HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20070411
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 11.2007
Ruth Kruger, Chair calls meeting to Order. Commissioners in attendance:
LJ Erspamer, John Rowland, Ruth Kruger. Staff present: Chris Bendon,
Community Development Director and Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range
Planner
Cont'd items 4/10:
Resolution 11: Lodl!inl! Zone Districts
Resolution 15: Grown Manal!ement Quota System
Lodging Code Amendments: Bendon confirms Commercial Design review
adopted last night and addresses changes:
#1 Numbers 1 and 7 adding bed and breakfast to lodge zone district.
Number 7 is the lodge overlay.
#2 Substantive to the height and the lodge zone district has been 42 feet
for projects that meet all of the incentives and is suggesting lowering
that to a range of 36-40 feet for high density projects. Norrie Winter
suggested this range. No change suggested for low density projects at
28 feet.
#3 lowering the total FAR for lodge projects to 2.25. Right now it is 2.5
for large parcels and 3 to 1 for small parcels. Difference between large
and small is 27,000 ft2
#4 sliding scale for amount of free market residential FAR and that scale
moves according to average size of lodge rooms themselves. The
smaller the lodge room the more free market FAR is allowed.
Thinking to move one standard requirement to sliding scale but
changing basis from which it's measured.
Right now amount of free market FAR allowed is 25% of total project FAR
and would like basis be amount of lodging space, actua110dging rooms.
Need to translate 25% of total project FAR into percentage of net livable
area of lodge rooms. Standard lodge project should expect 50% total square
footage of lodge is rooms, a standard provided by architectural resource,
Hotel Desil!n Planninl! and Development
1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 11.2007
First column shows right now if a project averages 500 ft2 or less you get a
free market square footage that is 50% of the net livable area oflodging
units. Option A and Option B show sliding scale variations.
#5 maximum residential unit size limitation suggesting 2000 ft2
increasable to 2500. heard discussion maybe that should be lower cap
encouraging higher level of density just for residential
#6 propose removal of text relating to chart. Suggest chart be definitive
answer and percentage not be amended through PUD. We don't have
good criteria for judging percentage of use within the building.
We can tell developers if you want more square footage the average square
footage needs to get smaller. Maintains a certain density requirement. If a
developers primary interest is to develop residential space, we end up with a
lodging product that encourages high occupancy.
#8 lodge district and lodge preservation district: the amount of free
market residential space will refer to table in lodge district
HBS lodging consultant suggest items in option B suitable for hotel
development. Smaller per unit size is likely to generate lower occupancy
and rate levels. Our market is in demand for high end luxury units. No
immediate demand for moderate product. Concern with lowering height to
range will restrict massing of building. Concern with lowering ofF AR.
Suggest current ratio of 2.5 to 1 is perceived as restrictive.
Kruger is concerned and suggested to reduce free market unit size and wants
to discuss growth management allotment.. .. we can't encourage density. ..not
practical to have so few allotments and reduce the size. Rowland asks about
mitigation. Bendon provides illustration. Options ABC explained. Mitigation
is in total FAR and will be counted on net livable lodge side, the way it is
structured in growth management. To extent you do it on site, the mitigation
unit mitigates for both purposes simultaneously. Offsite you mitigate for
lodge and residential side. Phelan adds net livable of affordable housing
counts toward overall. 50% of unit can be sub grade and that would be net
livable.
# 1 no discussion
2
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 11.2007
#2 Kruger doesn't see how you can build a lodge and some Council
doesn't want to go more than 40. Erspamer adds you can't build next
to historic side, this is an opportunity to build signature building for
our era. Height is concern to him. Kruger said someone can come in
with PUD and ask for 50. Bendon's goal is to have a project that
works and there is no need for PUD review but hasn't happened in
lodging zone in 20 years.. . make a simple process.
Kruger wants to pass rules that will be adopted and would like to see
42. Rowland asks about minimum floor height in lodge
district.. . Phelan said Nore Winter will think about addressing in
commercial core, C 1. It could be added as a general guideline. First
floor is associated with lobby space and maybe that is where smaller
rooms exist. Erspamer asks about increase in height if smaller
percentage of rooms. Bendon suggests scenario to add if you are a
high density project and average unit size is 500 ft2, then you could
get 38-42 instead of36-40.. .Kruger prefers to add incentives for
smaller rooms. Rowland would like to see survey in town on 300ft2
room occupancy rates. You can go 36-40 independent of room size,
but if you average 450n2 then you can go 38-42.
Kruger questions if pedestrian amenity space in lodge district includes
swimming pool areas. Bendon discusses wowing and paying cash in
lieu.
#3 FAR. Kruger feels report stating challenge is 2.5 to 1 so leave it.
Bendon thinks 3 to 1 is a lot of mass and commercial core is 2.75.
Kruger is fine with 2.75. Rowland comments 4th story elements at
small percentage of footprint and talks about mandate there is some
variation in height, tower element, bonus room. Bendon states it's a
zoning philosophy and unless specific to lodge district, suggest to
Council another way to think about height. Kruger doesn't see it
getting passed. 2.75 for parcels of 27,000n2 or less and then 2.5 for
parcels of27,000 fe or more.
