Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890404 ~CJ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4. 1989 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll Herron, Mari Anderson. Jim call were Graelne Me, .ns, Bruce Kerr, Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Colombo arrived at 5:10pm. Michael Welton COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Roger: Distributed resolution he had prepared regarding the right-of-way. After members studied the resolution Welton signed it. Bruce: How would you address the loss of the trail situation? Roger: It wouldn't be the loss of the trail situation. It would be relocation very similar to the Rio Grande or the Roaring Fork Railroad proposal. STAFF COMMENTS Alan: At the last meeting I was asking the Commission to sponsor a zoning. I wasn't sure the code provided a way to do it. The code does actually provide the opportunity for them to initiate so what you did at the last meeting was proper. We have received an application on Mountain Rescue and rezoning of the existing cabin location to Public in order for a small expansion to occur there. It needs to be initiated by the P&Z. MOTION Welton: I would entertain a motion to initiate a rezoning of the Mountain Rescue cabin to Public. Mari: I so move. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. CONSENT AGENDA Jasmine made a motion to accept the consent agenda. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. pzm4.4.89 ASPEN MEADOWS CONCEPTUAL SPA/REZONING TO BE TABLED TO 4/18/89 Welton opened the public hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to table action and continue the public hearing to date certain of April 18, 1989 for the Aspen Meadows Conceptual SPA/rezoning at the request of all parties involved. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. BARKER 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Cindy: I want to table 8040 Greenline Review at the applicant's request. MOTION Roger: I move to table the Barker 8040 Greenline Review at the applicant's request until a date uncertain. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. GROWTH OUOTAS CODE AMENDMENT Welton opened the public hearing. Alan: We are only proposing a few changes at this point to the regulatory system. There are really 4 proposals--residential, lodge, commercial and one in the exemption process. There are 3 sub parts to the recommendations regarding the residential quota. We are changing our recommendation in terms of the recommended reduction for number. We were only suggesting a reduction of 25% from 39 to 30 units and if you do believe that the set aside is appropriate we are really only reducing it from 20 to 15. I don't see the point of it for the next year. It is not going to accomplish a darned thing. The one I think is truly important at this time is to implement the Affordable Housing set-aside. There was a lot of support for it on the Commission. It does have a significant effect on the growth rate because it reduces the number of units that are available to the free market and most importantly it starts to face our affordable housing problem head on. 2 pzm4.4.89 It is not an attempt to say that we should only build 19 affordable housing units in the next year. Far from it. It is just an attempt to recognize in our growth rate the fact that we are going to build at least 19 affordable housing units next year and the year after that. If you do support that there will be a need for the 3rd suggestion which is to revise the way that we calculate the number of units available when exemptions reduce the quota to a minimum number. Our quota will be 20 free market units and 19 deed restricted or affordable housing units. It is my projection that for the next couple of years we will probably be using up most of those 20 units through the exemption process and this minimum number will be kicked up again. We suggest that that minimum be calculated based wholely on the free market proponent which 6 units would be available. That is a number that Fred Gannett is comfortable with and feels it is supportable. Michael: We decided at a previous meeting we weren't going to call it affordable housing anymore. We were going to call it residential housing. I think the Commission felt that it was important to take the terminology and change it to something less offensive than employee housing or affordable housing. Then why don't we consider exempting residential housing from the competition. We have got such a small amount of land available from the quota system from the numbers so they do not have any effect at all. Alan: When the system was first put in place back in the late 70's it did not count. And there was a recommendation about 3 or 4 years later to both the Council and the Board of County Commissioners that a unit is still a unit of growth. And that we should account for it in our growth system. You are correct. It should and does have a priority. It is not required to compete. We are not suggesting that it be required to compete. Michael: But what we have right now is a situation that by virtue of the growth controls that we put in that we don't have enough housing for residents. That is a by-product of what we did to controlled growth. If we hadn't had any growth restrictions at all, we might not have quite the problem we have today in finding housing for the support people in Aspen. And if we take that component out of the system today--just let those be built--there is such a little amount of land available in Aspen to be built on if we let that component be up and you don't ever have a developer saying "Well I have got to put in X amount of resident housing that is going to be cost-restricted, and an X amount that is going to be available on the free market 3 pzm4.4.89 which ends up taking and adding to the free market cost which makes it all the less supportable. It would seem to me that if you could build as much as you wanted then you don't have the developer having to make that decision. And you don't have to have that decision then affecting the price of the other units. Alan: No way am I suggesting that there be a limit on the number of-- Michael: Indirectly it is a limit on the number that is available. Alan: It has a limit on the number of free market units that is available. Michael: The developer has the right to build 10 units. If a certain number of them have to be resident housing then he is going to build the minimum amount. What he takes away for the affordable, then takes away from what is available for the free market. Alan: I follow your point but the plain fact is that with the development of single family and duplex homes on previously subdivided lots we have averaged anywhere from about 12 to 15 units a year throughout most of the 80's and the last couple of years it has been above that. It has been in the 20s. So the chances are very good that before we even get to the competition the 20 units will be used up. Chances are very good given today's market which means that what will be available will be 6 units for the free market competition. Right now what is available is normally 11 units. That is the only effect of the exemptions. It will kick in this minimum requirement. Gideon Kaufman: One of the concerns that I have about reducing the minimum down to 6 because single family and duplexes do get removed from the quota you are virtually assuring yourselves over the next few years that the quota for additional free market is going to be 6. For example if you have a project such as the Meadows that has a lot of community potential benefit, you are talking about 5 years of quota for 30 units. I think that that is too restrictive a number to deal with the kinds of projects that may come up before you over time. The way it was before you had a minimum quota of 10 or 11. Even that is a very small number of units. But at least that gives 4 pzm4.4.89 you some flexibility when projects come before you that are good projects. I understand there is a concern to not have unlimited develop- ment. Yet restricting the number of free market units that can be built each year to 6 you are going to find yourselves creating another problem very soon that you are going to have to dip into 3, 4, 5 years