Town of CB proposes significant zoning changes

Reduce parking, increase density, eliminate basements, increase affordable housing fee…

By Mark Reaman

As Crested Butte town councilmember Kent Cowherd described them, the proposals to the town zoning code update being considered by the council and Board of Zoning and Architectural Review (BOZAR) are “bold and significant.”

Among some changes being considered are to no longer allow basements in single-family homes unless the town is provided a deed restricted unit; reducing the number of required parking spaces on new homes and developments; allowing residential units including accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to be as small as 300 square feet or even smaller; significantly increasing the Resident Occupied Affordable Housing (ROAH) mitigation impact fee on residential units; and allowing up to three units including a tri-plex, on lots zoned for single-family.

Updating the zoning code is part of the Crested Butte Community Plan and that document is, among other things, meant to expand, diversify and distribute community serving housing and facilitate, create and preserve community serving spaces.

“There are a lot of moving pieces to implement the Community Plan,” said town community development director Mel Yemma.

“The zoning code update is part of that,” said Yemma. The big goals are to simplify the code, implement measures to retain Crested Butte’s small-town feel, strengthen historic preservation, integrate land use with transportation and climate action, and link zoning to community benefits.

Yemma told the council and BOZAR members at a work session on Monday, February 5 that changes would probably not be quick. She said the town is largely built out and there are only 45 single family lots that are vacant, 10 multi-family lots that are vacant and 21 empty commercial parcels. She said in the last decade the town has dealt with about seven new projects a year.

In consolidated residential zones that reduce the zones from 11 to two, the proposal explores the feasibility and market acceptance of allowing three dwelling units by right, with one unit required to be deed restricted.

“For me, I’m in favor of most of the proposed changes to get more units for locals to live in,” said councilmember John O’Neal, referring to the dense packet with the proposals. “I like the idea of not allowing bigger structures in residential zones but allowing more units for locals. The parking reduction is interesting and something to figure out.”

About that parking…

The idea of how much parking to require on residential property was a big focus of the Monday discussion. The staff proposal was to go from the current standard of requiring at least two parking spaces for a house with one or two bedrooms (and more for a higher number of bedrooms), 1.5 spaces per unit in multi-family complexes and one parking space per bedroom in an ADU, to one per unit minimum except for ADUs where it could be waived.

BOZAR chair Erik Nauman said parking has generated a lot of public feedback. “Parking is a tool to use,” he said. “Why approve a five-bedroom house and only allow one parking space? When friends and family come to visit that will be a big impact on the neighborhood. A five-bedroom house has a lot more impact than a two-bedroom house.”

“One thing I’m concerned about is to look at how parking relates to the block,” said mayor Ian Billick. “Some high-density blocks may not provide enough parking on the street. To me the number of units or even bedrooms per block is important to consider. Some places like the mobile home park neighborhood are already tight.”

Billick was clear that short-term rentals should require adequate parking and prove it is there when obtaining a license. Yemma said that would be the right place to address STR parking.

Nauman indicated he might be amenable to increasing parking requirements in some cases over the current regulations, especially for large houses.

“That’s a very different direction than what the staff is working on,” said town manager Dara MacDonald.

Billick disagreed about allowing more parking on sites. “I am definitely not in favor of increasing parking requirements at all,” he said. “We’re a pedestrian community. We can leverage some on street parking, but some areas are already crowded.”

“I agree we should take into consideration the neighborhood it is in,” added councilmember Gabi Prochaska.

Luz Spann-LaBato of BOZAR said homeowners and renters would simply shift their parking spaces to other areas in the neighborhood. “We need a place people can perhaps park their cars and not use them for a long while,” she suggested.

“There are only 45 residential lots left to build on and the most common thing we see these days are four- and five-bedroom homes,” reiterated Nauman.

“People who build these houses will have cars and lots of impacts to neighborhoods. I see it as a big conflict in the future.”

