits to people
who put the maximum FAR on the site that is allowable. They are
looking more at trying to preserve or conserve the smaller
historic buildings that are around town through this kind of
incentive. That is why most of these don't give you benefit when
you are at 100% buildout. 3, 4 and 5 all require 100% of the
exaction at 100% buildout. 2 requires 75% of the exaction at
100% buildout. So it is a compromise rather than an alternative.
2 is also nice because it is a straight line. All of these that
are straight lines are going to be a whole lot simpler to
understand.
Bruce: As I understand the graph the applicant's proposal is the
least onerous. Then ranging up to #5 is the most onerous. That
seems to conflict with the idea behind having reduced exactions
which is to encourage preservation. We have got that conflict
vs. wanting to discourage large expansions. It seems that
somewhere in the middle is where we are going to have go be to
accomplish both of those goals. Discourage large expansions yet
provide incentive for preservations.
Alan: It is really a matter of not wanting to give away the
house here in the interest of historic preservation. Yes, I am
very interested in reducing the exactions but the community also
has an extreme interest in issues such as affordable housing and
trying to get some balance there.
Gideon: You will remember one year ago historic for buildings
paid zero for all additions. Regular commercial paid at 35%
exactions. Then you increased everything to 60%. A simple
approach might be just to go back to the 35% for employee housing
as it relates to historic structures.
Rather than have to deal with a chart or anything else you use
the maximum employee housing requirements that existed for
everybody 1 year ago. The concern you have on the other side is
how do we prevent the maximum buildout? Any addition requires
HPC approval. If you can go in and convince the HPC that the
size of your addition is still compatible with the integrity of
the building then you pay 35%. So you are not waiving it down to
zero. You are giving it to what everybody in the past had to
deal with and you are still required to get HPC approval.
The reason I say that is that even in some buildings if you go up
to your maximum FAR in order to preserve the existing building
you have to take some less than desirable space. The extra FAR
maybe offsets that when you are using the front of the building
12
PZM3.7.89
which is maybe 1, OOOsqft and has to be an entry way or to
accommodate the kind of use.
So the simplest way to would be to 35% across the board. If it
doesn't preserve the building HPC isn't going to approve it and
you got no way of building it.
Welton: A year ago didn't apply to historic structures though.
Gideon: No a year ago historic structures were zero. I am
saying we are going up to 35% which is what everybody else had to
approve. So you are taKing it from zero to 35 and you are just
not taking it all the way up to 60.
Joe Wells: Of the complex curves, 3 is by far the best from our
standpoint because assuming that the top of it doesn't
necessarily have to be set at 100 nonetheless it decreases more
steeply than 4 and 5 do. Therefor you get more incentive at a
quicker rate. So without trying to tell you that has to be 100%
that shape of curve is beneficial over 4 and 5.
Jim: I think there are quite a few projects out there on which
the full expansion of the building to keep FAR standards is what
is going to make that historic structure fly economically. I
think that if our concept here is the preservation of historic
buildings first, conservation and keeping the size of those
buildings small, second, that we should provide for those larger
buildings which are gong to be the ones more subj ect to loss
because the economics of those buildings are more stressful than
the economics of the smaller buildings. And if that is what our
order of request is, first preservation and then conservation,
then I think the straight line of #2 makes a lot more sense.
Roger: I was looking at-more of a 2-stage curve as opposed to a
3-stage curve. What about for example 0 to 33%. There is 0
extraction. Then you start out at 33% FAR constructed it starts
out at 0 but then you run your slope up to 100%.
Alan: There is infinite varieties.
Roger: Of course, the incentive there
below 33%--a straight line from 100% 100
the argument is does it belong at 25,
would be a simple curve to deal with and
to keeping it small.
is to keep it small or
100 down to 33%. To me
33, 50 or where? That
the incentive would be
Mari: I vote for Roger's line.
Jim: From 2 up requesting at maximum growth, maximum FAR
construction a maximum of 75% of housing requirement.
13
PZM3.7.89
But a year ago historic structures had zero housing exactions.
And we are talking about going from zero to 75% in 1 year here as
a benefit.
Jim: Whichever way you
talking about going from
a possible incentive.
incentive.
want to play the schematics. We are
zero to 75% increase in ceiling here as
I have a hard time finding that an
Welton: I agree with Jim and I also agree with you that I
thought straight line #1 was the applicant's original proposal. I
like the applicant's original proposal because by the time you
start off with 100% you were exacting something of substance but
not the 60% that City Council chose to raise everything to a year
ago from the 35%. But it was still being a kinder gentler
approach to historic preservation than the 100%. Whether or not
your curve #1 was what the applicant suggested I like curve #1
because it is the gentlest of the approaches.
Alan: It is #1 with the P&Z's additional caveat of you don't go
beyond the allowable FAR you don't get the building. It is just
that simple.
Jim: I have no problem with the extra levy when you go for the
bonus situation. But I think that if you are staying with an
allowable FAR, I think to extract more than that % for housing
doesn't make much sense.
Michael: #1, I am concerned because now I understand this chart.
I think #1 is the only one that makes any meaningful sense. If
we are going to turn around and make this an incentive then you
have got to make it an incentive that means something. That the
curve #1 adequately approaches giving them a maximum amount of
incentive and it stops inside of when they hit 100% buildout. I
elect #1.
Bruce Kerr: I can go with #1.
Roger:
that it
100% of
Didn't we have the discussion that if they got up to 100%
gets absolutely maxed out and shouldn't they be closer to
the exaction?
Gideon: The
overriding the
to approve it.
finds that the
protection.
