HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19891205
u
~><
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 5. 1989
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were Richard Compton, Graeme Means, Bruce
Kerr, Michael Herron, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and
Welton Anderson.
COMMISSIONER' S COMME~'J;:Q
Roger: Asked regarding electric heat at Truscott Housing.
Tom Baker: I know that one of the strengths of Peter
Dobolvrony's design was it's solar orientation and lack of north
windows and trying to take advantage of the solar aspects. I
assume that the insulation is more than adequate which then would
make some sense to put the electric baseboard in because it won't
be needed as much.
I would invite Peter in to talk to about this if you would like.
Compton: I was in employee housing of a similar design--modular
construction and my maximum with electric heat at Hunter
Longhouse the maximum heating bill was $30.00 for mid winter.
Roger: I equate it to a house across the street from me and they
have had bills as high as $1,100 a month in the winter time.
Baker: I think one of the advantages of a modular is that you
have got one unit plugged in right next to another so that you
have double wall construction there.
STAFF COMMENTS
Roxanne: We are forming 2 committees. One is called the
Neighborhood Advisory Committee. This is to help the consultant
that is working on the pedestrian walkway and bikeway plan.
Roxanne asked for a member of P&Z to be a member of this
committee.
Compton: I am interested.
Welton: I am interested in that also.
Mari: You can put me down.
Roger: I am willing to participate in the west end.
encourage everyone to look at the systemic view when it
transportation and moving people.
I would
comes to
PZM12.5.89
Baker: Based upon the work that P&Z has done on the trails
element and the transportation element we have identified
pedestrian corridors and that is the foundation of the work they
are working on.
Roxanne: The plan is to bring it back through you and HPC and
Council for the adoption process in the summer. Probably July
and August.
The other thing is the Architectural Review Committee that has
been discussed at Council level. Council has asked us to form a
peer group volunteer architect's group for review of public
projects.
Herron: What if a
participate in this?
it!
group comes forward and doesn't want to
Like the Library--and tells you to go stuff
Roxanne: I don't have an answer for that.
Baker: I don't know if they have the ability to do that
although--
Herron: The code doesn't require it.
Baker: That is true but they are going to come in for review as
a condition of approval. The Library is in right now for a
substantial amendment. This is the first design that is going
before this group.
Herron: Has the city Attorney approved that? I don't see how
you can make somebody do something that isn't part of your code.
Baker: We can require conditions.
Herron: But you can't require them just on a whim. They have to
be based upon what your code sets forth as standards.
Jasmine: I was thinking of the same thing. We do not now have
an architectural review provision. And I don't understand how we
can just sort of arbitrarily decide "Well, some people want to
have one and therefore we are going to have one".
Roxanne: It is for public projects. In a way it is kind of like
with the HPC reviewing the Library.
Jasmine: Which I was opposed to also.
Roxanne:
Or the Ritz in an advisory capacity.
And have the
2
PZM12.5.89
ability to give to the Planning Office some information, some
ideas for their review.
Baker: We should check with the Attorney's Office just to make
sure that we are not--
Baker: Would anyone be interested in working on this committee?
Graeme: I would have a couple of problems with doing it. One is
the time problem. But another one is establishing criteria and
aesthetic realm like this. I personally have no idea how--I
think it would be really, really dicey. And I wouldn't want to
get involved on that score.
And then there is a further thing. I also have somewhat of a
problem in terms of critiqueing people who I work in the same
profession as.
I think Mickey's point is a good one. This thing has either got
to be something or not. There has got to be--when somebody knows
that they are going to have to go before this review, they are
going to have to have some idea of what the basis is and what is
going on and what the ground rules are. I think there is a lot
of work to be done in terms of setting it up.
Welton: I am overworked as it is. I just don't have the time.
I can't handle any more time nor the energy.
Roger: This committee purview is strictly over public buildings
on public lands and that type of thing. So the point is here
where Graeme might have problems with that kind of position, if
it were an architectural review committee for over the whole city
in effect what you are doing would be acting as the city's design
representative in committee.
The point is if this committee is a City agency for the design of
whatever the project is that is something entirely different than
an architectural review committee for the entire town. And maybe
it shouldn't be called an architectural review committee. It
should be an architectural design committee indicating that this
committee comes on board earlier in the planning process.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
3
PZM12.5.89
MINUTES
AUGUST 1. 1989
Jasmine moved to approve minutes of August 1, 1989.
Mari seconded the motion with all in favor.
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 21. 1989
Mari moved to approve minutes of November 21, 1989
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
FISHER CONDITIONAL USE
PUBLIC HEARING
Welton reopened the public hearing.
Leslie: Made presentation as attached.
I have no changes to the conditions in the memo.
outstanding issues.
There are no
Mumble, representative for applicant: More mumble.
Herron: Sub section F of the conditions talks about the fact
that the persons who will be living in it will be identified and
the names supplied for approval to the Housing Authority. As I
understand the code that the City adopted if the owner of the
property doesn't give you any names then that is the end if it
and it sits vacant. Is that correct?
Leslie: Right. But if they are to rent it then they must submit
information that they are qualified residents of Pitkin County.
