Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19750624Councilmembers Nina Johnston, George Parry, Michael Behrendt, and Mayor Standley were present to discuss with the Planning and Zoning Commission the Subdivision Regulations. Present from the Planning and Zoning Commission were Roger Hunt, Chick Collins, Jack Jenkins, and Mike Otte. Also present was City Attorney Stuller and City Manager Mahoney. From the Planning Department was City/County Planner Bill Kane, and Yank Mojo. City Attorney Stuller told members that Ordinance ~22, Series of 1975 had been passed and that it states that there would be 2.5 acres per thousand or 25/10,000 of an acre per person; therefore, the Planning Office has won and Teddy Armstrong, Parks and Recreation Director, has lost and has to win his back. Mojo explained to Council that what Armstrong would like is 5 acres per thousand or 5,000 of an acre per person. What is presently in effect is 2 1/2 acres per thousand or 25/10,000 of an acre per person. When the Ordinance was passed the Planning Office told Council that they would reconsider all of the particular attributes to the subdivision regulation requirements and come back with a recommendation. Since then the Planning Office has discussed it with the Planning and Zoning Commission and have decided to recommend 2.5 acres per thousand as the subdivision requirement with a floor of 6%. What that means is that there is always a base of 6% of the land as a dedication requirement or the percentage as generaged by the people multiplier which ever is greater. The people multiplier depends on the number of people in the particular' building. Commercial is straight 6 percent of the improved land value that is with all the utilities to the property line but no buildings in place. The multifamily is predieated on the people multiplier and in subdivision regulations a studio has 1 person in it, a 1 bedroom has 1.3 persons, a two bedroom has 2.7 persons, a 3 bedroom single family or duplex has 4 people and whether it has it or not that's the number used given the unit that is being dett with, In multifamily take the number of units, the kind of unit it is and multiply it by one of the people per resident dwelling unit multipliers come with the number of people on the property and then multiply that by 2.5 acres per thousand which is 25/10,000 of an acre per person. That is the Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Recommendation. Armstron's recommendation is that it be multiplied by 5 acres per thousand or 5,000 of an acre per person. Armstrong wants exactly twice what we want in multifamily. Mojo gave an example that being the Villas which has 26 two bedroom units so 2 bedroom units has 2.7 people being the Villas which has 26 two bedroom units so 2 bedroom units has 2.7 people in them and 2.7 multiplied by 26 is 70.2 so 70 people effectively are on the Villas property. Take the 70 and multiply it by 5,000 and get .35 so that's 35% of an acre. Thrity-five percent (35%) of an acre is 5,120 sq. ft. Under the regula- tions proposed by Armstrong the Villas would have to have given to the City 35% of an acre or 15,000 sq.ft. At the current prices of the villas property that wouldhave meant $70,000 or cash equivalent for the Villas Property. Diagrammally or figuratively the light green is the old 4% straight across the board cash dedication of the old subdivision requirements. The entire colored area represents 15,120 sq. ft. or $70,000 worth of cash. Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission proposal is exactly half so we would have said not 15,0000 sq.ft, but 7,560 and $35,000 in cash. Under the old 4% it's 10,000 sq.ft.; under the Planning and Zoning and Planning Department recommendation it's $35,000 in cash and under Armstrong's recommendation it's $70,000 in cash. Under the new zoning code, given the densities that are allowable it would be $70,000 in cash divided by 26 units or $35,000 divided by 26 units, It is either ground set aside for th epublic or cash. Mojo further explained that in R-15 or in R-6 it doesn't matter what size whether dealing with a 6,000 sq.ft, lot or a 15,000 sq.ft, lot under current subdivision regulations what matters is how many people are on it. Under the recommendation that the Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission they would a~k for 435 Sqoft. of an R-6 lot, which is 7% of a lot. Under Armstrong's recommendation it would be double that or 14% of that lot. Exactly the same square footage of the ground would be required from an R-15 lot but the percentage is different because dividing by 15,000 sq. ft. rather than 7,000 sq. ft. it would be 3%. A single family house in an R-6 district would get 7% of the lot and in an R-15 district exactly the same people the same house would only require 3% of the lot. What Planning and Zoning is saying is that there is an inequity and what is being proposed is to put a floor at 6% underneath all dedications. If you use the Planning Office Recommendation for the people multiplier and the 6% floor, the people multiplier would give a larger piece of land. However, in an R-15 lot, the 6% gives a larger chunk of land than would the result of the people multiplier. Even under Armstrong's dedication the 6% would be larger than the people multiplier. Jenkins questioned that when this is correlated back to another