HPC has to approve the building. So it is
building or if it doesn't work the HPC isn't going
The only way that this even triggers is the HPC
addition is compatible. So you do have a
14
PZM3.7.89
Graeme: Because of what Gideon said I feel comfortable with #1.
And let HPC deal with it.
Welton: I think we have a consensus.
Alan: We will try and return with this in 2 weeks.
Welton asked if there were any other suggestions or other public
input.
Phoebe: I would wish that you would make it so simple that we
wouldn't have to go through repeated architectural drawings and
lawyers and everything else.
Graeme: Related to that I see the need for some of the
complications. But I find a lot of people approach the Planning
Department trying to figure out what the rules are and they just
feel like they talk to a bunch of people and when they come away
they are a lot more confused than when they started. Often it
seems like they should be able to go there and find out what the
ground rules are. And maybe some way the Department could try
and improve that situation.
Mari: A user's manual?
Alan: That was done a' year ago and it has been an enormous
amount of assistance to people. This is why we went through the
code re-write. And one of the disappointments I think to most
everybody was that we ended up with a very complicated document
at the end. As Sunny has said, we as a community, have some very
ambitious goals and as a result we have some very ambitious
rules.
Graeme: I understand the reason for a lot of the complications.
But when people approach the Building Department or the Planning
Department and come away and say "They don't even understand what
is going on". This happens a lot. I do know that there are a
lot of people who I deal with who feel as if they deal with a
Planning Department and they don't come out with anything
definite.
Welton: If there is no further public comment I continue this
public hearing to date certain of March 21, 1989.
RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO GROWTH OUOTAS
PUBLIC HEARING
Welton opened the public 'hearing.
15
PZM3.7.89
Alan: Some of you have probably read that we took a little bit
different approach to this than we normally do. The Council
basically has given us the directive that this year's annual
growth report be much more than just a report on trends and a
nice planning staff report. Even at that they really were
looking to us to come to some conclusions and make some
recommendations from.
Because they basically gave us the assignment
process last (cough) City Council giving them a
them essentially exactly what you have here
tonight.
I started the
report. Giving
in the packet
I was looking for some direction from them to be able to bring
back to you because if I was totally off base I didn't want to
waste the Commission's time. You have got enough work right now
that if these ideas made no sense to them you shouldn't even be
wasting your time telling us they were the wrong ideas.
They were very enthusiastic about the direction that the report
took. They really didn't take a vote on it and accept it. But
they went through each of the recommended code revisions and
there was general support there. I am sure there will be public
controversy from the public about these recommendations. They
are not simple, straight-forward, easy solutions. There is some
complexity here as well. But I hope we come out of the process
with some positive recommendations from the commission.
You should know that tonight's meeting and the continued meetings
that will come from it are noticed as public hearings to deal
with the code amendments. So while you start out talking about
the report as a planning report, you are legally authorized to go
into the code amendmertt process here and the Council has
requested that you do so. They feel very anxious to see these
code amendments move through the process and get back on their
desk as expeditiously as possible.
I call this an interim strategy. I talked with both Fred Gannett
and Tom Smith about that idea of what interim strategy meant to
me and did they feel comfortable with that principle legally.
They feel most comfortable with that kind of a concept.
We have got to dedicate a lot of time between now and the summer
of 1990 really coming up with bigger and broader solutions than
this. I would like to see the community really ask the question
of "Is growth rate control the best answer at this point in
time?". Is that really getting at the problem.
Joe Wells
bothering
brought up the problem last night which really
a lot of people which is the displacement
is
and
16
PZM3.7.89
disappearance of old Aspen or Aspen as it was 10 years ago even.
Maybe Growth Management is no longer the tool that is the best
answer to that kind of problem. And maybe that is the more
important problem for us to be dealing with.
Michael: Where in the City of Aspen can you have substantial
subdivision for lodge? That is what I don't understand about
this.
Alan: We will get into this. We will talk about some of the
buildout potential. But in part I can't answer that question.
That is one of the studies we really haven't done. We have put
off the land use element of our plan for about 3 years now. Every
time we try and get into it, it is the big picture element.
The transportation issue is unimaginably important as is the
displacement issue. We have got to do that thinking about how
much is really left out ~here and where should it go.
Alan then showed charts.
(attached in record)
When I started on the report I started updating the tables. When
I did a table like this one I started to wonder if there really
was much of a growth problem in the community at all. Just by
looking at numbers like these with Snowmass being substantially
below its growth rate. While people like to think that Aspen is
really well below its growth rate we have been well below the
3.5%. A lot of that is due to the fact that Snowmass is so far
below its growth rate. Something that is well to notice this 191
here is the recognized growth rate in Snowmass based on some
approvals granted to Snowmass in the mid 70's.
That 191 units a year equates to an annual growth rate there
based on the population at the time of the approval--10 and 1/2%
a year. So Snowmass was recognized at 10 and 1/2. The Aspen
quota actually is 1.3%. So when people ask if we have been
meeting your 3 and 1/2% goal I say there is no such thing. That
is just what County wide ends up being when you add up all the
individual components. But for us, looking at Aspen and the
Aspen Metro area, we have actually been wanting to grow at about
1 and 1/2%--much less than the 3 and 1/2%.
Most people have been telling us throughout the Ordinance 47
process that the real culprit in terms of Aspen growth problem is
commercial. That we have been blowing the commercial rate
through the sky. As a resul t we have an employee housing
problem. This table would seem to indicate otherwise. (table 4)
This table which has a 7 year trend shows that in Aspen our trend
has been an average of 12,000sqft a year over the last 7 years
which is half of the 24,000sqft quota.