MOTION
Roger: I move to approve the accessory dwelling unit conditional
use on the Fisher property at 820 Roaring Fork Road with the
conditions 1 through 2 being the same as on Planning Office memo
dated 12/5/89. (attached in record)
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
Welton closed the public hearing.
4
PZMI2.5.89
HOUSING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM CODE AMENDMENT
Welton reopened the pUblic hearing.
Jasmine: After last week's meeting Mickey pointed out to me what
he had mentioned just recently about the fact that all of the
provisions that we have made previously for accessory dwelling
units and so forth that the part about that they had to be
occupied was stricken when it got to Council.
To me that means that we have accomplished really nothing.
Therefore I would really like the Commission to entertain the
thought of sending a resolution to Council saying that the
purpose of this was to have these units occupied--not to have the
people build additional parts onto their houses that would not be
occupied and that this was a very important part of the ordinance
and that without that part it is just meaningless. They are just
pretending that something is happening.
Graeme: You have a good point. I want to clarify something. If
you have one of these units-you put the kitchen in. Right now
you don't have to rent it? You can let it sit empty? Can you
have your Brother live in it and use that kitchen legally? And
not charge him rent.
Tom Baker: No legally. If he is a qualified employee--
Graeme: No. If he is not a qualified employee but if he is not
paying rent--from what you were saying it seems like if you don't
pay rent. From having done one I don't quite understand why some
people would go through the expense of putting one in if they
aren't going to do anything with it.
Baker: They have to be an employee. They have to work 30 hours
and 9 months a year or be a senior citizen. I have talked to
Dave about this exact issue. His opinion at this point--r think
that we should go ahead and put it into this work and get it to
Council and let it be discussed there. But Dave Mylar's opinion
is that this runs very close to a New York case that was decided
over the summer and he sees a lot of similarities to what
happened there and us forcing people to rent these units.
Maybe it is also tied in with deed restrictions--a price
restriction as well. And the New York case is only a state case
so it really doesn't apply here. But he saw that it seemed to be
a trend of the courts to be moving that direction and this kind
of an issue was a concern to him.
By direction I mean the recommendation that we reauire accessory
dwelling units to be occupied.
5
PZM12.5.89
Jasmine: If they build them they have to occupy them.
Dunaway: The only reason that Council deleted it was because the
attorney said it probably wouldn't stand up because of that New
York case.
Baker: The New York Supreme Court found it unconstitutional for
the state to require or a city to require that your unit would
have to be deed restricted and the state actually put people into
those units. And also the state was choosing so that is
definitely different than what we have here. We allow the owner
to choose as long as that person qualifies. But if the owner
didn't put someone in there then the Housing Authority had to go
ahead and put someone in there.
Roger: They are getting the benefit of FAR bonus, park
dedication fee exemption, additional FAR and it seems to me that
under those circumstances we have entered into a contractual
agreement and relationship with that piece of property for the
use of that property.
Baker: It seems that if they are willing to accept the
conditions of approval to have this built that--
Welton: Jasmine made a suggestion that we send a strongly worded
resolution to City Council to the effect that the provision that
we wrote into Ord. 47 requiring that if somebody does one of
these units that it be occupied.
Baker: We are repealing sections of 47 here and we are adding
more restrictive language.
Jasmine: Whatever you think would work. I really don't want to
let this thing slip through the cracks again. I really feel that
it is important to make a point that this was the purpose of what
we were doing and if you don't keep that in there then what we
have done has no purpose.
Jasmine's point was agreed to by all the Commission.
Bruce: I agree with that up to a point.
the idea of having--especially if it is an
I wouldn't have as much of a problem if it
I really have a problem with anvbody other
property deciding who goes in the unit.
But I don't agree with
internal kind of unit.
were a carriage house.
than that owner of the
I understand that we come to a point where he has got the option
to try to get somebody in there. But maybe he really can't find
somebody. I don't want the Housing Authority telling me that
6
PZM12.5.89
"You are going to have this room mate".
unworkable situation.
It may be a totally
Welton: We are not talking room mate. Maybe under the same roof
but not using the same kitchen or bathroom.
Jasmine: It is like the other half of a duplex.
Welton: But certainly as long as you are on notice that it is up
to you to find somebody and if you are just playing a scam on us
to have a guest room for your fly-in executive business
associates then that is not going to work.
Bruce: The other distinction I would want to make is the
difference between somebody who comes in voluntarily and wants to
impose these conditions on themselves and wants to voluntarily
build one of these unites as opposed to somebody where that is an
exaction that i required of them to build.
Baker: That is a good point.
Mari: If it is an exaction, it is still an agreed to exaction
isn't it?
Welton: Not if this gets passed.
Graeme: There is another thing that might as least be thought of
and that is that sooner or later some of these units are going to
be sold and the new owner mayor may not want this unit in there.
And it is easy enough to make them pullout the stove but if they
have gotten extra FAR and different fees waived, how do you deal
with that? Or is that employee unit part of that house no matter
what unless they rip it off.