down the line. I would urge you to re-examine the minimum number and have it at least go from free market as well as residential houses so that you have some flexibility toward good projects in the future and don't find yourselves completely tied up with only being able to approve 6 units a year. Welton: Isn't the 6 in addition to what already is built out. Alan: Yes, but Gideon's point holds. If what is built down on previously subdivided lots equals the 20 or gets anywhere between 14 and 20 then there will have to be a minimum of only 6 units left. The reason we are making that recommendation is given past approvals and existing subdivided lots we don't find a rational to go ahead and encourage additional subdivision development. There are projects like the Meadows if it doesn't receive the Growth Management Exemption and they are requesting Growth Management Exemption for this application but if it doesn't receive it, 6 units won't go a long way towards the request that they are making. Jasmine: Yes, but I think we are dealing with 2 different things here. We are talking about a general approach to Growth Management as opposed to what mayor may not happen in connection with certain specific types of projects which mayor may not go anyway. And I really think what we are talking about here is a kind of general approach and I think that we should have agreement where if we do have an agreement this is the correct general approach when the exception comes in because of the nature of a particular project and its various community benefits or non-community benefits. I think that should be taken into account for that particular project. But I don't think we should revise our whole gross strategy based on projects we think might be coming up. Parry Harvey: We have got problems of air quality, traffic and resident housing. Those are the 3 problems that are identified. And this metro area is kind of like a balloon--you squeeze one end--that air is going to bulge out on the other end. 5 pzm4.4.89 If we have got these 3 problems it doesn't seem to me that dealing with the quotas even as an interim strategy and designing it so that it is legally defensible and everything else isn't dealing with these problems. I am really afraid it is going to exacerbate them. If you analyze our growth rates in those charts, we are right where our quotas said we were supposed to be in our projections on the percentage growth. If we cut back in town--we say we don't want any more lodge growth and I think the land restriction takes care of that anyway. But we don't want any more lodge growth or we limit it, we are going to limit the residential. We are going to slow everything down. I am really afraid what you are going to do is you are going to put the pressure on the metro area which I consider into the County lands out to the airport and into the County. Specifically Highlands, Tiehack--the development entities around here are not going to go away. They are going to look for alternative places, alternative quotas. If we have got problems of air quality and traffic and those 2 are related between the street sandings and air pollution and the fact that I think the City has stricter fireplace regulations than they do outside the City. If you push that growth out to those outlying areas--even Highlands or Castle Creek or Tiehack you are increasing the problem dealing with traffic and dealing with air quality as opposed to putting those people in town. The free market segment has provided some employee housing. The message you are going to send to the building community is go outside of our city limits. Go where transportation will make air quality an issue. We don't have the co-operation of Snowmass and County governments in masterplanning that we should have for the city. I remember when I sat up there and the number of joint meetings you had with the County or even City Council were very few. If we can't co- ordinate it so that they are sitting down at the same time then the pressure is going to go out into those outlying areas. I am afraid that what we are doing is we are taking the 3 identified problems and we are not dealing with them through tax increases to go out and buy property and create affordable housing or through any of the other mechanisms. Transportation--we are ignoring those problems. We are dealing with the growth rates in the City and I am afraid that by looking at what we are looking at what we are doing in this analysis we are not only not going to be solving those problems I think we are going to be making them worse. Roger: worried I tend to agree with Parry. But in addition to that I am about the pressure put on internally in the city on 6 pzm4.4.89 residential housing and do we have sufficient tools in place to protect that? Because if they are not going to be able to build on open property the pressure is going to be on the 1965 vintage house if it isn't protected anywhere. In effect you are going to be knocking something out of historical residential housing and putting it in the so-called free market or unaffordable housing market. Bill Dunaway: I agree with this proposal to reconsider the fact that duplexes are exempt from the Growth Management plan. One of our problems are these huge duplexes that are going up. I think they should be included in the growth quota system. But I also suggest that you not give a credit when people demolish something to build something else. If they didn't have that credit maybe there wouldn't be quite that much demolition. I know that in Ord. 7 you are making certain uses which is a step in the right direction. not get a credit for the thing he demolished have quite as much demolition. duplexes conditional But if a person did we probably wouldn't Alan: The only flaw in that is that there is an exemption for construction of single family house on vacant lot and will they get that credit through its re-construction? Or do you get that credit simply because it is vacant. It would be one thing to take away the credit for multi-family but it would seem like we are trying to encourage people to build mUlti-family. Gideon: If we are all focusing on more affordable housing where I think the gap is created is that more affordable housing doesn't necessarily result from less free market development. So I think that is the problem that you are getting into because everyone would like to see more affordable housing. But by cutting off free market development I think the reverse happens. That is that you probably put more pressure on and end up reducing the affordable housing because the free market has nowhere to go but some of the older houses that they can renovate and fix up. What you really need to be doing is identifying the areas that can be built for affordable housing. What you are doing is putting more pressure on the older houses because you are going to be eliminating development of new properties. So I think you have to separate out in your process how are you going to come up with more affordable housing. That is not going to necessarily be by eliminating or shutting down free market housing. Those have to be looked at separately. Or what you are going to end up with is a situation where the units that have 7 pzm4.4.89 been used as free market are going to be taken out of that process because that is where the pressure is going to go. You are not going to get affordable housing and the little affordable housing what you have is going to be converted out of that. You are going to accomplish the exact opposite of what you are trying to accomplish. And you are going to end up eliminating more of the employee housing by passing regulations like this than creating more. Welton: As scary as the prospect is, I agree with Gideon. Every time we turn around it seems like what we do ends up with a negative pressure that results in the demolition of the least expensive housing in the most desirable location to be replaced by the most expensive housing in that desirable location. How is reducing the overall quota of free market going to solve this? Alan: It is not intended to. The whole point of this was from day one we said we don't have answers to those questions. And to promote and encourage residential subdivision at this point in