“Parking is crunched in dense neighborhoods such as near The Meadows, on snow days and on Elk Avenue,” said Billick. “I’m fine making cars inconvenient. If someone has to walk a few blocks after parking, I’m okay with that.”

“We need to draw the line somewhere,” countered Nauman. “Maybe an ADU has no requirement for parking, and a one- or two-bedroom house must have one space. But I think a four- or five-bedroom house needs more given the big impacts. The P-word can be used as both a carrot and a stick.”

MacDonald said staff had enough feedback to explore various parking options. Staff will take council and BOZAR’s feedback to refine the proposal to look further into a minimum tied to number of bedrooms and being more mindful of areas where on-street parking is constrained.

Aside from parking…

“I really like the bold and substantial changes being proposed,” said councilmember Kent Cowherd. “I enjoy this direction. I am fine allowing two or three units on a lot if the Floor Area Ratio (size and mass) is maintained. I support one parking space per unit. I really support the idea of reducing the minimum size of ADUs from 400 square feet to 300. I agree we need to evaluate parking block by block and see how much more a neighborhood can take on. I’m okay allowing an ADU in the front. These proposals are significant and bold, and we are heading in the right direction.”

Billick asked why town should have any minimum square footage requirement for ADUs as long as building codes were met. Yemma said the philosophy was one of livability and having a little space to store toys. “But we are open to considering anything,” she said.

Nauman said the idea of allowing micro lots sounded good, but he didn’t think given what’s left in town it would do much. “It’s something to try but I don’t think it will be impactful,” he said.

Billick said it might benefit someone like his family who could consider selling a small part of their lot to his sons as one of the only ways to get them into the Crested Butte market. “And while it might not attract 100 people, if we get three or four of them that would equate to town funding $1.5 to $2 million in affordable housing units. We can learn from it and see how it might go,” he said.

Town officials were interested in looking closer at changes proposed to the mobile home park districts that could eventually allow for stick-built units and even two-story units in exchange for deed restricted units.

“I know people who would love a tiny house,” said Prochaska.

“Affordability will become an issue, deed restricted or not, in the future,” said Nauman. “But this is a place for density. And it’s important we don’t lose density the town already has.”

The council and BOZAR were all on board raising the ROAH fees to bring in more money for housing. Basically, the current fee on a single-family house is about $7,850. That would change to be about 1% of the construction costs so a $3 million house would be in for $30,000.

“Would that be penalizing the middle-income group trying to build a house in town?” asked councilmember Kate Guibert.

“What is middle when every house being built costs $3 or $4 million?” asked Billick.

“There really isn’t much of an opportunity for middle income people to build anything in town,” agreed Cowherd. “I am okay raising the ROAH fee which at 1% isn’t that much on $3 or $4 million project.”

“I was going with Kate, but I think Kent is right,” said Nauman. “All the new projects are at least $3 or $4 million.”

“Even if someone could build for $750,000, which they can’t, it isn’t much to add 1% for the ROAH,” said Prochaska.

Spann-LaBato suggested that town should have always included basements as part of the FAR calculations, especially if people put in bedrooms there.

Town attorney Karl Hanlon said FAR addressed mass and scale and so focused on above ground building.

Staff was suggesting eliminating basements as a matter of right and only allowing them if community benefit was provided.

“They can get one if they provide a community benefit like a deed restricted unit,” said Prochaska.

“An argument could be made that basements should not be allowed at all given the environmental impact,” said Billick. “But we want housing, so it appears we are all good with that trade-off. We want ways to encourage owners to include deed restricted units.”

“The basement and FAR discussion will probably generate some loud feedback, so I expect that one to be a heavy lift,” predicted Nauman.

“This is a lot to absorb but we are only providing direction,” concluded Billick.

“When we seek out public engagement hopefully we can find ways to also include the people living in ADUs that don’t typically come to meetings or take town surveys,” said Guibert.

“We are always happy to meet with any group or individual to talk about this,” promised Yemma.