Baker: That is a good point and I don't have an answer because
we haven't formulated all of the cottage infill stuff yet. But
right now there is no bonus. It is taken out of the FAR and if
it was a voluntary measure, then make them pull it out.
Graeme: So they might have to supply an extra parking space and
take--if they were to say we don't want this unit here anymore,
would they have to go back and pay some park dedication fees and
put in a new parking space and do some of these things? Can you
go backwards so to speak? There has to be some process to deal
with that situation which is a legitimate situation.
Baker: That is a good point.
Roger: Then we also have to deal with the FAR situation and
7
PZM12.5.89
maybe under those circumstances that there is a cash payment for
that FAR bonus if they are going to change the use.
Graeme: That would be tough. People would either take advantage
of that--just build them and pay the fee to have more FAR or it
would be so onerous if it were that significant then somebody
will have a legitimate reason not to want one who wouldn't be
able to afford it.
Welton: I think they ought to have to remove it.
Baker: I will check into that. It is a good question.
What I could do is put in very strongly worded WHEREAS statement
about the accessory dwelling units as to what happened in 47 and
say that the P&Z feels very strongly that if we are going to be
affective with these units that they have to be occupied.
For tonight I have tried to point out in the memo what is going
to be done with this particular resolution which will turn into
an ordinance when it goes to Council. I tried to identify the
problem and the fact that P&Z is reassessing the housing
replacement program. We talk about studies that confirm that we
have a problem. The P&Z's concern regarding the community's
ability to control displacement of existing single family and
duplex residences with second homes.
I talk about how the single family and duplex don't contribute to
the affordable housing solution right now in that new and
enlarged single family and duplex units should be required to
mitigate.
Additionally I talk about the 50-50 split on the multi family
stuff.
section I repeals Article V Division 7, the Housing Replacement
Program. This is in essence a major part of Ord 47 and what that
section of the code says is that if you have a multi family
development and you demolish it--whatever you decide to put back
on the site has to be 50% deed restricted in terms of units and
25% deed restricted in terms of bedrooms. But it did not require
a certain % of replacement. It only required that whatever you
decided to build was a duplex--just half and half.
That is what it was. What it is planned to be is Dave's work in
Chapter 18.
You will recall that the definition for affordable housing has
been changed to affordable multi family housing had the 12 month
provision in there that was a concern to P&Z. Dave has taken
8
PZM12.5.89
that out and now this is still worded pretty similar to 47 where
if it is a tourist oriented unit it is exempt from this provision
but if it is a rental unit that had been rented any time since
its initial occupancy then it would come under the guidance of
Chapter 18. Chapter 18 only deals with multi family.
The enlargement section, I only draw that to your attention
because we are also going to use those same nUmbers--50% of the
floor area or 1,000sqft. That will kick in the enlargement issue
for single family and duplex as well.
Then the minimum replacement requirement--this section of the
code requires that any multifamily project that comes under the
control of this section of the ord--when they demolish they have
to provide 50% of the square footage--no less than 50% of the
square footage in net residential area that is demolished or
converted to be deed restricted and not less than 50%--replace
50% of the bedrooms as well.
Dunaway: Isn't there going to be confusion? Because in previous
Ords you wanted to substitute affordable housing for deed
restricted employee housing. And in this ord you have affordable
housing that isn't deed restricted. It is just stuff that has
been occupied in the past by residents and then you have
affordable housing that is deed restricted. So you have two
types of affordable housing and you are going to confuse people
with previous ords as well.
The Planning Office decided one day they wouldn't use employee
housing so they substituted affordable housing which at that time
was all deed restricted housing. This ord starts out with
affordable housing meaning any multifamily housing that is
talking about what is therein existence and it isn't deed
restricted and here we are talking about affordable housing and
deed restricted affordable housing. That is going to be very
confusing.
Baker: That is a good point. We use the term affordable housing
to indicate deed restricted housing and perhaps what we need to
do is go back through all of this language and insure that when
we say affordable housing we mean deed restricted. And when we
don't we call it multi family housing or what have you.
Roger: What happens if someone has a house that is falling apart
and he just wants to tear it down and replace it and not change
any of the occupancy or anything else like that. Is there that
capability? Or if it was an inVOluntary destruction he could
replace it exactly the same way as it is.
9
PZM12.5.89
Baker: If he totally demolished it, you know, he could remodel
it. And as long as he isn't adding 50% more floor area or
1,000sqft whichever is less this won't kick in.
Wel ton: Let's say you have a potential on the site to do
4,000sqft and what we were talking about is for enlargements what
we are concerned about is people going and enlarging a 900sqft
house to 4, OOOsqft. If 80% that would be 3, 200sqft if we
determine if it determined at 3,200sqft as more appropriate for
that site then employee housing doesn't kick in.
Baker: So that if and enlargement stays below a certain
percentage of the total FAR allowed on the site they are exempt.
Welton: Yes. And try to hook that in with Roger's suggestion
from last week of whether it is new construction, or enlargement,
it all falls under the same umbrella.
Mari: That is an incentive to keep something small.