time when residential subdivision is taking up the last vacant parcels in the community like the 700 East Main didn't make any sense to us. It seems totally contrary to me when there is not an adoptive program for how we want to solve the problem to be continuing at a growth rate that many people in the community have objected to. I cannot debate the validity of the arguments being made. They are good arguments. The rational for the recommendation goes in a completely different direction. Given past history which has been quite a number of new subdivisions being approved in the last few years--l0l0 ute, 925 Durant, 771 ute. While that was happening we have seen the most intense demolition period of the last decade go on. So the fact that we allowed that level of residential growth hasn't saved the existing inventory. I am not sure that doing nothing is going to save it. So my solution is I can I t solve that problem right now. Gideon: But at least $2 million of monies for residential housing was collected through that process which might go some way towards purchasing land to build residential housing on. Parry: You have taken some steps to try and dampen demolition or make it onerous. There was a time when we went around the community and identified sites as being appropriate for resident housing development. 8 pzm4.4.89 Alan: There was a 1988 affordable housing element that identifies about 15 or 20 sites. Parry: What your goal is is to allow down the build-out on these in-town parcels that are deemed to be appropriate for this. Is there at least some designation? Two things are going on-- demolition of existing affordable housing stock and maybe Ord 47 will take care of that. The second problem is build-out on vacant parcels that are being developed for free market that should be more appropriate for resident projects. Is there something that can be done to designate these sites so that it gives you a guideline for consideration of some kind of free market project that comes in on that site so that you can put the damper on the development of those parcels until we can come to grips with where do we get the money. If we are not going to have free market development and you are not going to get cash-in-lieu, where do we get the source of funds to go out and compete with the free market to get these parcels of property under control where we can create the kind of housing that is being sought in the community? This is looking at the problem and trying to create a solution for it rather than just saying--and I am not saying you guys are being simplistic but the problem is over here and I think you guys are a little bit over here. I don't think you are on focus of it. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. Alan: You have to get the nuance of what Parry is saying. It was not a rezoning or downzoning. It was some kind of a master planning designation that is referred to as-- Michael: It accomplishes the same thing. Alan: It can't necessarily mean a into consideration. accomplish the same thing. It doesn't project can't be approved. It is just taken Michael: If would like anything. Mari: I think what Parry was saying is sooner or later we have to realize there is no such thing as free land and if we want to do what we want to do, we have to buy the land and we have to pay the market price for the land. you are going to take a piece of property and say we that to be that then you haven't accomplished Parry: Yes. 9 pzm4.4.89 Mari: To me that has been obvious for a long time. It seems to me that what we have been doing in all of our meetings is trying to figure out a way how we can do some kind of magic trick and get some land for free. There is no such thing. Michael: I agree. Jasmine: Another problem with the designation especially if it is one of these wish list designations is that when things like that come up nobody pays any attention to it. Gideon will remember the big argument that we had about that project on Main street because the Planning Office stronalv pointed out that that particular site had been designated in the 1973 plan as a site that was appropriate for low-cost, long-term resident housing. And when the applicant came in for subdivision exemption or exception for that property at the same time as GMQS, there was a very long staff recommendation about the fact that this was meant to be long-term, permanent resident housing and recommending denial of this. I was the only person on the Commission that said "Right". However we allowed them to go ahead with the subdivision which is not in conformity to the 1973 Masterplan. Gideon: You forgot one very important element. That was that they didn't make that discovery until after we had bought the property or had a contract on it, put all our plans in, were about to have our GMQ approval. That is when it became discovered. Jasmine: The point of the fact is that there was no requirement on anybody that just because that was what was said in the 1973 plan and that is the way we would like it to be, there was no requirement on anybody that that was the way it should be. And so these wish list have no meaning. That is my point. It is still a desirable location even though it was a 1973 plan. And everybody said so. That is as far as it goes. When an applicant comes in and wants to develop something that under law the applicant has a right to develop it is very difficult for a commission to say "No". And I don't think this designation is going to mean anything unless we buy the land. Joe Wells: Since we have drifted into this bit of history here-- there are several facts that obviously Jasmine at least has forgotten in the hearing on 700 East Main. First of all the 1973 plan is a 16 year old plan. But more importantly it was intended as an interim plan. 10 .____,,....-,_. . ^ ^ o.,..,_,.~__~..~_~. pzm4.4.89 The logical steps in planning are to do a plan to establish a philosophy for the community and then adopt regulations to implement that plan. That did not happen in the case of 700 East Main. In fact when we came into the process there was a prov1s10n that gave the applicant the right to meet his obligations with cash-in-lieu. What bothers me about what has been going on in this room over the last 2 years is our Land Use Regulations have been in constant turmoil. It has been amendment after amendment. Those aren't based on plans. We quit doing planning in which we establish policies and then do implementing regulations. I just think we need to stop and take a long hard look at what we desire as a community and quit firing off code amendments once a month to jump at the imminent problem that we have identified. 700 East Main may have been the perfect site for employee housing but the city did not follow through the logical planning process to establish that fact. And I am just urging you to go through a more logical process of planning than what we have been doing for the last 2 years. There are only about 6 of us in town who know what the current regulations are. Parry: And we are having trouble keeping up. Michael: Joe really hit the nail on the head. The problem with what we are doing is we plan and nobody implements. And as long as we are going to sit here and plan and do more tonight and do no implementation we are not going to accomplish any site that we are ever going to put housing on that people can afford. The only way it makes any sense to do any of this is that there is some kind of plan behind the plan so that you are going to go out and say that that site is appropriate for housing and we are going to buy that site and that is going to require the city council to condemn it and city Council to raise taxes to do it. other than that we are really wasting our time and everybody else's time. There is no method in that housing element to get the land. Alan: by the by the There is a transfer tax that has been placed on the ballot city council. And there is a tax increase on the ballot Board of County Commissioners. Gideon: If you cut the quota and you have a much smaller quota then you are going to get less money in for the affordable housing. You want the affordable housing but eliminating more free market housing doesn't necessarily come to that. As Mari 11 pzm4.4.89 said what you