17
PZM3.7.89
It also shows me that when we revised the quotas back in 1981/82
as soon as we revised tbe quotas and started imparting employee
housing exactions from people we have been meeting our targets.
We did the right thing 6 or 7 years ago. But interestingly in
Snowmass they have been kind of going through the roof lately.
The point is when I look at those kind of tables I wasn't really
finding much of a problem to report to people. I was wondering
what kind of growth report this was going to be with everybody
expecting great bombastic changes in the growth rate and the
facts really are not supporting it.
So I decided maybe I can look at it in a different way and
started with these figures. They really changed the whole report
that I was writing. This figure represents the 39 unit Aspen
quota over the 12 year period to what actually has occurred in
the community over the 12 year period. You will notice that for
the first several years up to about 1982 the growth rate in Aspen
in residences exceeded the quota by a little bit. We can
attribute most of it in 1980-81 to Castle Ridge. Then it drops
off with the economic slump locally and nationally. Then we see
the jumping back up in the last couple of years in residential.
This is just residential--not lodge. Net additions so it nets
out any demolitions and ~dds in any constructions.
Mari: So those numbers are units which can be 1 bedroom, 2
bedroom, 3 bedroom.
Alan: Yes. We talked last night about something that I call the
hidden components of growth. This kind of analysis that our
g:owth management system never tracks. As I say, this is a net
V1ew. So if the unit is demolished and the unit is replaced that
is a net of O. But the unit that is demolished may be a studio.
The unit that replaces may be a 4 bedroom. So there is that
hidden component in here that we all know has an effect on us but
that this can't pick up.
Roger: So that includes what is happening in the west end as far
as what you might call tourist residential or unoccupied
residential.
Alan: Yes. It is everything from employee housing through to
second homes.
Then I looked at the next one which isn't in your area of
jurisdiction but again is important. That is the surrounding
metro area where we have 'built a lot of employee housing over the
years and have exceeded our growth rate. Fairly significantly it
is the result of Centennial but also as a result of Lone pine and
the Highlands Villas. Again when I add these 2 things up
18
PZM3.7.89
together I see we have exceeded our growth rate in residential in
the city and the metro area in just the residential part of the
quota. It is not by an outrageous amount and people over the
years of the 70's and 80's kind of became accustomed to the fact
that we might exceed our growth rate in that area.
When I put this one with the other 2 figures it lead me to
understand why for the last year or so people have been much more
uncomfortable about a growth rate. If you look at where this one
ends up with where the City residential ended up we are almost
exactly on target on both of them.
Look at where we are right now if you include the Ritz as built
to where we are supposed to be right now. We just crossed over
to the above quota. The City residential we are just below the
quota. My conclusion is that by having the growth in the lodge
from Little Nell, the Hotel Jerome and now the Ritz compressed
into 3 years, we are basically feeling what we expected to happen
in 12 in a very short time period. And where the growth rate
might have been comfortable to accept at Castle Ridge or a
Centennial given that we always said "Hans just isn't building
those projects that he is getting approved so we have got this
cushion." Well now it is getting built and the 2 of them
together even though they are at the target at least to a lot of
people in this community just don't feel right. It just feels
like the change is now moving very fast.
commercial hasn't really been to the extent that a lot of people
think it has. But residential and lodge combined while just
meeting the quotas in essence happened in too short a time frame
for a lot of us.
It is important to understand what did happen. But it is a lot
more important to try and get some kind of fix on where we are
going and what we can probably expect to happen in the coming
years. And for that we did a standard type of analysis that we
do in these growth reports. And it begins on page 19. But we
try looking at a number of factors. We try looking at what is
approved and unbuilt. We try and look at underlying zoning which
is Mickey's question. What potential exists out there. And we
try looking at what we are hearing about. What is coming into the
office, what we are getting in a sense as about to occur.
I just went through a series of factors which help me to
understand where I think it is going to be going. Obviously the
Ritz is moving ahead. And from our standpoint building permit
issuances when we start counting units and the quota we don't
wait until CO occurs. We see it when the construction impacts
are upon us. We see it moreso when the occupancy takes place.
So we certainly look upon that as a factor that is going to
19
PZM3.7.89
effect our near-term growth rate. Not only the hotel but its
secondary impacts. What is it going to do to affordable housing?
What is it going to do to the need for addi tional retail?
Potentially skiing, etc. That is number one.
Number two we are all very aware that we are being pressed very
hard to deal with the affordable housing situation. The activity
in the office in terms of pre-applications by people wanting to
do projects--100% affordable housing projects or some mix is
unprecedented.
Projects that you have approved and that the County has approved
through the Growth Management System are actually being built.
We have always seen it in the area of commercial. Everything
that has come across our desks in commercial has always become a
reality. But it was never the case in residential. They always
expired. Now 1010 ute builds out. 925 Durant builds out. 777
ute Avenue builds out. They are all building. And that is a
whole new phenomena. We can't discount them. We have to start
counting them.
The same thing
building out.
then came in.
is happening in the County where the Preserve is
A lot of people thought they were big jokes when
The economics would never work. But they do.
Phoebe Ryerson: The history of Aspen includes 16,000 residents
and what are we now--about 8, if that. So I don't think we are
looking at the long history and the beauty and the pleasure of
Aspen. Those little old miner's cottages are now worth half a
million that have been redone of course by decorators and
architects and lawyers.
So the contrast about what is being done in the last 5 years or
10 years and then the other thing is that Snowmass, for Pete's
sake, is very new comparatively. There was nothing up there but
farms and ranches until all of a sudden it was opened up for a
variety pack. But to compare their lives and their expansion as
something that we shouldn't emulate is ridiculous because there
is room and there is room here perhaps without comparing an apple
and an orange.