Welton: We start off with a housing replacement ordinance that
all of a sudden slopped over and included new construction as
well. Maybe we should track it to parallel so that the whole
thing with what our intent is is to say if something is going
onto a site at least it is going with some public benefit.
Baker: Do you want to come to some % this evening? I would like
to co-ordinate cottage infill with what seems to be an
appropriate size for detached--I would like to come forward with
the idea you proposed at 80%--anything below 80% is exempt. And
talk it over with Dave and see how we work that in. Maybe we
just get rid of the 50%--1000 because there is no need for it
anymore. I think that is going to be the case.
And then come back to you with the Cottage Infill program and
talk about the taking the FAR down and allowing it to come up to
with the accessory dwelling unit--
Welton asked for pUblic input.
Penny Evans: It sounds as though you are placing the burden of
the residential private sector for providing these units. This
is too much on this sector. How does this happen?
Baker: My recollection is it never went away. P&Z was always
very concerned about what we perceived in the original stuff that
we brought forward. There was what was perceived to be a very
large loophole for second home owner occupancy to get around this
ordinance for both single family and duplex. And P&Z identified
that immediately as a huge concern and said "Fix it".
10
PZM12.5.89
We went on and talked more about multi-family at the time. The
second meeting we came back and David had proposed that we deal
with multi family units under the demolition replacement section
and single family and duplex under the production side and we
would be amending the GMQS exemption section of the code to allow
them to be exempt in another fashion but still mitigate the
housing.
So while we have got these things going on P&Z has always
directed us to plug that second loophole that we originally came
out with.
Bill Denner: So now that we are talking about mUlti-family and
we have decided that we might go to this 80% of the maximum FAR
is exempted but are we still talking about multi-family or single
family?
Baker: We did jump around there. For mUlti-family the code
reads right now that if you take down a mUlti-family structure
that whatever you put back on that site has to be deed restricted
in terms of the units by 50%--50% of the units that are replaced
on that site have to be deed restricted and 25% of the bedrooms.
.-
Denner: Can they get away with that?
Baker: No. You can't do that now. That is how the code reads
but we have a moratorium in place because Council didn't feel
comfortable with that and directed P&Z to draft recommendations
to cope with that.
Right now the code reads that if you have got a 20 unit
structure, you demolished it, you could put a duplex back on the
site and just deed restrict half of it. The way the legislation
that the P&Z is coming up with reads for multi-family structures
that are demolished--say you have a 20 unit structure--you are
required to put back as affordable housing deed restricted
affordable housing 50% of the net residential floor area in that
structure and 50% of the bedrooms that exist in that structure.
And you can figure that in the kind of units you want and the
number of units you want. But 50% of the square footage and 50%
of the bedrooms have to be replaced as deed restricted so it is a
much stricter ordinance but it provides more housing than the
other ordinance provided.
On the 80% issue we were talking about single family and duplex
there and will continue on single family and duplex.
Welton: The 80% hasn't--we haven't talked about how the 80% if
that even works for multifamily. It may not work. This is
something we have been talking about for 3 years. This relates
11
PZM12.5.89
to what some people see as houses that are too big in the single
family and the duplex neighborhoods.
?: mumble. even bigger and provide more opportunities for people
to get around it. What am I missing?
Baker: Well, I think that this the way the ordinance is designed
now doesn't give the owner/occupant exemption that existed the
first time around. And that was a concern for many members of
the P&Z last time. That if somebody had lived here and they
wanted to tear their unit down and build it back--a bigger unit-
-isn't there some kind of an exemption we could give them in
terms of this legislation. And we talked about a floor area cap.
If you kept your house under 2, 500sqft then this didn't apply.
We talked about that and we talked about if you lived here 5
years or longer and were an owner/occupant you would be exempt.
P&Z felt that there was a need to provide some kind of exemption
for the long term resident. At staff we talked about it and the
FAR cap was one thing--we had a hard time understanding how we
could enforce the owner/occupancy once someone had lived there
that decided to turn the property over and redevelop it and then
a year later they sold it and moved. It was the same problem
that we had had before. The FAR cap worked better and I think
can work but what we decided to come back to P&Z with was just an
additional option for single family and that is that you can do
an accessory dwelling unit. You can do cash-in-lieu or if you
are an owner/occupant and you are going to live there anyway and
that is what you want to do you could just deed restrict that to
resident/occupancy. Your own home and then you wouldn't have to
pay the impact fee.
Mari: I thought when we discussed this we decided to dispense
with trying to define the providence of the units as far as how
they were historically rented or whatever for the reason that
someone who owned a unit would immediately try to get rid of all
the people he was renting to--I mean everyone who owns a unit
right now would kick out all of the residents because they don't
want to fall into this definition. And I thought we decided--
Baker: We did.
Mari: So why is this definition still in here?
Welton: I think Rick Neiley also made a real good point that--
let it go across the board. Eliminate all exemptions as best as
possible.
Mari: So I guess I don't understand the reason for this
definition.
12
PZM12.5.89
Baker: Yes. That was a concern. Just like condominiumization.