have to do is bite the bullet and acquire the land. We have a tax that is going on the ballot. It is not going to raise a whole lot of money and so one way that you had for example--one of the benefits on that cash-in-lieu is the availability of the money--sometimes $800,000 to $900,000 that goes a long way towards acquiring land that is going to ultimately provide you employee housing. So by cutting the quota down to 6, you are effectively cutting yourselves out of $250,000 to $300,000 towards the money that is going to be used to acquire the land that you are going to have to identify. Mari: The flaw I see in that argument is that the cash-in-lieu does not get us caught up. All it does is provide housing for the project that is generating the need for more housing. It doesn't do anything to the shortfall we already have. It just complicates everything and makes things worse. It is not going to benefit us unless the project provides more than 100% of what they generate. Parry: We look at the cash-in-lieu in terms of $25,000 for employee. But if you look at that money as being able to buy a parcel of raw land, put a zone district over it for resident housing that has certain density and FAR to it, you can leverage those dollars. You can create much more housing than just what that little formula is. I am concerned about what you are doing with the set-aside for the resident housing. Currently deed-restricted housing projects are exempt from the growth management competition. And yet when they come on stream or when they get a building permit they are deducted from the quota. I don't know what this number game is. But if you do this set-aside of 19 units for the affordable housing they are not going to compete for it. So all you are essentially doing is saying "We are going to reduce the free market quota by 50%". Alan: The point is if you don't account for it up front and you let other exempt development go through at the same time you end up being twice as far behind the 8 ball. Parry: What would other exempt development be? Alan: previously subdivided lots. That is what ends up happening is the combination of the 2 together are moving forward and then we are doing just great. We will keep accounting for it and keep assuming that we are on the right track. 12 pzm4.4.89 Gideon: If I have a house that is occupied by 3 or 4 locals and they are here 12 months out of the year, they are going to generate a certain amount of employees because they are here full time. Then if I had a house that is occupied only 3 weeks out of the year, I am not creating the same kind of demand that I am on employees. Where in the formula does it take into account the fact that the resident housing sometimes creates more of a demand whereas the free market housing creates less of a demand? Alan: We have tried to study the issue. I don't think we have come up with the answer that you expect. The studies that Tom and I have done have shown that the service demands of the people who are visiting here--what they expect out of their project and out of the community is so much higher than what the rest of us do that it balances. I am sure that a different study could come up with different numbers. Welton asked for further public comment. There was none. Welton: I am understanding that this is an interim approach that is designed to be in effect for no more than a year. Is there a mechanism of self-destruct that will tick in to make us re-assess this in a year's time? Alan: Actually that should be done. Bruce: Phylosophicly I am opposed to interim strategy. I am opposed to any change in the GMQS that is not based on a comprehensive plan. If we want to change the quotas, let's change the quotas but we must have our plan in place that says these are the reasons why we are changing the quotas. I am opposed to an interim strategy until we have a plan in place. I think it creates some potential legal problems for us. Jim: I agree with Bruce. I think for another reasons also is what I see happening here is not an action that is being taken in order to solve a problem but an action that is being taken as a reaction so that we don't know what is going on--let's just stop everything. And I am afraid what is going to happen with this reaction is that we are going to create problems in the market we hope to generate rather cause solutions to the market we hope to generate. It has already been pointed out in several ways from the specific point of creating cash for projects and the loss of revenues for affordable housing projects I think we are taking a course here that we are getting gun shy and we are going to stop in place system in order to stop and study it. And I think what we are 13 pzm4.4.89 going to do is end up creating more problems in the marketing area we hope to make solutions in. Richie: I don't want to be pre-prejudiced. It seems to me we have got a vote coming up that is going to either generate a lot of income or this housing problem which mayor may not be accepted by private voters. Why don't you wait and see whether or not you will have that money and how the voters are moving either for or against the projects that are on that ballot and then begin to carry your program to fit that particular fact of life. You have got it or you don't have it. There are other solutions. I don't think what you are talking about here is anything more than just a little finger in the dike right now. I think what you are going to have to do is make some very dramatic moves after this May election. Welton: Can we get a sense from the Commission on how we want to proceed on this set-aside--retain the quota as it is but setting aside 50% of the units for employee housing. That what it boils down to. Mari: I favor the staff recommendation. Jasmine: I agree with Mari. Roger: I agree with staff. Graeme: I do also. I think there are a lot of other problems too. There is traffic and a certain element of crowdedness. I think Alan's approach is good to let's slow things down a little bit to get get some affordable housing. But most important to do what I think he wants to do which is to try to come up with some solutions for these things. I agree with Alan's basic approach. Welton: I agree with you. Michael: I am against it. It is not planning. It is the exact opposite of what we are sitting here doing. We are looking to accomplish a way to solve the community's problems. This doesn't do anything other than exacerbate them. Roger: We have been talking about this real estate transfer tax which has now been reduced to 2 and 1/2%. I was looking at that as a disincentive tax for high turnovers. Well that percent on a million dollars is $25 thousand and if someone can afford a million dollar home, $25 thousand is going to be a drop in the bucket so that tax is just an inflationary tax. It is not going 14 _~____.~~._~~__".".'~..~....._"....'"._ ~__"." ~_. . ~'<__',C_'~'."_.~'_'~_"._'__"~ ~_",_~_,__~,___w_''''''''''''~~,".'. pzm4.4.89 to accompl ish anything. but not enough. It does add some money to our coffers LODGE Alan: In this area we are definitely recommending a recalculation of the quota. What has happened with lodge quota is we are right on the button. The number of units that we have allocated to projects that are going to be built is approximately right where we should be for the year 1989. In 1982 we made a decision to accelerate the growth rate in our downtown lodging to provide an opportunity for someone to come in and build a larger facility that would make a difference in terms of lodging in this community. My rational here is very simple. It is not to come up with some new plans. Some of the development potential is bed and breakfast. Parry: When we had a lodge quota of 18, there was nothing built. Basically what happened was that prices went up and maintenance got deferred. And it was reaction to that that it was increased and there was a spurt. If Highlands develops a hotel because some developer goes after that quota because the city has closed down and he starts to see the market for that, lodging will work because it is the closest lodging to town. It is available. What are you going to do with your air quality and your transportation problems? Whether it is 100 room or 300 rooms out at the Highlands. Isn't everybody going to have a car to drive into town to go shopping, eat, go out at night and to ski? If you keep a quota that is reasonable in town--I don't see what Alan is saying. He is saying that you accumulate this quota over years, people are going to come in for big projects. You don't have to continue the quota from year to year. If it is not awarded what is to say it carries forward? You make a recommendation to Council to not carry the quota forward. Then the quota just exists there. You don't have this great power surge building up behind the dam. It is the same thing with residential. You are going to send this message to the development community--"Start looking outside". Tiehack has been designated as an area that should have hotel development. Highlands has been. I want to see that if there is any lodge growth I should think the best way to do it would be to get the County to close off their quota while we maintain a quota so that it is in town where 15 ..