factor it would loose continuity because a building site in Aspen can't be purchased anywhere whether R-15 or R-6 or even an under sized lot for less than $30,000; and if taken by 14 would get $4200 on a single family lot R-6 and get $900.00 on an R,15 and what is being discussed is adding essentially to the cost of the house directly, so it would cost a man building on a 6,000 sq.ft, lot $4200 dollars. Mojo replied yes because you're right; and no because all the lots currently are subdivided in town. Jenkins than said that they come back to the point that it really isn't related to an increase in population but is related only to an increase in subdivision. Mojo further explained that what happens is that you run into people multiplier first in R-6 and run into 6% floor in R-15 which tends to make some kind of sense in an equity sens~ Tying subdivision requirements to people has alot of validity because people use parks and people generate need for parks. There is one draw back and that is every large condominiu~ project in this town escaped any subdivision dedication requirements under the lots and plots exemption procedure that was in the old subdivision regulations; so what we are trying is to cure an ill that was generated by an old bad set of regulations. If use the 18,000 people that Armstrong uses as his population figure as a justification for effectively taking land from new subdivisions, than what may happen is that the new people that come in and build or the new people that subdivide the currently established apartment buildings and are effectively subsidizing the large projects of yesteryears and while there is some validity to that it can't be carried completely down the line. Counci[ approved conceptual subdivision on 700 West Hopkins and for a case in point there is 28 people according to the people multipliers in that building. Under Armstrong's that would be 28 people times 5,000 and that would give 14% of an acre. Fourteen percent (14%) of an acre is 6,098 sq. ft. The lot that the condominium sits on is 9,000 sq. ft. so Armstrong is effectively asking for 2/3 of the lot that the building sits on. If the lots are selling for $20,000 a piece that would be $60,000 total value of the unapproved land that means that the 700 West Hopkins building is going to kick in $40,00 into the pot because of the subdivision requirements. We have aksed for 6 month leases so the buyers of those units have been restricted and are either rich out of towners who can afford to subsidize the unit without renting it or they are locals. Three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) has been added to the cost of every one of the units. The Planning Office recommendation, and this has not been discussed with the Planning and Zoning Commission, is that we would like in addition to the 25/10,000 of an acre requirement an exemption for any project on 9,000 sq.ft, or less in an effort to encourage small groups of local oriente housing. Exemption from the dedication requirements for effectively multifamily structure on 8,000 sq.ft, or less would allow duplexes out. Duplexes condominimizes in the west end on 9,000 sq.ft, would be let out. A duplex that condominimizes in Snowbunny wouldn't. Therefore, their recommendation would be that there be an exemption for units on 9,000 sq. or less. We would further eliminate it to the condominimization of existing buildings and not allow it to go to new units. This is a park PIF is what is being talked about. Mayor Standley said that the problem is that everybody is right. Armstrong is right in terms of his requirements and the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Depart- ment is right in terms of the way they articulate the punitive nature of enforcing his requirements. Behrendt said that he had suspicions of the property and thinks that it is an almost totally depreciated property and the two bedroom units are not comparable to a two bed- room unit that is in most other condominiums. City Attorney Stuller explained that the City Council approved the previous ordinance and recommendations were suppose to come back within 60 days before she had approved it to either substantiate the recommendation or deposit another one; however, would have had to still go through ordinance adoption to change the earlier law. It was recommended by Otte that the two be separated and there be projects related to market and those projects related to cost there can be made breaks on in terms of the percentage of land dedication for parks. Otte gave an example saying that the dedication rate should not be for the RM-F site but for the parks at $4,000 an acre. On other projec± which may be tourist oriented projects we could tie it into a continuing option plan on the housing authority for the lower part PIF because then the market price would be tied by option or by continuing option to a slight acceleration to cover cost. Mayor Standley said that he is going to be tied into the housing authority option plan so if it's not going to give he will be stuck. If he drops out of the plan he would have to come up with PIF and put together a package of waiving PIF on water, electric and park and effectively save $5,000 a unit then he couldn't drop out of the program because he is making that profit on the money and he couldn't drop out of the program and make the money