P&Z changed those regulations. And I think we did get rid of all
of that. The only place where it talks about historical
occupancy is in the mUlti-family section. And it talks about if
it was ever--page 2--definition of affordable housing--it talks
about if it was ever rented--since its initial occupancy so that
there is no inducement at all for throwing employees out to get
some exemption.
Evans: By reading that "which has been historically occupied by
a person or persons" -- I don't understand how you get from that
"if ever occupied". If that is the intent, I think that that is
frightening. Going back and looking at how that piece of
property was used from the time it was built and then determining
how it should be developed from prior use for whatever reason--
every single piece of property that has been developed around
here.
Baker: I think that this is an easy way to do it. Penny's point
is well taken that it does sound like it would be fairly
complicated. But we did an inventory and there is only about l7
multi-family projects in town anyway.
Regarding section II: Like I said I haven't' completed all of
the language here but I will run through what we intend to do.
Enlargements to single family and duplex dwelling units: And
based upon what the discussion we have just had I would say that
we would look at changing this language from 50% to 1,000sqft to
the 80% of buildout for the lot unless they build beyond 80, then
it triggers.
Herron: What you are saying is that there is going to be an
exemption if somebody wants to tear down their house and build
80% of allowable FAR.
Baker: What I am saying is that under the enlargement remodeling
reconstruction exemption language--not total demolition, just--I
guess I have to rethink that based upon what you said.
Herron: What about a vacant lot who wants to build only 80% of
the FAR?
Welton: That would cover that too.
Baker: That would cover it. So what you are saying is right.
That until somebody goes above the 80% mark on buildout this will
not kick in.
13
PZM12.5.89
Herron:
We are talking about single family and duplex.
Welton:
structure
provision
allowable
Instead of having a cap of adding 50% to an existing
or 1,000sqft whichever is less--instead of having that
it would be a buildout up to 80% of the maximum
buildout for that zone district and that lot size.
Dunaway:
The 80% of buildout replaces 50 and 100.
Welton:
Exactly.
Roger: You have been stating 80% here as if it
accepted number and so far as I know it is not.
different slightly different number.
is the magic
It may be
Baker: That 80% gets us right at about 2, 600sqft for an R-6,
6,000sqft lot. I think--
Welton: That is a significant reduction. And what is
significant about that is that if they want to do the last 20%,
that is 20% above grade.d They can still have the employee unit
below grade and not be penalized with their above grade space by
having to chew into that 20% with employee.
Mari: So all employees will live underground.
Herron: And eat in restaurants that they can't sit down in.
Baker: So the first section deals with enlargements in the code.
The second section deals with single family and duplex credits.
All we will be doing there is striking the reference to Article
V, Division 7 and changing that to whatever the appropriate
section is going to be.
The next section deals with single family, the reconstruction of
single family and duplex units. And in talking to Dave we feel
that this is a good section to identify what the options are for
each. And this section will be converted into 2 sections. On
dealing with single family, one dealing with duplexes. The
reason for the 2 section is the single family options are
accessory dwelling unit, cash-in-lieu or deed restricted to
resident occupancy and all of those options are at the discretion
of the property owner.
In terms of the duplex, the options that we are looking at there
are the 2 free market, 2 accessory dwelling unit where it is half
and half on the FAR. One free market, one resident occupied
unit. Again half and half on the FAR. One free market on
affordable unit which would be deed restricted to price and
income which would be 2/3rd free market FAR, 1/3rd affordable
14
PZM12.5.89
housing. 2 resident
any way they want.
owner's discretion.
occupied units and they could be configured
Those 4 options would be at the property
Then there would be the cash-in-lieu option which we are
suggesting at this point would be at P&Z's discretion.
Bruce: On duplex but not single family? Why that distinction?
Baker: I think that we felt that we wanted to give single family
property owner as much flexibility as possible. And leave the
discretion entirely up to them because one of the concerns was
the accessory dwelling unit issue about having somebody live in
your house kind of thing even if you have separate doors. We
were sensitive to that and so we felt that the discretion would
be appropriate with the property owner plus we were getting
pretty excited about the buy down program and we felt that if the
single family owner did take the option to go cash-in-lieu that
we had a good outlet with the buy-down program for that cash. We
haven't set the fee yet. We don't know what the appropriate fee
is on that yet.
Mari: As far as the fee I don't know why they just can't go
shopping on the market and buy a unit at whatever the market
price is. I am saying if they go shopping on the market if they
are supposed to provide a 1 bedroom unit and just buy a 1 bedroom
unit then they have to deed restrict it as far as renting it or
selling it to whatever the guidelines of the Housing Authority
are. So why should there be a set fee for that?
Baker: Amy is working on language for that in that direction.
Amy Margerum: This came up at Council the other night. Why not
let somebody who is required to pay cash-in-lieu fee if they want
to in order to stay outside the city bureaucracy and go make a
deal to go to somebody who may have an apartment building or a
unit and say "I will pay you $20,000 cash if you deed restrict
your unit". And that person still owns that unit but rents it
for a certain priced. And whether or not we should allow that in
the same category as the fee and the question of the individual
and the individual was the type of person who wanted to negotiate
and save themselves some money, we don't care. As long as we get
the unit. If it saves you some money it saves us some time in
doing something.