__....___"~___......-.~"~.._"._.,.,.'A'..,"""",__~_.~__~...__~'U,~" ~..".."'-__,,_____._~,_. pzm4.4.89 the lodge growth can be accommodated by the transportation and by pedestrian traffic. That is where it belongs. I think if we are going to have development in this community from here to Snowmass it ought to be in the existing centers so that we don't increase the problems of transportation and air quality and moving people. Jasmine: In between base determinations the original formula and skier capacity? of the quota? wasn't Wasn't there that a collation one of the Alan: Yes. That was done. Jasmine: So when we went into the increase in quota in effect we were changing the balance of the original plan. This would then go back to the original interrelationship of skier/bed base to skier usage. Alan: The quality issue in the community was of such importance that there was a need to encourage something to occur both for the small facilities and to encourage something substantial to happen at the top of the market. Jasmine: I guess one of my concerns has always been back since the days when they were proposing to put Little Annie's in that there seems to be if you escalate one factor then the other factor jumps up. If you put in more hotel rooms or more beds than all the different ski areas want to go out and develop new mountains because you have got all these beds. Then you have got more skier capacity so then you want to put up more beds. And so I am always concerned with that relationship. I don't see any problem with the approach as it is now. I think we have got 2 big luxurious hotels going up and that is fine. I don't know that there is any community benefit to try and encourage more of that. I think your approach is perfectly reasonable. Alan: On the balance it was very obvious with the analysis to prove that City of Aspen compared to City of Aspen bed base was way out of balance. There was a lot more bed base than there was skiing. Metro: balance. probably If you had Buttermilk and the Highlands Inn we found And I suspect if we re-analyzed it right now we would find a continuing balance in Aspen as a metro area. Gideon: Since over the last 10 years we have had almost no true condominium projects being built, many of the condominiums in 16 ~-,-~--._-- ,"-- ...,"----.....-.- pzm4.4.89 town have been renovated and fixed up nicely and they are no longer being rented. The same thing is happening with an awful lot of the houses that used to be rented. And so my perception is in looking at a lot of the condos and a lot of the homes around town a lot of the bed base is being lost. And I don't see it being accounted for and so there are a lot of the condo projects in this town that they don't rent any more. There has been a tremendous reduction in bed base and I wonder if that has been factored into all of this. Alan: No. I think absolutely it is important that it be done. Joe Wells: I am sure everyone realizes that skier days peaked quite a number of years ago. There are a couple of reasons for that. We have lost almost 300 lodge rooms over the last 10 years. Another thing that is not pointed out in Alan's information is the final resolution of the Aspen Mountain PUD (turned tape) 275 were replacement rooms. The quota was 172 awarded to the project. However under the amendments in the final analyses the quota actually awarded to that project was only going to be 67 new rooms because no more than 50 rooms can be built in replacement on the Continental Inn sites. So while we may be theoretically at the rate of growth right now, what happens is when the Grande Aspen comes down and the project is rebuilt over there we are about 50% of the number of rooms that actually will have been built a couple of years out is about 50% of what the quota would be a couple of years out. Mari: My only comment on that is that that is not taking into account all of the condominiums that would be built in place of hotel rooms but will be operated just like hotel rooms. So what is the difference? Joe: I totally disagree with that. Those are replacement units. It is clear to people who are aware of how very expensive condominiums are being used is that they are not in the short- term pool. People who are paying $500 thousand to a million dollars simply do not rent their unit short term. That is a fact anyone is aware of who knows what is happening in the marketplace. Welton asked for further public input. There was none. Jim: I think what we are trying to do here is limit the larger type of facility in town. Is that our goal? Any lodging that 17 pzm4.4.89 occurs is either going to be a small number of additionals with replacement units or is going to be a small lodge orientation? What I see happening here doesn't really affect that because it is the one element that creates the opportunity for the large lodge are the futures or the carryovers. And what we are not doing here are futures and carryovers. What we are doing is limiting the number of units annually available. And if those units are not used in the previous year they become, according to this, available for the future use. I think a more effective method is to stay with our original methodology and to eliminate carryovers altogether. In which case you are going to effectively discipline the market for large lodges and gear towards smaller lodge or small additions to replacement lodges. So I don't see this effecting what we are trying to do. Welton: Parry, I don't buy that one. I don't think anything we do in the City is going to have any affect on the pressures at Highlands. The pressures at Highlands seem to have been running themselves for the last dozen years without any regard to what is happening in like development in the City. So I can't buy that one. But I think we need to get a sense from the Commission on this particular quota reduction. Michael: Is it feasible economically to build a 12 unit lodge? Bruce: No. Michael: Are we not then passing legislation that is in effect a moratorium? Mari: You can build a lodge--probably what you are going to have is people rebuilding lodges and adding 12 units and counting their replacement. That is the only thing that is going to be done. Welton: for 2 or facing a Or taking advantage of the present pool and then asking 3 years of quota in order to make sure that they are not hardship by having a corner of the building left undone. Bruce: We all seem to agree to encourage preservation of the small lodges. I would like to see if we are going to reduce the quota which I am against that if we are going to reduce the quota let's figure out some way to give an incentive to the small lodge to not have to compete. If they can add 5 units to a 20 room lodge let's give them an exemption. I am opposed to reducing the quota. accomplishes what we want to accomplish. I don't think it But I see nothing here 18 pzm4.4.89 that encourages the preservation of the small lodges. If anything, it discourages them. I don't want to have to go compete against these big developers out here to add a couple of units to my lodge. That is tough competition. Mari: I think that is a good thought that Bruce has. But I do support reducing the quota. Jasmine: I support reducing the quota. Particularly I think that as these developments occur