Accomplished by lowering FAR reserved for lodge units from 2 to 1
to 1.75. Consensus is to push back to 2 to 1.
#4 table... option B for any project that meets density standards, you get
5% ofproject being free market, purely in response to meeting density
3
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 11. 2007
standards, nothing to do with unit size, room sizes might have to be
smaller. Big jump 15% to 40%. Rowland asks if shared baths are
acceptable and Kruger doesn't feel a developer would, nor this
culture, and is not functional.
Kruger asks what HBS said about Option A, Bendon reads
commentary how HBS found Option B suitable for hotel development
incentives. Kruger would like to see build up to 80%. Rowland agrees.
Erspamer asks how many units that will limit, 80% free market might
be small average for units. Bendon hypothesizes: 400ft2 , 10,000ft2
lodging, 400 ft2 units = 24 units, so 60% of 10,000 ft2 to be residential
portion = 6,000ft2. Option B support with 5%, 15% 40%,60% 80% .
#5 Unit size, Kruger does not want to go smaller on unit size if they
aren't going to come to consensus on GMQS about allotment. Unit
size of2000 ft2 which you can increase to 2500 with TDR's. She
suggests this is the place for density and could go smaller on unit size,
but doesn't think its practical go to smaller on unit size if we only
have 6 in the allotment in GMQS rules. Bendon suggests recommend
what product you want to see but keep in mind that will affect
situation in GMQS. Kruger would support higher density in this zone
district. Full support for 1500 increasable to 2000.
#6 Everyone is fine with removal of text. Erspamer asks what is to
prevent anyone from turning a lodge into fractional, is there a study
done about what fraction does to a community and what the
percentage should be according to full ownership. Bendon replies the
state prevents municipalities from regulating based on form of
ownership. Form of ownership does not affect that change in use.
Kruger adds they do have to come back through the process to change
the form of ownership.
Kruger adds on Jasmine's behalf, we need to stay on top of the lodge
that advertises they are not a hotel. Bendon states a study on fractional
ownership will be done to have our own occupancy numbers, and in
the supplementals adopted, the short term regulatory provision grants
the City ability to do audits on occasional basis of hotel and lodge
operations.
4
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 11. 2007
Commercia110dge, page 8, #2, 28 ft. This mimics commercial core
except instead of being 38-42 its 36-40. 28 ft for 2 story elements, on
3 story you are on 36-40. These are dimensions of the Cl zone.
Kruger asks to mimic downtown central core and Bendon feels
difference is academic. Erspamer concurs with Bendon. Rowland and
Kruger would have it be consistent with CC lodge district. Square of
450 or smaller can go to 38-42.
Residential units the same 1500 ft2 - 2000 (#5).
#7 bed and breakfast amenities is fine
#8 refers back to chart, OK with chart.
Everyone is OK with lodge zone district
Motion: LJ Erspamer to moves adoption of Resolution 11, 2007 the
April 9th version in which is amended page 4 under maximum to add a
provision D to increase to 38-42feetfor projects that have average room
size of 450 ft2 or smaller; change the FAR under 11 to 2.75 for properties
that are 27,000 ft2 or smaller and 2.5 to 1 for properties that are larger than
27000; 11(a)(2) to 2 to 1 FARfor lodge units; change chart under 11(a)(5)
to be option B, column numbers to read 5, 15, 40, 6080; page 6, flag 5 sub
12, maximum unit size 1500-2000 ft2; page 8 maximum height for CL zone
district include ability to increase to 38-42 feet for projects that have
average lot unit sizes of 450 ft2 or smaller, bottom of page -lower maximum
residential size to 1500, increasable to 2000; Brian Speck seconds. Roll:
John yes, LJ yes, Brian yes, Ruth yes.
GMQS: Growth Manal!ement. Resolution 15. Steve Skadron present.
Bendon presents flag 18, page 35: community objectives clearly understood
and articulated in the code for which there is scoring so developers know
exactly what to do to get type of score. Projects that do the best on these
scores get to go through the process first and get first crack at allotments for
the year. Project that compete will be those that need additional commercial
square footage or projects that want additional free market units. i.e.,
Motherlode increased square footage and number of free market residences.
Just an affordable housing project will not need to compete for limited
quantity of allotments.
5
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 11.2007
There are administrative approvals, minor P&Z reviews (change in use,
small expansion of commercial building) which don't compete but are large
enough that P&Z sees then major P&Z review and are projects with P&Z
need to score.
City Council wants to see all cash-in-lieu proposals. Anything more than 1
has to go to Council and prove the City is best served by taking the cash as
opposed to the unit.
Bendon is scoring on two objective criteria: employee housing and LEED
standard. First set is "by how much are you exceeding the city's expectation
with respect to affordable housing". One point is assigned for each percent
by which a proposal exceeds the minimum affordable housing requirement.
P&Z will vote but not do scoring.