on his own. Standley suggested that it be amended to meet Armstrong's criteria. People who are trying to get the program done that are really doing something for local people or the local community they are willing to go through Brian's program and they will get the rebate. The larger the differential to cling it to somehow the differential has to be economically equitated to something and until it equals the profit to the developer the housing authority idea will not work either because it will still be a cost benefit As soon as he is developing, $5,000 wouldn't mean that much but as soon as he is cost pricing then that will save him $5,000 and that will mean alot. Councilwoman Johnston, Councilwoman Pedersen and Mayor Standley are on the housing committ~ of the City to work with Brian to develop a housing program. Mayor Standley asked that two Planning and Zoning members be on the committee to work with them. Also working on the committee is Brian Goodheim and those working on it from the County. Mayor Standley said that the reason subdivision is being dealt with is because of what it means to this community and what it means to the housing costs in the community. What is being done is adjusting inventory and taking it out of passive use and putting it in active use. We don't want to treat national forest as part of our active park requirements. Fred Smith asked what the justification is for tying it to subdivision when the other PIF's are tied to a user. A person pays when they want it connected to the water and they pay when they want to pay to the electricity. He questioned as to why people don't pay when they bill tying it to subdivision. It was suggested that if new people are made to pay that it should be tied into the building permit. Jenkins said that if people are making an effort to build residential housing and our limitations are saying that they have to work here and have to be here but they're the people we are making the housing for and then we turn around to someone who has been here for 5 years; it has nothing to do with people who come into town because as people move out of substandard housing and into housing it can't possibly be developed with the local working resident, five year individiual, then the substandard housing is built by the new people but the price is added on to the new people. Mojo said that we consider an apartment building new a subdivision by definition regardles of the form of ownership. If an apartment building is built the rent should be cheaper than if it was bought. But by new subdivision regulations that building has to go through subdivison before it gets a building permit even though one guy is going to own every unit in the place. Mayor Standley suggested that in terms of regarding subdivision regulations per say, since there has been a work session on them and they are now understood, he would like to have the housing committee and two members from the Planning and Zoning Commission use what they have and make recommendations for subdivision dedication modification based on working out entire employee residential housing program with Brian Goodheim. However, in terms of the issue that's been brought up should there be a subdivision dedicaiton versus a recreation investiment fee at the time of the building permit. Mayor Standley felt that the administration should look into that. Mayor Standley questioned as to who is making the biggest killing on a development project; the subdivider or single family house building, and where logically should a person for a recreation investment fee be requested to make payment, it is not clear as to whether it should occur at subdivision or the time the building permit is issued. S~d~_~_e~on Ase~p_~D~C~tyCg~nc~ June 24, 1975 Kane asked Armstrong what he flet about the 9,000 sq.ft, limit and Armstrong responded saying that there will still be the impact on the parks. Mojo said that that was why they went to the 6% floor because they felt that that was an equitable place to start from and then maybe they will go up to 12,000 and under 6% and then from 12,000 and above and start climbing. Armstrong said that Wagner park is a disaster area because of the current · mpact on it and the impact on Islin and Paepke Park has softball games on it and if the rate that it is increasing which last year there were only 22 mens softball teams and this year there are 28 and there was only 1 girls softball team and this year there are 8 the parks will not be able to hold up. Mayor Standley said that the Housing Committee and Pat Dobie and Mike Otte from the Planning and Zonlng Commission will work on the regulations with the Council and will get together will Brian Goodheim, Mojo and Kane and work on a package and come up with recommendations both for the Planning and Zoning and City Council regarding subdivision dedication and will go anywhere from eliminating it to ~ncreasing it; once they understand what the rationale and some of the economics of what the impact of certain subdivisions decidations are. Kane asked if Mayor Standley thought they would broaden the scope to include taxing distri¢ alternatives. Mayor Standley said that they will be looking at that and the other PIF's. Patrick Dobie adjourned, seconded by Mike 0tte. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 5:15. E~l-iz~eth M./Iflym, yeputy City Clerk