with a small increase I think we want to send the massage that we do want small increases and so that when we have people coming in that we don't have the situation like we did on the first go-around with the Mountain House when they came in with an addition that was twice the size of the original hotel. They had 11 rooms and wanted to add 18. I agree with Bruce that we should try and encourage the 5 unit addition to the 10 unit lodge. I think that reducing the quota makes it more likely that that is the kind of competition you are going to get. I also think that we should really seriously consider the question of carryovers. Graeme: I agree with what Jasmine said. R<;>ger: I don't have a problem with the carry forward. That g1ves a little bit of flexibility in the system. I agree with lowering the number of units. I also agree with making it an incentive for smaller lodge. However we better sit down and figure out what is that number. Dunaway: I agree with Bruce that in that LP Zone there is nothing wrong with having a slightly higher quota. The only lodges in that LP Zone are those small lodges. Alan: We are starting to get a lot of carryover in the LP. The 15 year quota we created actually hasn't been that much in demand. This year I think the quota is about 25 in that zone. It is kind of like what Jasmine said if there is that many units out there it encourages somebody to think too big. Bruce: There are some small lodges that are not in the LP. They are in the LPR. Welton: I am more inclined to reduce it in the LPR than in the LP. But I am really intrigued by Bruce I s suggestion that a mechanism to facilitate a small addition to either a small LTR or LP lodge makes an awful lot of sense. I know the experience of the Mountain House. About 50% of the cost of doing the whole 19 pzm4.4.89 project was soft cost not in construction costs dealt only with GMP and jumping through the hoops of the city requirements for small lodges. That is a tremendous expense. I think there is a consensus of the majority that is more enthusiastic perhaps with the LTR reduction than the LP. Roger: If we have a substantial carry forward right now reducing the quota doesn't hurt. COMMERCIAL GMOS Alan: We are not recommending a change. Welton: Does anybody want to argue this one? Bruce: I argue for a change. everybody. If we are cutting, let's cut Jasmine: I agree. Bruce: I am against any cuts. Alan: The point though is our historic rate has been so far below it that to be meaningful you are going to have to make a dramatic cut. Jasmine: Regarding the change in uses and exemptions from GMQS that seem to be such great contributing factors I think to employee housing problems in particular. If you take a look at Elli's Building and Boogie's Building and how we factor in the commercial square footage not only as commercial square footage. We have got a lot more square footage there now. When you figure out your growth rate are those factored into the growth? Alan: We did. Jasmine: You did. And you were still below? Alan: Yes. Jasmine: Well then how come we have so many employees? We have a lot more square footage there. We have a lot more employees and yet we are still below our growth supposedly in this area. It seems to me that we are not really below our growth. When you look at what goes on in those buildings now as compared to what went on in those buildings before they were changed. Gideon: The Shaft was a very busy restaurant. 20 pzm4.4.89 Jasmine: It was only open for dinner. They never had the intensity of use that they do in the Boogie's building. They never had the intensity of use--the number of people in the old Elli's Building that they do in the new Elli's Building. Alan: There is definitely an employee addition in those proj ects. I don't know that these caused an employee housing problem. I would probably postulate that it is from more of the increase in improved services that we are seeing throughout the lodging industry which is very documented. Just for example from the old Jerome to the new Jerome. That probably took the employee numbers and increased them by 500%. Many facilities are improving the level of their services. That has got to be a part of it. We can reduce the quota but we haven't had our office quota subscribed for more than once. Our neighborhood commercial FCI quota has not been asked for. Our CL quota was asked for once or twice. We have been getting very few applications in C-l in the last couple of years. It just hasn't been happening. Gideon: There is a very limited amount of commercial space in this town. Try renting a space--office space, commercial space- -any kind of space. You have got a point now where the rents are so high that very few people can afford it anyway. If you start restricting even further the amount of new spaces available the few people that are left in locals type of things are going to be pushed out because they can't afford it. The only way to go about that is in the GMP process. To say to somebody you want to build additional you deed restrict it to certain types of uses, we will waive all these particular fees. That is the only way that your are going to accomplish something like that. Michael: commercial absolutely Part of the problem has resulted in the space-especially lack of office space. no office space in this town. lack There of is Alan: Last night Duplex was made a conditional use in the Office Zone, C-l was prohibited and in the Office Zone it was made conditional if they don't change their mind. Michael: Probably what they should do instead of cutting back on the quota is recommend to City Council that they eliminate duplex in the Office Zone also. Alan: They were close last night. The only reason to say no to that was we had so many of them built now in the east end of town that they will all become non-conforming uses. 21 pzm4.4.89 Welton: Serves them right. Roger: way back when we thought the C-l Zone was going to be for furniture shops, hardware stores and that type of thing. Apparently there is some sort of dichotomy between what we allow as a use in that zone and the square footage that is required for the uses we would like. I am not sure we can do it with a C-1 Zone. But it is certainly something we have to look at if we are interested in maintaining something like a C-l Zone. We have to somehow or another in the zoning indicate that these are large area uses, large square footage uses and so that the square footage per unit has to be fairly large. Gideon: It used to be it didn't count-in FAR it didn't count. Now you are creating net leasable. What about these people who take that net leasable space and were to restrict it for example to a hardware store, pharmacy type of uses like that. You make a list of those type of uses and then you don't count them in the FAR. You credit in the FAR. You give some sort of precedent to that. That is one of the only ways that you are going to have spaces that have those local type of services. It could be a benefit to the person building it and at the same time be a benefit to the developer. Mari: And then deed restrict the space? Gideon: Yes. To certain uses and then it wouldn't count. If you don't have that you are not going to have the uses that you all expect over the next few years. Welton: Alan, I think we are going to have to do something like that or go to Basalt for nails. Jim: The trouble we created a net leasable. We created the below grade stuff that became so valuable that they ended up having to use it for high lease type of functions. If we create it so that we ease the economic requirement that we give them credit or bonus for it then we will start seeing the low lease type of facilities back in action again. If it were not net leasable--if it were a given FAR in an area below grade, were a bonus or reduction or free, then that area could still be leased at a very deed restricted amount or a deed restricted use. If we are going to count FAR based upon net leasable then you are always going to pay a premium for it. Alan: I am not following the concept. Net leasable has not even been in affect yet. 22 pzm4.4.89 Joe: FAR. Below grade space can be net leasable space but it is not Alan: But FAR has never been the measure for growth management as