Prior to submitting for Growth Management, you have to do conceptual
HPC if applicable, conceptual commercial design review, and conceptual
PUD. The size and shape of project has stopped moving by time P&Z sees
for growth management.
Bottom of page 5 and top of page 6 are current levels of development in
town. 2% growth rate on commercial equates to about 33,000ft2 per year
and free market residences have been at 0.5% growth rate that turns into 19
units.
Skadron has no comments and is fine with scoring, feels it will be acceptable
by development community and will benefit great community. Erspamer
adds to keep it simple. Erspamer asks about 0.5% and Bendon explained....
(end of tape )
Kruger states concern is we only have 18 units for entire town and we've
reduced the maximum from 2000 to 1500 in many of the areas. In order to
get more density we only have 6 units in all ofCC and C1 and then 12 units
in all of the rest of town, that is based on per unit where the commercial is
based on square foot. Rowland asks if 12 free market units are associated
with lodging, Bendon and Kruger confirm that includes anything that is a
new free market unit. Kruger is suggesting a bigger number. If you have a
15000 you can now put 10 instead 00 units. Bendon adds redevelopment
does not count, this manages growth not change. ?? thinks it's too little to
begin with.
6
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 11.2007
Erspamer states if it was 1 % it would be 38 units, asks if Com Dev can
handle. Brian mentions exceptional project. Bendon would rather be up
front about allotments. Erspamer feels like it will be backlogged and needs
to do something for the community. Brian thinks we should have an
economist. Erspamer and Skadron left meeting.
Discussion ensues about Wienerstube, down times, and percentages. .75%
would be 9 for downtown and 18 for rest. Rowland states we are not
growing, it comes back to construction management. Bendon states projects
were approved over a long time and didn't start construction for a while.
Several years of approvals started construction at the same time. Rowland
doesn't feel like construction traffic has been addressed. Bendon has
recognized problem, suggested regulations, and it was turned to City
Engineering's Construction Enforcement Officer. Discussion about
construction woes and deals falling apart due to political atmosphere.
Skadron said he didn't know, LJ said 2/3 or %. It was 1% and was cut in half
a year ago. Bendon feels if concern is too limited of a number in commercial
core, you could eliminate the bifurcation of where the units land or up the
percentage. Kruger wants to do both and maybe .75% = 27 total units
without splitting where they go is enough.
?? fears the less allotments, the more incentive to push a project through.
Kruger adds there is concern about national election, interest rates and
economy may shift. ?? asks if there is anything built to keep smarter
monkeys from always winning. Vote is to split the hare. .75% = 27 units.
Best project goes forward.
#35 LEEDS. National certification. Kruger asks page 16 if community
commercial space is defined. Bendon suggests nuking provision and going
back to alley stores, eliminating everything that states community
commercial space. Delete D. All agree to delete. Alley behind Red Onion
brought up as pedestrian alley.
#8, page 19. Kruger asked why affordable housing for sale units are required
to be for sale. Bendon mentions Telluride decision and unless City has an
ownership interest in projects they can't enforce rental rate restrictions.
Bendon thinks there should be a provision that allows it to be rental. Phelan
states "D" authorizes discretion to Housing Board. Sentence should be added
that authorizes City to rent units. Kruger doesn't want to lose rental units.
7
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 11. 2007
Housing Board can be trusted. Bendon wants City as its City land use code.
Sentence will be added to second paragraph "D" - City has sole discretion
to authorize affordable housing units to be rental units provided a legal
instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney assures permanent
affordability of the units.
Kruger asks if Page 20 #9 100% replacement is in any zone, Bendon
confirms. Kruger needs clarification on design standards, page 24. 60%
program requires that 30% of the floor area is affordable housing. Bendon
discusses citations, rules, scoring system, multi year allotments, and
exceptional projects. The tighter we crank down allotments and get specific
with zones, the more important it is to have a release valve.
Kruger questions practicality on page 31 multi year growth allotments for
someone to get half of their allotments one year and half another year.
Bendon replies it's their decision and language was put in anticipating more
applications for multi year allotment.
Kruger asks about reconstruction limitations on page 37. She would rather
have project start earlier than a year after tear down, big holes are not
attractive. Bendon replies it used to be 5 years and feels it's a rare
circumstance to tear down and purposely not reconstruct. Within a year of
demo permit you must apply for building permit. Board leaves 1 year.
Motion: John Rowland moves to approve Resolution 15 the April 2nd draft
with amendments to citations to be done by staff; page 6 increase the annual
growth rate for free market residential development to .75% per year = 27
units; page 8 in chart combinejirst and second rows to read "Residential
Free Market 27 allotments ", that its no longer allocated to the CC, C1 zone;
page 15 delete all reference to commercial space and delete criterium D;
page 19 affordable housing insert new sentence second paragraph allowing
for City to approve rental affordable housing as long as a legal instrument
that ensures permanent affordability is accepted by the City Attorney. Brian
seconds. Roll call: Brian yes, John yes, Ruth yes.
Transcribed by Tara O'Bradovich
8