Alan: Another factor that we look at beyond the projects that
are building out is what can we expect to see. Some which are
already in, some of which will be coming in. The Meadows is
already in so it is one that we can look at certainly as a
possible addition to our residential inventory. They are looking
for 23 residential units on one portion of the property. Another
2 elsewhere. We know we have development applications
anticipated on top of Mill. You have seen those in the past. It
is not going to go away. So we think that there is reason to
20
PZM3.7.89
believe that we are going to see substantial continuation of
residential development trends.
The May 1989 residential competition which is actually the hold
over from November of 88 right now looks like it is going to be a
very hot competition. There are 17 units available and there
seem to be a lot of people interested in those units. So there
is no reason to think that there isn't subdividable land.
Based on our analysis right now we show between 230 and 260 units
to be built in the City still. This is considerable. It means
that even if no more units came on to the Growth Management
System the market could still bring on new units for quite some
time to come.
The metro area is much more built out. The subdivisions in the
metro area are by and large older and built out and there is only
100 units we count there. This is an analysis that we have done
several times.
The down valley area that is now called the non-metro area really
has a lot of capability. There is 400 unit capability there and
the Crystal has 300 unit capability. So overall it is about
1,000. The bulk of that certainly is not in the City or the
metro area. 2/3rds of it is down valley or in the Crystal. So
that gives us reason to believe that the growth rates that we
have been seeing which have been fueled in a large part by
previously subdivided lots building out can continue. So from my
point of view residential is likely to continue.
On the other hand I think the lodge growth rate is very unlikely
to continue. That figure that we say stepping up is not going to
go to infinity precisely because there isn't zoning to see it
happen. Our analysis shows about 230 units. That is built off
analysis that were done in the offices as early as the mid 70's
for the first growth management system and been updated a couple
of times. We tried to squeeze every unit out that we could
there.
We try to be as optimistic as we can when we look at build out
potential rather than be conservative and finding that we missed
a lot.
The LP zone is also getting built out slowly. It has dropped
down to about 175 potential because some lodges have dropped out
of the inventory totally and some others have had additions
through our system. That tells me that we are not going to see
the massive growth unless we do things to induce that. One of
the ways you can induce growth is to leave large quotas
available. Somebody will find a way to assemble parcels of land
21
PZM3.7.89
and make proposals for development if you carryover the unused
quota from year to year. That is why we are suggesting not to do
that--to drop the quota significantly.
commercial is kind of a funny one to figure because the build out
potential there is extraordinary. Our analysis here said it was
about a million square feet potential. I think that is right.
Someone pointed out to us last night that we haven't been
deducting the new duplexes that have been built in the Office
Zone and the C-1 which are obviously permanent buildings and take
away from the commercial build-out potential. So I would say you
could easily factor 10% maybe as much as 20%. But even if it is
800,000 we have got a lot of Commercial Zoning still that is
unbuilt on. A lot of it is in the Office Zone District. What we
found though is with th~ employee housing exactions it is not a
very popular sector to be proposing development in right now.
The developers tell us that the numbers just don't work. And our
analysis of approved but unbuilt projects shows us there is about
1 or 2 up there. Both of those that I know of are coming in line
in 1989. So there is not an inventory that is waiting to
surprise us. So it leads me to believe that Commercial isn't
really our problem even though a lot of people think it is.
Roger: You have both Little Nell and Ritz outlined here so in a
Lodging area we are more or less on target. city of Aspen
residential is very close to on target. We are over target for
Aspen Metro residential but the scary thing is that Little Nell
and the Ritz Carlton are not on line and we do have affordable
housing problem and they are not showing up on these charts.
Alan: That is a real good point. Although we are counting them
the discomfort that people have felt this past season, whether it
is the transportation crunch on the highway or in air quality or
the lack of housing--clearly the construction workers are a
portion of that impact and you might assume that some of those
people are not going to stay in Aspen after that work is done.
Last night Joe Wells presented an analysis that was right on line
of how the lodge growth rate that we have shown doesn't deduct
out several of the things that have happened in the lodge
inventory. It doesn't talk about the Alpina Haus and the Copper
Horse coming out. It doesn't talk about some of the other
conversions coming out. And so a point of fact where our target
in terms of growth but not net growth in that sector. The more
important fact is there is no doubt about it that we have got
enormous growth problems in this community that are unsolved and
it is incumbent on us to do something immediately because of
that.
22
PZM3.7.89
Roger: My question is, is our quota correct? The residential
quota I am thinking of primarily., Is that correct? I think
probably what 1S happening, aga1n, is that included in the
residential quota are the second homes that are not benefiting
anybody. I am not recommending another quota system by any means
but do we have to adjust our quota to indicate the shortfall of
affordable housing?
Alan: Yes. That is precisely what I am recommending.
Welton: And type too.
Alan: To me you have an enormous affordable housing problem that
if there remains a concern about the overall rate of growth must
be compensated for by immediate and very strong reduction in the
free market residential growth rate. Otherwise the two things
are going to lead to a m4ch, much higher rate than we care about.
Now if rate is not a concern we ought to go out and solve the
affordable housing problem and let it be solved in a variety of
ways including seeing what the free market can do.
If you are concerned about rate then our recommendations here are
right on target because we are saying cut the free market rate to
as low as legally sustainable right now.
Michael: Somehow none of it seems to me to be working. And if
you take a look at the commercial we have got the exaction so
high that we have no more commercial and what we have in the
commercial, the stores are so expensive that none of the
residents who live here can afford to shop in them.