long as I have been here. Welton: FAR was certainly the basis for commercial development before the concept of net leasable eliminating corridors and bathrooms. Michael: Why can't we create some kind of FAR bonus or square foot bonus or net leasable bonus? I don't care what we call it. So that commercial that comes along that is willing to restrict it to what we consider to be appropriate use gets that bonus. Alan: I think that is a great idea. Welton: If there is no further discussion on this I thank everybody for their inspirational ideas and good input for preserving essential community services. How about eliminating duplexes as GMQS exemption? Those members of the Commission generally in Planning Offices's approach towards limiting exemption? favor with the duplex as an 4 voted in favor of this. Alan: To require that one of the 2 units of duplex be deed restricted to the middle income guidelines that the middle income guidelines are palatable. You could require resident occupancy as an alternative. What this recommendation is intended to do is very simple. It is to try and keep some of these duplex units out of the speculative market. Resident occupancy would get that done. No competition in growth management, no review by the Planning commission for an exemption, automatic exemption process. Michael: It sounds like RMF in R-15. Why would anybody in their right mind do that rather than build a single family. Jim: Exactly. Michael: Then they are just going to build bigger, more expensive, fancy. I can understand in the Office Zone. I don't think we should have duplexes there. But I think that is what has caused our problem is that we have taken this area that is surrounding us here that is miss-zoned to begin with and have let 23 pzm4.4.89 it become duplexes instead of what it should have been--C-l or Neighborhood Commercial or Office space. But to turn around and take property that is in the RMF and the R-15 Zone and turn around and do this--I mean anybody who came before your Planning Office and said they want to build a duplex you should send them to see a psychiatrist. All we are going to end up having is very, very, very expensive or more expensive homes than we have already. Instead of having 2 expensive duplexes we will have one more expensive home. Jim: Or even semi-expensive duplexes. You end up having to recapture the costs and profits on a single family home that you could have marginally recapture in each side of a duplex. Alan: You will end up with $124 a square foot. Jim: Regardless you are going to end up with a single family home instead of duplexes. If that is your goal-- Alan: Is $120 a square foot a looser is what I am asking. Jim: Well, what is your goa~? Let's get straight what is your goal, Alan. If your goal 1S to create a single family home instead of duplex, this is the method to do it. If your goal is to create affordable housing on one side, it is never going to happen this way. Alan: My expectation is that people will have a lot, build a unit for themselves, live in it and have the other one be sold to someone--whoever. Jim: Never happen. Alan: If you don't think that is possible-$124 a square foot maybe I don't know anything about what is going on out there. Michael: I just don't think it is feasible with the land costs in the RMF and the R-15 Zone. If the land costs weren't so high. If you go to Lakewood or Denver or Miami you can buy land and become a successful developer and sell at $124 a foot. But in Aspen you can't buy land and make money if you are selling at $200 and foot. And all you are going to do then is make the one at $124 a foot the other one that you maybe could be $250 or $300 will be $450 a foot. And I don't think that accomplishes what we are looking to do. It is going to be the crap that the developer puts there just so he can do it. But you are never going to have anybody do that because they are going to build a single family home and not deal with that in the first place and make that single family home $700 a square foot. 24 pzm4.4.89 Gideon. You cut the size of the duplex and so what you are doing is you are saying to somebody along those lines they are paying all this money for this piece of property--you can build one large single family house on it and then you can make your money back on it. But if you build a duplex on it you are only going to be able to recapture your profit at a one side and that side is not going to have enough square footage to justify the big price that you need. So you are really defeating the purpose here. If you want to do that then maybe you should give them a bonus of some kind for the other side can make it residential or local type housing. But if you take 3,200sqft and you build it as a single family and you pay $800,000 for the lot you may have a chance of recouping your money. On the other hand if you pay $800,000 for that land and you have got to put an 1,600 on one side and l,600sqft on the other side, the economics just don't pay. The free market don't pay enough to justify that. So what you are really doing is you are pretty much assuring that you won't have duplexes. You will have single family. If the goal is to encourage somebody to build resident type housing on that other side then you have got to give them some sort of benefit as opposed to detriment. What you are doing is, as Mickey has said, you are pretty much assuring that you are only going to get large single family. Jasmine: Once again we are talking about profits and things like that. What we are talking about is exemption for duplexes. We are talking about growth management issue and all this other stuff. This doesn't say you must build a duplex. It doesn't say that you can't build duplex. It just says that you do not automatically get GMQS exemption for duplexes. And all these other things, I think, are really tangential. Welton: I agree. And I would like to see your approach added to the approach the city council is taking of eliminating duplexes from 0 and C-l. Michael: When Jasmine says that you are not going to prevent people from doing that-you are absolutely going to eliminate anybody from doing-it then how many R-15 lots--RMF lots could there possibly be in the City of Aspen. It must be under 10. The land just isn't available. You are never going to see a duplex again if you do this. When you sit here and say that this is planning, and you go ahead and do this--this is sticking your head in the ground. I just don't understand that. But I go along with eliminating them from the Office and the C-l Zone. 25 pzm4.4.89 Richie: Don't we have the 6 month rental restriction if we condominiumize the duplex? Welton: Yes. Richie: Which creates--that satisfies Alan's point about creating housing for people who live here. Welton: No. It just takes a duplex unit and eliminates them from making any use of it other than as a second vacation home because it prohibits them from renting it out to local or short term so there is some activity going on. Richie: By making these people go through growth management, as Mickey said, you are going to eliminate duplexes entirely. Gideon: Free market. You can't control-- Alan: No, no, no, no. This is very specific. There is no growth management opportunity. If you want to build a duplex, one of them has to be a deed restricted unit. There is no way to do 2 free markets with this proposal. Gideon: You will just have all single family. Alan: And that is just fine. Single families--they are smaller. They are more in scale. They are more constant with the historic character particularly the west end. So if that is the result, that is one fine thing. I would prefer it to produce affordable housing. MOTION Jasmine: I move to have the Planning Office convey this approach to Council as in sync with the majority of the members of the Planning Commission's ideas. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor except Michael Herron, Bruce Kerr and Jim Colombo. Welton: This public hearing is closed. GOLDS BURY SUBDIVISION/PUD AMENDMENT Welton opened the public hearing. Roxanne: made presentation. We find that this proposal meets all the criteria under the PUD amendment section of the code. We recommend approval. 