Herron: So what that would do is if somebody in town who owns a
6,000sqft lot and was a resident here and wants to build a house
or tear down an existing structure and doesn't want to have
somebody else living with them, is faced with going out on the
market place and buying a unit for a minimum of $150,000.
15
PZM12.5.89
Amy: No. I am talking about a buy-down concept. You might go to
an apartment building that is not deed restricted--not buy the
unit--give the owner money to deed restrict it. The owner still
rents it. They still get the income. It could work out in some
cases where it would be a win-win situation. But we would never
force that on anybody.
Marty Lohse: It seems to me that you are arbitrarily saying that
80% of the property is like non-restricted. You guys are saying
that employee units should be at least 800sqft. Do you want to
put a figure in there? Because right now when I read your
research of guidelines on employee housing it me that you
could have a 350sqft studio and there are guidelines like that.
The other thing I am concerned about is what Amy was just talking
about. Every time I see in the last 4 years cash-in-lieu hasn't
gone anywhere. It is some pretend fund somewhere.
Welton: It has gone out to build the Truscott Place Apartments
on the golf course. It is going to pay for the Marolt employee
housing units. It is going to pay for the Hunter/Longhouse units
that were built this summer. It has gone for a lot of things
that are in the works and that actually have been finished. That
is to answer your question.
Now this thing is so complicated it is giving me a headache. But
you are sort of talking apples and pineapples. The 80% is a
threshold that just gets you so if you don't want to build--if
you just don't want to build employee housing in your single
family lot then if you are willing to build only 80% of what the
allowable FAR is then you are completely out of the loop. You
don't have to worry about it. It is not part of your life.
If you really want to go ahead and be all the way to 100% of what
the allowable FAR is in the west end then you either pay cash-
in-lieu or build it on your site. You can build it to a minimum
size that you want to build it to. It can be 300sqft or it can
be 1,200sqft or it can be 2,000sqft as long as the total doesn't
go over your maximum allowable FAR. Some portion can be below
ground. Some portion can be above ground. So that you really
can do something much bigger than 300sqft if you wanted to.
We are not hooking that extra 20%. That extra 20% doesn't have
to go entirely to that employee unit. Actually none of that can
go into that employee unit if you did it 100% below grade. Or if
you pay cash-in-lieu.
Bill Wesson: I would like to relate to an experience that I had
on a project that I sold. I would like to address the cash-in-
16
PZM12.5.89
lieu problem first. Let me start by saying I have been 18 year
resident in Aspen and still paying rent. Because of a
philosophical basis that the city and County are being run on at
the bottom line the policies are destroying the spirit of free
enterprise. As hard as you are trying to solve a problem and as
sincere as you are at solving the thing you are creating the
exact opposite effect of what you are trying to do.
Cash-in-lieu funds go to government building housing projects. I
would propose that you keep in mind that there is nothing that
private enterprise can do that government can't make worse. So
that anything that you can do to simplify the process--keep
government out of it and let private enterprise handle it you
eliminate a lot of middle man problems. You eliminant a lot of
favoritism and it is difficult to do it because we are all very
sincere about what happens in this valley but philosophically the
direction I see is more complications, more frustrations, more
bureaucracy, more creeping socialism. And keep it in mind as you
are making up the rules because the whole basis on which this
country was founded we are seeing being eroded away at the
national level and we are doing it at the City level.
I think the biggest problem we have--it kills my spirit when I am
driving to Glenwood Springs when I see these big developments
coming in to the valley and beautiful pristine agricultural land.
The method in which we are going about this is gong to create the
exact opposite of what we are all trying to do.
From my personal experience is that I sold my building to a
developer because by the time I got done with the whole
development process the whole approval process, I didn't have any
money left. I am a professional in town. I am a dentist and I
ought to be able to afford to control the means of my production.
I wanted to do something nice for the community. I had to sell
it because there was a $100,000 of extra rigmarole I had to do
that I couldn't afford. So the developer is building it and I
really put that on the Planning and Zoning process. With all its
good intentions there is somebody who cares about this town.
This is my home and you completely shut me out of being able to
do anything nice.
And I would have put in employee housing because I saw what was
coming. I am from LA and I know what is coming now. And the
direction you are going is going to make this place unlivable.
Most of my employees come from down valley. I wanted to put in
employee housing units and I would have done it voluntarily just
for my own people. And this is what I mean about private
enterprise--trying to legislate these things I think is a basic
distrust of the human spirit.
17
PZM12.5.89
Roberta Allen: I think offering incentives for people to do
things that will increase employee housing is far more productive
because the direction that we are going is really driving the
middle class out of town. And we are only going to wind up with
the very rich who can afford to pay the cash-in-lieu funds. They
can afford to do all these things. The low end of our economy is
getting a free ride so of course they will be able to live here
but the middle class is being driven out entirely. And I would
like to read a letter written by Janine Sharkey. (attached in
record)
Betty?: I concur with Dr. Wesson's argument.
?: You do have someone who is a resident of Pitkin County living
in Aspen. How many more employees does he have to provide
housing for? If he is doing it for himself, his family, his
kids. It seems to me he is doing all he can do.