The problems that we are facing from our Growth Control or from
the growth that we have had regardless of what the cause is
doesn't matter anymore. It is a question of how do you address
it? If we have got a transportation and a parking and an
employee housing problem, making the growth quotas more
restrictive are not going to solve any of those problems. It is
like putting a band aid on a cancer.
Alan: That is a very good analogy.
Michael: It seems to me to be more appropriate to try to find a
way that solves those problems and doesn't just make what is here
more expensive. If you put a residential quota on or whatever
you reduce then those townhouses that aren't lived in will only
become more expensive and are more out of I ine for everybody.
And this doesn't seem to do anything to help the problem but may
make it worse.
23
PZM3.7.89
Alan: I can identify with the point of view that you are taking.
The reason, again, that I call this "interim" is because I think
you are correct. The problems seem to be having less and less to
do with what the system is intended to control. And the problems
are off in this one direction and the system is going in another
direction and they are not accomplishing the end that we set out
towards in '77. Back then we clearly had a problem that this
system was intended to resolve. What I am suggesting here is
that as a community we need time to make the choices as to what
the right answers are. And that I see no beneficial effect from
the rates and type of growth that we are getting right now. And
so in the interim you reduce that rate to a degree legally
sustainable and you put all of your efforts into finding better
answers. If we come back here in a year from now and don't have
those answers I wouldn't be able--and we don't have data to
support this kind of growth rate. I wouldn't be able to in good
conscience say that proportions stay at what I am recommending
here.
Michael: But then don't we take a big problem and penalize just
a small part of our population because of that problem? The guy
who has got land or the guy who has got a lot or the guy who
wants to do development--now he is in the position that he isn't
a developer who came in--he is somebody who lived here. For
whatever reason he hasn't done i t--and now we are taking this
overall enormous problem that faces the community and we are
making it his problem and only his problem and we are not doing
anything to help anybody else. All we are doing is hurting him.
But we are not helping the problem.
I understand that your intent is to slow it down so that the
problem doesn't get worse but I would rather see us start to
treat the problem.
Alan: In a sense it comes along with the territory of amending
the code. Every time you amend the code or change your
direction. Those who benefited from what there was before have
an advantage over those who didn't get in. But I think the
community needs to chart what it wants to be. It appears to be a
larger and larger segment that is saying that the kinds of rates
that we are tolerating right now are intolerable. The
displacement and the loss of the affordable housing is
intolerable. Those things have to be addressed.
This addresses those portions of the problem. It does provide
every direction in the world to the development community that if
what you are trying to do is build affordable housing, you will
win. You will move right through this. But if your intent is to
do free market subdivision, we are going to limit that to the
maximum extent that the law allows. Or if you want to do a new
24
PZM3.7.89
lodge the communi ty doesn't need another maj or disruption in
terms of lodging right now.
Jim: I am just trying to correlate--if we put arbitrary
restraints beyond what we normally would have in growth control
in place, aren't we in some ways going to worsen the effects of
some ~roble~s in the community? We are going to create an
econom1C sW1ng. Maybe it is short-lived. But we are going to
create an economic swing in which the price of real estate of the
restricted areas is going to go higher and possibly the value of
real estate is going to get larger. The affordablility of any
fringe real estate is going to be less affordable. And aren't we
even artificially increasing the cost of employee or affordable
housing by creating the higher interest or higher value to
restricted real estate?
Alan: I would ask you to think about if there were no growth
rate control at all. Do you believe that the free market real
estate prices would be affordable? It seems to me that there are
factors well beyond our own growth rate limitations that are
influencing particularly the residential and commercial rates on
the values that we are seeing right now.
The value of money in this country vs. what people see elsewhere.
They are pushing our real estate prices beyond the fact that we
regulate the rate at which things come on. I wonder then how
much more of a push there is because the quote is 39 vs. 30 vs.
20. It is a factor. But I really have trouble that the market is
going to be the basis for bringing that down if we let it go.
Mari: I just feel like if it is $300,000 more than you can
afford, does it matter if it is $400,000 more. I think that is
what we are talking about. What difference does it make to
people who are working for a living how much they can't afford it
by.
Roger: Geographically we don't have unlimited growth available
to us. So consequently the free market system which works in a
Dallas or a Houston where they can just keep on expanding
forever, those mechanisms don't work very well here. And also I
think we have developed ?s a public policy we don't want to see
strip city down the valley. So where I tend to be a free market
person and think that is great--well we have got constraints that
the free market doesn't work very well here. So we apply growth
control and try to ration what we have out and, of course, the
immediate effect of that is you start diminishing the supply so
the price is going up.
This was my same argument in Ord. 19 in 1974. I am vexed to how
to make this system work. My argument then was we are going to
25
PZM3.7.89
make things
for a long
coming on.
too dear for employee housing. We sort of ignored it
period of time until people started seeing a crises
We are in that sort of position still.
Alan: Phoebe last night said "Isn't a moratorium in order? The
comment back was that we have already put so much pressure on the
existing units because of their value as exemptions for
reconstruction that to literally stop it would only increase
that. I think there is no question that even a reduction in the
growth rate will increase that pressure and that is something
that none of us want.
Jim: What are we doing to replacement housing concerns, though,
if we do that? Those will become part of the quota system.
Alan: They can't be dealt with this solution.
Jim: So in other words what we are doing is we are making a
restriction here and although it may not effect that market
whether you made it wide open or you make a restriction there it
is having an adverse effect upon our replacement unit market.
So you are telling me that you are not going to have any worse
effects than leaving it as a free market unit. So you might as
well restrict it. But you are going to increase the problem with
the replacement market unit. It doesn't make any sense to me to
restrict the other market.
