6 hours ago
Snowmass Town Council might consider a new business district after it was proposed Monday as a way to include small businesses in funding and priority housing for the Draw Site housing project.
Kevin Rayes, housing director for the town of Snowmass Village, presented the idea to council as part of an update on planning efforts and design changes following preliminary plan approval Jan. 20. The aim of the presentation was to solicit feedback from council on a number of items before returning with an application for a final plan review in the summer.
According to Rayes, conversations have been occurring with entities such as Pitkin County and the Aspen School District where they would provide capital upfront for the Draw Site housing project in exchange for priority units, as a way to create additional funding to the town’s issuance of up to $86 million in bonds for the project. The upfront money would help reduce the amount of debt Snowmass would have to take on as a town.
However, Rayes pointed out that many locally-serving, locally-owned Snowmass businesses, what he called “mom and pop shops” at the meeting, might not have the ability to give upfront capital in exchange for priority units. Instead, he outlined the creation of “a geographical business district” where those qualified as locally-owned could pool smaller sums as modest recurring fees.
“The impetus for this conversation really stems from council’s goal to identify and provide more affordable housing,” Rayes said. “The way this would work is businesses that are interested in participating would pay a fee of some kind, and in exchange for that fee, we would give them a certain number of priority units.”
Rayes noted that priority units could either be allotted to each business within the district or a certain number could go to the district overall, with a system of tiers based on how much each business paid in the pool. He clarified the pooled capital would go toward the cash flow of the project, like paying down debt or subsidizing rent, not to pay for the construction.
Council could pick whether or not to include or exclude certain businesses in the chosen geographical district — for example, including restaurants and retail but excluding large hotel chains. It would be up to council to decide what defines a locally-owned, locally-serving business.
“I was a planner for six years in Aspen, and they have struggled so much with the idea of defining what a locally-serving, locally-owned business is that they’ve never gotten anywhere with it,” Rayes said. “The idea of defining locally-owned, locally-serving is a much more challenging task than I think most people anticipate.”
According to Rayes, within the next several months, the creation of a housing advisory board will be presented to council, a task force which will be put in charge of putting this type of district program together.
“We wanted to throw this rough concept in front of council this evening and get a temperature on this idea,” Rayes said.
While council appeared open to the discussion, there was hesitancy around being able to define which businesses would be allowed in the district.
“I don’t know why you need to create a district,” Council Member Tom Fridstein said. “Why does there need to be a district? Why can’t we say any locally-owned business in Snowmass could participate?”
Rayes responded that establishing a district would allow the town to “spin off an entity that would allow it to have a little bit more freedom to use the funds in a way that council can still control.”
Council Member Susan Marolt acknowledged that, from a compliance standpoint, she could see how the creation of a geographical district would make it easier.
“I think it’s an interesting idea to explore,” Council Member Britta Gustafson added. “It’s a valuable thing to start exploring and now is the right time.”
Gustafson did note, however, that she wouldn’t want the housing advisory task force to prioritize creating a district over considering other Draw Site needs.
At the meeting, Rayes also presented site plan modifications per council’s previous recommendations, including removing five parking spaces from the plaza and taking the total number of parking spaces down to 95 from 103, moving the stairs and enhancing the community recreation area. He also provided a second roof form option more aligned with the geography of the surrounding landscape. The modifications were generally favored by council, although Council Member Cecily DeAngelo continued to voice concerns around the parking garage’s environmental impact as it’s dug into the mountain.
“I’m not going to say it’s the reason I won’t vote for the project,” DeAngelo said. “It’s just unfortunate.”
Gustafson also expressed concern around the proposed development’s mass and verticality situated against the landscape. She suggested considering colors that better help blend the building into the natural setting.
“I’m struggling really hard to move forward on this project at this time,” Gustafson said. “I’m speaking on behalf of the community members that would really strongly (have) a reaction to that kind of mass.”
Council agreed to have the project undergo peer review by an independent architect to help present some alternative suggestions.
“Time spent right now is never going to be looked at as time wasted if we get it right and the community is happy with it in the end,” Gustafson said. “I want to be proud of this when this is all done.”