Welton: I don't think we are talking about that person. I think
we are talking about the person who wants to build 100% of the
maximum allowable they can build on a west end lot and turn it
over in 6 months.
Herron: But that last part affects anybody.
Welton: I know it affects everybody.
Baker: They have the option to deed restrict
?: You have got a 1, OOOsqft
3,200sqft and put his 5 kids
maximum then he has to supply
someone---
victorian and he wants to build
in it. He wants to build the
additional employee housing for
Baker:
provide
resident
He has 3 options. He can
cash-in-lieu or he can
occupancy and live in it.
do an accessory dwelling unit,
deed restrict that house to
Herron: How do you enforce that?
Baker: Well, it is just like any other enforcement effort. It
takes a lot of staff and it takes monitoring.
Herron: And not only that. It prevents him from selling on the
free market again.
Mari: He can sell it on the free market. But then he has to pay
the cash-in-lieu.
18
PZM12.5.89
Wel ton: Or the buyer takes that extra burden.
the problem from two different sides.
It's attaching
Bruce: I have several comments. I want to preface my remarks by
commending staff on trying to address a very difficult problem.
They have been directed to do that by Council and I understand
how we have gotten where we are now.
But I am concerned about the lack of public input and interest in
our hearings. I think back to what happened with the Meadows
SPA. We sat here and we went through our procedures and all of a
sudden we reached a certain level of comfort with that project
and all of a sudden it got to Council and Council said "Well
there hasn't been any public input so let's go back square one".
So I ama concerned about why the public is not here if indeed
housing is the number one problem in this community. Why isn't
the public here?
-
Secondly, and I think Mickey brought this up at last week's
meeting before I was here. I am really concerned about whether
this approach really addresses or gets to the heart of the source
of employee housing problems. I think everybody agrees that
there is a problem but I am not sure we have grabbed hold of the
essence of what the problem is and how to deal with it. I still
have concerns about the effect on our neighborhoods and the
density issue about when we are converting single families into
single families with affordable units, duplexes into 2 duplexes
with 2 affordable units--basically doubling density in some of
these areas.
I feel sitting here at this table like the proverbial mad
scientist who goes into the laboratory and starts conducting
experiments and he ends up creating Frankenstein or some other
kind of ugly monster. He doesn't know what he is getting into
when he goes into the lab. He has admirable goals and objectives
when he goes into the lab but he ended up creating Frankenstein.
And I feel like we may be creating our own little Frankenstein or
uglier monster when we get into this.
And the third concern I have is that once the word is out and
maybe even before the word is out about what this proposed
legislation is going to be we are going to have a flurry of
applications that are going to be coming into you guy's offices
trying to beat the legislation and in effect by drafting this
legislation we are in effect throwing gasoline on the very
problem we are trying to solve.
I realize i may be a minority of 1 or 2 on this Commission and
probably represent a minority of people as it relates to Council
19
PZM12.5.89
at this point but I do feel like that we have got some problems
that we really haven't even addressed.
(Applause)
John Werning: A lot of my comments are geared more towards the
mul ti housing. But then one overall observation is attacking
this problem which you are doing a great job trying to do. It is
incredibly complex, is especially with multi housing being a
little flexible or as flexible as possible with the applications.
There are some of us--I talked to Tom today and he was very
helpful--there is only 17 potential projects in all of this City
that are multi-family and has 3 units or more. When it gets down
to the size of my project, there is probably only 5 of us.
And we are taking on a burden of building housing whether it is
our responsibility or not and on the 50% or when you get into the
details of what you are working out I would ask and suggest that
take any project say over 4 employee units and make it all the
other little details, the open space or the parking all subject
to review. So that you can work with someone like myself who
would love to build employee housing if it works economically.
--
If you don't, nothing will get built and the rents will go up.
But all of these projects have to work. When you get into the
multi-family aspect things that might help are tap fees,
negotiable viewpoints, 45% might work better. The open space
requirement will stop most proj ects and parking. All of these
things when you start looking at a project. Just be flexible on
it. And when you write the codes please leave all of these doors
open and options open. So that when the 5 of us come in to you
hopefully and say "Hey, here is our idea, we want to build 8
employee units and maybe 4 free market", and then to come up
against a wall that says you have got to provide 35% open space
and then you have to hav eon site parking, and that can't count
as your open space, nothing will happen.
Welton: Tom, wouldn't PUD go a long way to allow the flexibility
that John is talking about?
Baker: PUD does allow open space to be varied. The code right
now allows parking to be varied for affordable housing units. In
order for the applicant to request PUD, they have to have
2,700sqft or more. And perhaps that is something we can look at.
The City could apply the PUD, but the applicant can't request it.
The incentives--Roberta made a good point about the incentives.
And the P&Z has been struggling with how to provide incentives
for affordable housing. The P&Z and Council worked on the
affordable housing zone which was adopted about a month ago which
20
PZM12.5.89
provides significant density and even exemption from growth
management for free market units. In the affordable housing zone
you are required to do 70% affordable and 30% free market. But
that 30% exempt. So that was one step that the city has taken in
the incentives.