Welton: That is the pressure we have been facing for the last
year and a half to 2 years.
Jim: The point is if it was free market totally and there was no
quota system, how much worse could it be? And if it can't be
that much worse then what difference does it make if we go ahead
and restrict a little more than we have been restricting it? But
if by doing that what Alan says is increasing the restrictions on
the quota system we are making it more likely that replacement
units are going to be torn down and utilized then we are making
an adverse effect on replacement unit market.
Alan: His argument holds.
discussing it last night as
never look at in interim of 0
And we did spend
one of the reasons
of a quota.
a lot of time
why you should
Jim: Any reduction or percentage of a reduction is still going
to cause an adverse effect on the other market.
Alan: And as Mari and W~lton are saying you have been trying to
put other ordinances in place to deal with that conditional use
and controls on demolition.
26
PZM3.7.89
Phoebe: The west side blocks have 6 or 8 houses on them. If
Roger would show you the houses on his block it would show you
that nice people live in less than 4 acre lots and so the zoning
problem remains. The west side people are very nice people. So
if the zoning gets coped with and that Mr. Green that I keep
pitching to you all who offered to build for $500.00 a month, 3
bedroom units all around town. He doesn't want to build lumps
either. He offered to do it by June and he said he could do 500.
He is retired. He has got tons of money. He is not going to
charge anything to Aspen which he loves and local laborers and
construction people can do it all. He can order from his own
people.
Now, really, if you could only get on to the real solution which
is wonderful people who are willing to be helpful at no cost.
The city and the County will have to, of course, cough up money
for the land and then you keep rent controls. It will stay the
kind of place that the young families can continue to live in for
the next 20 to 50 years.
My idea of the moratorium was just on the houses on the west side
that have been built in the last 2 years and they are all still
for sale for God's sakes. You don't need any more big houses.
Bruce: I am curious as to whether when in effect you are making
an admission that our Growth Management Plan was not right for
the times and if so whether we are saying it is not right because
we all perceived this pressure, this growth pressure. Whether it
is the traffic or the noise or whatever it is. Or whether we
have really exceeded our capacity.
When we put the Growth Management Plan together we knew what our
capacity was, how much water we are going to have, how much
electricity and all of those kinds of things. We start out with
about what our capacity was or we were wrong in what we were
willing to set as a liveable condition. And I think that is
really where we are.
I don't think we have exceeded our capacity for our services that
are available. Highway 82 may be another matter. But we haven't
exceeded those things, have we Alan? What we have exceeded is a
tolerance level that we are all willing to accept as a quality of
life. We thought we could live with 39 or whatever those numbers
are and now in 1989 we find that is really not an acceptable way
of life for us.
I think the approach may be that as you say we have got to do
something on an interim basis. But we may have to go back to
square one and say "OK, what is the quality of life we want for
27
PZM3.7.89
ourselves in this valley". Whatever growth management plan we
come up with in the future will have to be assessed on some kind
of rational basis to say "Sure we have got the water services in
the ground to deal with X number of people but that is not he
quality of life that we want in this valley". I think our
approach may have to be an interim approach. Try to deal with it
now but we have got to come to grips with what we really want to
live with in the year 2,000 and beyond in this city.
Alan: You are on to what we are really saying here which is that
I think the Growth Management System that was created 12 years
ago was totally right on. It was definitely not a mistake
because it was intended at that time to deal with severe problems
in terms of services. The water system, the sewer system
overload--unable to provide the basic necessities. But that 39
units for example they came up with, that was looking at 80% of
allowed build out phased over 15 years. Nobody really could look
and say "Well what is that going to look like if all of these
things do happen and if it comes to pass that those charts get us
to where the quota says what they should, how is it going to
feel?".
Planners can't come up with all of those answers. It worked at
the time. It was as low as they could let it go. But it is not
any more. And it doesn't feel like the right thing anymore. It
has also had an enormous number of anticipated consequences.
That is the part that hasn't worked maybe.
Bruce: In a legal sense how do we tie whatever we do in the way
of restriction to the health, safety and welfare of the people of
Aspen. We can't just say "Well, it doesn't feel good to live in
Aspen anymore".
Alan: Quality
would predict
character as it
an appropriate
appropriate.
of life. There is no court in the land that I
that would see quality of life or community
has been called in a number of cases. In Florida
use is the police power. It is totally
Welton asked for public comment.
David Brown, architect: Just as for clarification on your
affordable housing set aside, in order to allow affordable to
occur are you proposing that the Planning Commission upzone
certain lands in order ,to make affordable housing an economic
feasibility?
Alan: Not as part of this specific action but, yes, as part of
the work that we have accomplished we have done 2 or 3 different
things so far in that regard. Probably the most important of
28
PZM3.7.89
which was the density bonuses that Ordinance allows but the more
important solution to that the Commission started working on
about 2 weeks ago. They are going to see it again at the end of
the month as an affordable housing zone district. It is kind of
like the County PMH that is an absolute auxiliary in response to
projects that are 100% affordable housing.
In the course of the process I would suspect that there will be a
lot of debate whether it has to be 100% affordable housing
projects and whether Robin Hooding it is inappropriate to allow
some free market to go along with the vast majority of the
project being restricted.
The whole point of this strategy is if we are going to see
residential growth in the coming year or 2 years what can we do
to make as much of that pie be affordable housing so that the
growth rate that we get out of that is tolerable and the kind of
growth that we get is the type that we want.
