There's a New Kid in Town Hall

And he is standing up for the locals...

Kudos to Council member Hutchinson

Finally, we have a City Council member who is working hard to represent the people who elected him. Tripp Hutchinson. He ran a hell of a campaign, and on April Fools’s Day, he proved he was no fool.

Tripp introduced an ordinance that would suspend large new developments in the commercial core until we can get our collective act together on what kind of a commercial core we want and then amend the zoning code to push toward that.

Tripp made a couple of important points. If we keep doing what we are doing, we know we are not going to like the outcome. We know this from the election, which was a referendum against the Mayor’s agenda, and we know it from the Community Survey, which rejected the Mayor’s program.

He gave the example of the large restaurant that was just approved for the site next to the Casino. It will probably employ 25 people. Where will they live? Commercial construction for tourism increases the need for employees. We have only limited requirements for developers to house them and no understanding of the implications of what we have been doing other than it has been bad. Bad for housing and bad for the character and quality of life of Ketchum.

Despite the mayor's efforts to minimize the effort on a Comp Plan (he didn’t want to do a new one when he ran for re-election), our City Planner has put in place a reasonable process to develop one. The Survey was an early step, and this process won’t come to the point of a new Plan for adoption for another year.

Tripp is advocating for a pause on large-scale development until that Plan has been determined, along with the zoning code reform necessary to achieve its goals. This seems like common sense: Stop doing bad things. Let the people decide what they want.

The Aspenization Faction Is on Record: More Aspenization

If you are pressing the Aspenization plan that you have been pressing for the past six years, would you want a pause on large-scale building in Ketchum? Of course not. For some reason, the Council meeting was packed with the real estate and development lobby, and while public comment was not advertised for this meeting, the Mayor let them speak out against Tripp’s proposal. Two members of the community not involved in Aspenization spoke out in favor.

The outcome was predictable when it came to a vote. Hutchinson and Cordovano were in favor of a pause, and Breen and Hamilton were for all-speed-ahead development. The Mayor broke the tie in favor of Aspenization. Not one of the nay voters gave any counterarguments to Mr. Hutchinson.

As I have been saying, three people currently control the fate of Ketchum through their majority on the Council. They showed their colors on Monday.

A Glimmer of Hope?

There was one faint glimmer of hope. Ms. Breen expressed sympathy for Mr. Hutchinson’s position but opposed the measure as an emergency ordinance contrary to good governance. She has a point. I made that same argument when the Council passed an emergency ordinance for historic preservation (they didn’t seem too concerned about good governance then). I wonder what she will do if this proposal comes back as an interim ordinance. Will she accede to the will of the electorate, or will she find some new reason to oppose it? Based on her voting record, I will take the under on that one.

Ketchum’s Zoning Code is a Mess

Our current zoning code is a mess. That is not my opinion; that is the opinion of the City Staff. Our zoning code is more complicated than Boise’s. It has some things in it that were well-intended at the time but have had unintended consequences and are not necessarily appropriate for the Ketchum of today.

For example, in 2016, the Council changed the code to permit builders to provide no parking for residential units under 750sf. The goal was to encourage affordable apartments. So what did we get? The KETCH building. 32 unaffordable tiny apartments (some just over 300sf) with no parking. The City said they would park in the Washington Lot. That will be difficult to do when Bluebird 2 is erected there (which the City knew was going to happen).

We also got a change in an ordinance that benefited the Bluebird 1 developer when the City allowed an “in lieu of” payment for affordable housing rather than actual affordable housing to get a break in FAR from 1.0 to 2.25. This slowed down the provision of affordable housing to a crawl as it was cheaper to pay the fee rather than build the unit into new projects. The City sat on this money—some of it for eight years—to hand over the the for-profit developer of Bluebird 1. Think about the neighbors who might still be living in Ketchum if we had required the housing instead of the fee in those eight years.

After Bluebird 1 was paid for, the City raised the fee to a level that now incentivizes building rather than paying the fee. However, the way it is set is that the Council makes up a number that feels right to them—like they know what construction costs are going to be. I proposed a better approach, which hasn’t been taken up by the Council.

We have had some code changes designed to incentivize affordable housing construction in the Light Industrial Zone. In his first term, the Mayor supported raising the height limit in the LI zone in exchange for affordable housing. No developer has used that provision, including the City of Ketchum, which could have put a third floor on the new firehouse for first responder housing but didn’t.

Spot Zoning?

In 2018, the Council changed the code, in direct contravention of the 2-014 Comprehensive Plan. to permit Bluebird 1 to be built in the commercial district. Bluebird 4 by the 511 Building also needed that change in the code. They did this in a footnote to a table. Then, when the cost estimate went up, they changed the code again to permit an average rather than a minimum setback for a fourth story to save GMD money. That means we get boxes (like Bluebird 1 and Bluebird 2 and probably the rest) that are four stories up from the ground. Guess who wrote that amendment at the request of the then City Planner?

Reform FAR, Parking, and Kill “In Lieu Fee”

We need FAR reform, parking requirements reform, and the elimination of the “in lieu of” fee.

In my opinion, a FAR of 2.25 is too big for the scale of Ketchum. And the bonus FAR of 1.25 for providing affordable housing in 15% of the overage isn’t great. The current FAR limits guarantee us buildings like the monstrosity where Formula Sports used to be, or the building on the Serva site that led to a packed P&Z meeting to protest it (it was approved with minor modifications).

The City Planning staff did an economic analysis of the FAR limit and confirmed that developer profits are maximized by commercial or office on the first floor, expensive apartments on the second floor, and a penthouse on the third floor, and payment of the in-lieu fee. And that is exactly what we have been getting. Check out the advertisement for the building at 5th and Main. “For those who expect the best” in luxury living. Unit #201 is listed for $6.25 million for 2,921sf ($2,100/sf—just like Aspen!).

Thank you, Mr. Hutchinson, for fighting for the locals, and Mr. Cordovano for voting in favor. Now, if you could only change Ms. Breen’s mind….