Additionally we have got a density bonus provision in the multi-
family zone districts-the LTR zone district, the RMF zone
district and there is one other. But again that is a higher
density if you provide a 50-50 mix for affordable vs. free market
or could do 100% affordable you get a much higher density bonus
provision. And the Ski Co has taken advantage of that in the
Holiday House expansion that they have done this past year.
Additionally, the staff at the direction of the P&Z is working on
a carriage house or cottage infill program which provides for an
FAR bonus to do detached accessory dwelling units. And that
would apply to the mature neighborhoods most likely. That is
where you could have access off of the alley.
,...-
Roberta: It just seems that in that particular segment you are
going about it the wrong way. For example, we bought a piece of
property-a single family house in Knollwood this fall with the
idea--and old house that needs to be either replaced or
drastically remodeled. And in the interim until we could decide
how we are going to deal with the property we rented the house.
It is a 4 bedroom house and we rented the house to 7 people which
is not a lot of people. They are very nice young people who work
here. And not a day goes buy when we don't get at least 1
sometimes 2 or 3 phone calls from the neighbors complaining about
the cars and complaining there are too many people in the house,
complaining they are ruining the neighborhood. I have really had
nothing but grief about it and these are all very nice people
like we all were 20 years ago.
Now Knollwood is in the City and if everybody there who is
remodeling or rebuilding houses is required to put in a second
unit, you are going to be drastically changing the character of
that neighborhood and the neighbors are hysterical over these 7
people living in our house. I mean hysterical.
?: You need to take into account human nature in this zoning
process. It isn't just plugging in numbers. There are people
attached to all of this with their hopes and dreams in their
neighborhoods.
Amy: One of the things we have talked about is that on the
single family homes, the requirement for an attached or detached
dwelling unit, there is no requirement to rent that outward--how
it is used.
21
PZM12.5.89
Compton: You missed the first half hour of this discussion.
Herron: What would be the logic of making somebody build
something just to have them do it. That is stupid.
Amy: I think the logic is that in the long run when you are
trying to plan for community that you are creating opportunities.
You are creating different types of housing opportunities. We
don't tell people who or if they have to be a second home owner
or not right now. And you can build a house and it is deed
restricted to resident occupied. If you rent it--if you do rent
it then you can't short term it. I think that is important. But
in the long range it does add inventory to the community for
varying types of housing.
Baker: Zone District section: This is a new piece of
information that we are looking at because of comments that P&Z
has made in the past about the accessory dwelling units and the
fact that we are requiring people to go to public hearing and
notice 300ft around the property seemed to be a little onerous.
We tried to balance that off with the need to have some sort of
public review of these accessory dwelling units because of just
the issue that Bruce brought up--the density concern. Where we
came out on this one is that we thought that we would provide the
ability to have accessory dwelling units as permitted uses in
single family dwellings. So that would be by right. They would
just have to go and pull a building permit.
For duplexes if somebody wanted to do an accessory dwelling unit
in duplexes that would still be a conditional use.
Welton: Would we waive the Planning Office review fees?
Baker: We waive all review fees for affordable housing.
So I guess that doesn't quite get at the heart of the problem
that we talked about with Graeme and other members of P&Z. That
you have these accessory dwelling units coming in and you weren't
sure you wanted to deal with them.
Roger: Back to my comment on the Whereas--The Commission finds
accessory dwelling units should be a use by right in single
family structures. My problem there is that it is fine so far as
it goes. But the proviso should be obvious also for apparent in
these statements in that it is provided that they are available
for occupancy. And this goes along with the problem with someone
putting in an affordable housing unit for a lawyer friend to use
when he comes up skiing or something on that order.
,.'>1;........
22
PZM12.5.89
My only comment is that the provision that they should be
occupied or available for occupancy should be along with the
allowance by right.
Dunaway: What do you mean by appropriate zone district? What
are the appropriate zone districts?
Baker: This is draft language and we would have to put specific
areas in there. But right now as the code is written the R-15B
zone does not allow any conditional uses which means that they
don't allow duplexes in that zone district. So we would have to
go throughout the code zone district by zone district and see
where it would appropriately fit. The R-15B comes to mind. The
R-15A zone district would probably be repealed. R-6 would be
appropriate. RMF, LTR allow single family. Office.
Dunaway:
houses.
So then any zone district that permits single family
Baker: Yes. It is the duplex where it gets a little cloudy.
The R-15B and the R-15A have special restrictions on duplexes.
So the language would just carryover totally to those.
Compton: If we go to the 80% rule the FAR bonuses for accessory
dwelling units, how does that mesh with this--by right. If you
do it by right and you don't have to rent it out there is a
certain amount of square footage you can just grab onto without
making a contribution.
Baker: Then section IV just deals with definitions and Dave
suggested that we put in the housing replacement program--a
definition for that. We have not drafted that yet. I was hoping
we could sign off on this but I think there have been too many
changes.
Welton: I will continue the public hearing until December 12.
Barring any objection meeting is adjourned.
Time was 6:45pm.
23