David Brown: You mentioned earlier that one of the problems is
the limit to land. I beg to differ with you in that there is
quite a bit of land and it is in Rifle and Glenwood Springs. And
the growth plan here as in Boulder and some other communities
that have adopted similar growth plans is to move beyond the
limited jurisdiction.
The COG study showed how Denver can grow over a 30 year period
from a million 2 to 3 million 6 people without decreasing the
quality of life. The concept was basically the node development.
This community could do well to study that and adopt something
similar. Basically what you are doing now is forcing commercial
development from the airport, which is an appropriate place for
it to be down to Basalt and beyond. The same thing with
residential development as far as the affordable elements.
I don't think it is appropriate to try to keep that all right in
the City because this is a destination resort. It is appropriate
to try to get the highest and best use for everything within a
pedestrian distance to the gondola. But to have affordable
housing and affordable retail in office opportunities in nodes
that could be serviced by mass transportation close in would be a
reasonable way for the 'City to address the affordable housing
problem and grow simultaneously in a way that would reduce
traffic and reduce pollution and still maintain the quality of
life.
It is not necessarily satellite city. It is taking the concept
of the satellite city and doing it in 100 or 200 acre increments
keeping it close in. You could call it the new townlin town.
Think of it as a new neighborhood in town or new neighborhood on
29
PZM3.7.89
the edge of town. I am not talking about a whole new city. I am
just talking about nodes of development that would take place at
logical locations such as Brush Creek.
Phoebe: I think this is wonderful. It is a people approach as
against our magnificent open lands. 80% of the County is in open
lands and they don't pay taxes. It is true. So we need to soak
everybody else, I guess, to maintain the government. I don't
think we should. I think we should take care about the residents
and not call them employees but residents.
Mari: To me the flaw with all these figures as far as the
residential is calling a unit a unit a unit no matter what kind
of impacts it has, how big it is, how many people it can house. I
don't see how you can get a handle on what the real growth is as
long as everything is lumped into 1 word called a unit.
Welton: I am still strongly convinced that we really don't have
a growth problem. We have a phantom lack of growth problem that
these curves have kept pace with what is intended as far as new
developments are concerned. What we end up with is a lot of
older development that people could live in--is now expensive
development that people can't afford to live in. And that both
in that area and the area of the "hardware store preservation
zoning district" what I have been calling for 3 years
"preservation of essential community services" which nobody has
picked that up as a catch line.
Those are perhaps outside of the ability of growth management
plan to protect. But I think in the interim this is as good
approach. I agree with Bruce's comments on it. I think a
cooling down period perhaps is appropriate and that it be set
aside for affordable housing is an awfully good idea. But that
in the process of looking at a replacement for the growth
management quota system or whatever plan or an overhaul of it
that we are going to have to address the actual elements that
create a community such as the remaining small inventory of
affordable housing rather than playing continual catchup game by
replacing stuff that was lost 2 years ago.
Alan: I think it is time to challenge the now planning direction
we took a long time ago and either try it again and stay on that
course or chart a new one because it is not designed to deal with
the kinds of problems that seem uppermost in most people's minds.
Every time we have this conversation this Commission and the city
council and people on the street the same kinds of issues come
up. They are secondary effects of growth management. They are
not easily or well addressed at all by growth rate control. I
really think that that discussion is what needs to happen. The
30
PZM3.7.89
question I would pose to all of you is what do you want to do
with this? Do you want to spend a lot of time in that more
philosophical discussion? Do you want to jump right into
looking at the interim strategy and then provide time to do the
planning? I suggested to you that the interim strategy should be
put into effect and the planning effort initiated immediately.
Welton: This public hearing is going to be tabled and continued
to the 21st of March.
Alan: Or to a work session whichever works best for you as a
group.
Welton: I think we should answer Alan's plea for direction.
Alan: 2 of you expres?ed that the direction is good and we
should move forward with it.
Jim: I would like to try and shed off a few of the outer layers
of what problems we are perceiving as growth problems which
aren't growth problem oriented and have separate solutions. Then
get down to what the growth problem itself really is without all
these other things entangling it before we get into solutions of
the growth problem which I don't think we totally understand. I
think there is more to it than what is represented.
Bruce: I am not ready to buy as a whole package this interim
strategy. I sort of feel like if we are going to cut the quotas
back we ought to cut it back across the board including
commercial. I really think a better approach is to leave the
quotas where they are while we get into the process of figuring
out where we really are and where we need to be going with the
one proviso that we go ahead and do the affordable housing. I
like the idea of going ahead and doing whatever we have to do to
make that happen. But I am not too concerned about changing the
quotas. I don't think the problems that we are all feeling have
anything to do with whether our quota number is a 39. I really
don't think that is what ,is happening.
Michael: I agree on the quotas. I think what we are doing is we
are calling our problem by the wrong name. The real issue here
is not really growth. It is affordable housing. Housing in
Aspen for the last 15 years has been going higher and higher and
further away from the people who work here. And unless through
some system or government tool a way to take the lots that are
available for residents and cut the price down by about 10% of
what it is, you are never going to have affordable housing.
You can do everything you want. If a lot is still $500,000. If
you guild it for a dollar it is still going to cost an employee
31
PZM3.7.89
$500,001. And the only way you can go ahead and reduce the price
of the lot is to buy it and then turn around and resell it. It
seems to me that we have got land outside the City of Aspen that
is available.
David Brown's concept--something in a concept like that which we
talked about last week when we had our meeting on the areas that
we are going to talk about for local residents. I think we are
changing the term of it. You take the Zoline property and you
downzone it so that a developer can come in and, through the free
market system, buy that property and afford to put up the kind of
units the residents are going to want to live in as opposed to
300sqft rabbit wards or something like that.