26 pzm4.4.89 MOTION Jasmine: conditions in record) I move to approve the PUD amendment subj ect to the listed in the Planning Office memorandum. (Attached Michael seconded the motion. Welton asked the applicant if they had any difficulty with any of the conditions. The answer was no. Welton closed the public hearing. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. DISCUSSION CURB. GUTTER & SIDEWALK PLAN Chuck Roth and Tom Baker made presentation. Baker: plan. efforts The Some that plan that Chuck is strapped with is a 20 year old updating needs to be done based upon the planning have been done in the '80s. For example in the west end they have corridors. The '73 plan has corridors on 7th, 5th and 3rd. Those are primarily automobile corridors. I think at the time that we did the Parks stuff we decided that we wanted to separate the pedestrian corridors from the automobile corridors if possible and hook them into the trail system. 4th was a primary one there. What it didn't say is that you need sidewalks on both sides of the street. Main Street was a street where the P&Z felt sidewalks on both sides was appropriate. But we are looking at what works for the neighborhood. Roger: I agree with trying to concentrate automobile traffic on one street and pedestrians on another street. But I don't think you need to have sidewalks to do that. It works very well right now. 4th Street is both pedestrian and automobiles from the music tent. I wouldn't have a problem through signage. A lot depends on what is going to be approved at the Meadows as to what we do in these corridors. Graeme: I live in the west end also. And I agree with what Roger said. I think there is another reason why I don't want to see any sidewalks in the west end. It seems to separate traffic and pedestrians but that means that the guy driving the car 27 , ----~-~-,...~._~ pzm4.4.89 thinks that the road is all his. I think you are going to see people going faster if there are sidewalks. I think there is a great mix on the streets. I have never seen anybody have a problem. I go through every day on my bike and I have never had a problem. I think keeping the stop signs is real important. There are other problems with doing sidewalks in there. I think everything on the north side of Main street should not have sidewalks with possible exception of something going to the tent or the Meadows and maybe then put a sidewalk on one side and put it in the street other than in the people's lawns. They are not going to be used in the winter at all. Nobody is going to shovel them and you might as well forget about them for that period of time. In the summer I think that the grass that grows there is a lot more valuable in a lot of ways than concrete--from ozone to having a little kid play in it or any of us enjoy it--keep the heat down, keep the drainage problems down. It just adds a whole urbane element to that end of town which I don't think anybody wants to be there. Welton: I agree. Tom and I went through the other side of Main street for looking at the route that bicycles and pedestrians take from the west end of town at the base of the mountain to the Mall and commercial core. And we were looking at that from a signage point of view. I think signage in both of those cases makes more sense than sidewalks. Jasmine: As a pedestrian and somebody who doesn't live in the west end and who also grew up in a small town of 11,000 people where everybody had to have his sidewalks--everybody had to have a sidewalk. And it did not make it into an urban setting by any means. I think for pedestrians and people who we are trying to encourage to walk we have to provide some kind of walkways. I don't see why they necessarily have to be the conventional 5-foot-wide concrete dissecting-a-lawn type thing. But I think we do have to have a defined walkway. And I don't think signage is adequate even in the west end. I think it is very pleasant to be able to walk there. And I think it would be nice to have something that is specifically marked as some sort of walkway for people. That is with access to the tent or other facilities or just because it is a nice area for people to stroll in. I think you need to have something more than just signage. 28 pzm4.4.89 Bruce: I think when you look at the whole business of pedestrian corridors with the possible change in school location one of the justifications for pedestrian corridors depends on the school. They may not be there much longer. So we probably need to look at the whole business of pedestrian/bike corridors in the downtown area and come up with a plan that makes sense. Roger: And after the Meadows--I would suggest moving that border to the alley between Main and Bleeker. Welton: The alley between Main and Bleeker up to about Garmish and get everything west of Garmish street south as well as north of Main. Main definitely has to have sidewalks. Graeme: I think another question then is who pays for the sidewalks? Right now doesn't the owner of the lot have to pay for the sidewalk? That seems unfair to me in the sense that you are forcing somebody to pay for something that might be the last thing they want to do is to pay to have more pavement around their house. I think if the City wants them, the City should pay for them. And everybody in the city should pay for them. Mari: It doesn't seem to me if there is a certain kind of arbitrary corridors which are not for the purpose of the people who live there but for the purpose of people who walk or bike there why should it be the property owner's expense? Jasmine: But then why do other property owners in other parts of the City have to put in sidewalks when half of them wouldn't want to put in sidewalks either? I think you have to be consistent. Roger: One of the problems is that people have built within 5 feet of the ROW which is what most of the west end houses are. Chuck Roth: South of Main in the west end my observation would be that there is a lot of lodges in that area. It is not strictly a residential area as north of Main. And that perhaps in the lodging area sidewalks would more appropriate. Welton: I wouldn't argue with that. Those lodges do generate a lot of pedestrian traffic. Chuck: And then one other area is in the east end--that is more high density apartments and condominiums and again a different kind of an area. Roger: Maybe we should have a modification of our thinking about the kind of sidewalk that can be acceptable. 29 pzm4.4.89 Chuck: That is usually the property owner. We don't tell people what they have to do. There are some limits. For example gravel currently is not permitted. What we specify is we ask for room for signs and corridors and still have 5 feet of sidewalk. If you want to butt right up to the curb that is up to the property owner but we would want 6 and 1/2 feet instead of 5 because we want that strip of a foot and a half for non-pedestrian uses--non-walking uses mainly signs and corridors. In the commercial core--the 8 feet to put bike stands and bike racks and benches. Roger: Again looking at a residential area. In most cases where you don't have a lot of 2-way traffic on sidewalks, why do you need the full 5 feet of width for a sidewalk? Chuck: You could suggest that we change that. Roger: Maybe 4 feet from the curb or something like that. One of the problems is that is one hell of a lot of concrete to throw in a very small lawn--5ft of concrete 60ft long for just a lot. Graeme: A couple of years ago I was on a project and we thought we needed to put in sidewalks. I went to the Engineering Dept and I was handed a whole bunch of specifications and that was what we had to do. I still have them in my office and I will show them to you. They are very specific as to what you will do. Chuck: We are concerned about the safety element of the sidewalk. Roger: On corridors which we consider pedestrian corridors in the west end it would be nice if occasionally on a corner to have a City bench or something like that. That could be very nicely integrated--a nice circular bench on a corner and not take up a large amount of space. Graeme then brought up the problem of sidewalks in places where they do not connect with other sidewalks and don't go anywhere and the burden of people still having to shovel them. Welton: There being Time was 7:20pm. meeting adjourned. 30