We are going to be sitting here 10 years from now talking about
whether it should be 5 units or 3 units and we are still not
going to resolve the problem because the price of lots in Aspen
is still going to be off the charts. The price of a house in
Aspen is still going to be off the charts. But there is land
that does exist that surrounds Aspen where you could put
affordable housing that residents in the town could afford.
Unless we start addressing that from a realistic standpoint I
don't think we are doing anything here other than just spinning
our wheels and 5 years from now we will be back talking what is
the problem with growth.
Alan: I don't disagree at all that affordable housing is the
problem. My theory is that #1 the free market isn't solving it
and isn't going to and so why encourage it any more at least for
the short term while we deal with the problem. #2 I believe that
the growth rate continues to be a concern to the community and
you can't have your cake and eat it too. So I am trying to take
away from one because I want to encourage affordable housing.
Michael: Again, I don't think it is growth. I don't think the
growth whether it is 30 ~ouses or 39 houses makes any real major
difference. 90% of them are people who don't live here anyway.
So it is a false growth. They are still empty. They are still
$750,000 for somebody who lives here 3 weeks a year and I don't
know that that is really growth.
I think what is important and what the issues are and where our
problem is, is the people who live in this town can't afford to
live here anymore. And until we start addressing that then all
the rest of it is just that much conversation.
Roger: What may not be growth as far as the $750,000 house that
is occupied 3 weeks out of the year certainly takes away space
where affordable housing could be.
32
PZM3.7.89
If we are going to get into long term theory type of approach to
this I must say I have to advance the same argument I did when
the Growth Management System first came in and I was told "It
can't be done". I would still like to identify the finite
limits that we have that we can grow to. I was told that if
there is water that can be developed by the City, we cannot use
water as a limitation. That is illegal under our present court
system.
Alan: Water and sewer are not real good tools around here. We
do have some others that are pretty easy to do. Carrying
capacity.
Roger: certainly our highway system and transportation systems.
Alan: Air and transportation are very doable.
Roger: I honestly feel we should find what is the finite limit
of this carrying capability of our unit that we are working with.
Alan: I agree with you totally.
Roger: Let's identify that and project our line up to that point
and when the line hits that point it is stop. Or we have to do
something else landuse wise to go above it. I know developers
aren't going to like that but we, as a community, have to
identify what the finite limit of this community is going to be.
Michael: How do you reduce the class of land that the $750,000
townhouse sits on so that it becomes affordable housing?
Alan: You can't. That is why I say that dropping the growth
control isn't going to make the free market. The free market is
going to sell the lot for the highest and best use and price that
it can obtain. And right now there are forces bidding those
prices up that none of us can touch. The fact that the yen is so
much stronger than the dollar is not my problem or your problem.
Michael: But they are raising the ante.
Welton: The Big Mac is still 500 yen.
Phil Holstein: I could not be here for this whole meeting but I
have been reading in the'paper about your approach of an interim
strategy as a control growth and I would like to express my
feelings. First of all I think that the growth that you are
talking about is more of a perception than a reality.
The growth has been controlled in this County and City and I
don't think it really has been excessive. What is happening is
33
PZM3.7.89
#1 the number of tourists who are coming here is increasing. And
that gives a perception of growth. Not only are the numbers of
tourists increasing but the way in which they live is in a more
affluent manner. They all have cars and the traffic situation is
getting very bad. When you see these lines of cars coming into
town every day, most of them are tourists who have come to Denver
and driven up here.
Roger: Hm mm.
Phil: Well, let me say that many of them are. You can see them
with skis on top of their cars. They are rental plates and there
are hundreds and hundreds of rental cars up here which are
impacting the highways. In addition to that the skewed
development--it is not that the growth is too large. It is that
the development has become skewed in this community because of
economic factors. And it is skewed to free market expensive
development. People who are running this community, the
professionals in this community can no longer afford to live
here. They are being forced down valley and they have to come up
valley to work with their cars. So when you combine them with
the increased number of tourists you have the perception of a
horrible growth problem. And what you really have is skewed
development which I don't think can be approached and dealt with
by reducing residential quotas.
I think what has to happen if you allow free market development
you have to insist that it goes hand in hand with development of
affordable housing. I have just purchased 300 acres in Castle
Creek. I am now attempting to work with the County in developing
affordable housing. I can assure you that if I get approvals to
develop that property there is going to be a substantial amount
of affordable housing involved in that proposal or I won't get
approvals. I think that the direction that could be taken that
it would bear much more fruit is to work with developers to
provide the affordable housing that this community needs when
they develop free market units. But if you reduce the
residential quota, what my fear is, is that you are not going to
get any development here.
Now that might please a lot of people. Particularly people who
don't like development. but it is not going to solve any of the
problems that this community faces. I think you are only going
to solve those problems by creating imaginative ways of getting
the private sector to provide affordable housing. I can do it
because I bought 300 acres and there is plenty of land to provide
free market units and affordable housing. The responsible thing
for me to do is to do a project that does provide affordable
housing. And I can do it and still make a profit. That kind of
34
PZM3.7.89
cooperation with the private sector will give you the affordable
housing that you now lack.
Graeme:
is that
some of
works.
I support Alan and think that the most important thing
we think about this big picture and start to investigate
these kinds of ideas so that we can find something that
Alan: Roger hit the nail full on the head. If we are going to
let more subdivisions go forward, we just wasted a few more 700
East Main properties that could have been fantastic affordable
housing solutions. Instead it is going to be an exclusive
development that we surely don't need.
Welton continued the public hearing to March 21, 1989.
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:05pm.
35