The massive overhaul of Ketchum city code, approved by the City Council Monday, played itself out like a game of connect-the-dots.
Hundreds of public comments over the course of a year were mixed in with city staff and consultant recommendations, providing a sometimes-tangled, always-evolving picture of an ideal community.
The end results were multiple text amendments, a new chapter for workforce housing linkage and the replacement of the entire chapter governing the Community Core zoning district.
City officials say their effort was the best compromise to restore economic vigor to the core, as well as boost affordable housing units citywide.
"We realized the problems were becoming acute," Council President Baird Gourlay said Wednesday.
Economic development consultant Tom Hudson facilitated meetings and workshops to gather public opinion in preparing the downtown master plan, including a form-based code zoning system.
"He brought a ton of information to us, including the form-based code, urban renewal agency and the community development corporation," Gourlay said. "That process has been continuing on throughout the year at public meetings and workshops."
A straw poll taken during an October 2005 meeting indicated that residents placed the highest value on sense of community. The natural environment, small-town character and culture also registered significant response.
Aspects to Ketchum that are missing, according to the poll, include shopping and a diversity of people.
The downtown master plan, based on public input and outside research, states that a balanced system should be created to address those aspects.
Density increases and transfer of development rights were identified as ways to attain community values of affordable housing and heritage preservation.
Density bonuses are seen as a way to offer incentives to developers to include deed-restricted units in their projects, rather than encouraging sprawl to outlying areas.
In the TDR system, certain areas of town are designated "sending areas." By allowing the sale of development rights from those properties, owners are given incentives to keep them small. Property owners in "receiving areas" can buy those rights to create greater density in other, more appropriate parts of town.
While the city is behind TDRs in theory, the council is taking a few more weeks to review and approve they system's details.
In a workshop last May, attendees gave a comfort level of 4.27 out of 5 for trading TDRs for additional building height in other areas. Ideas to curb sprawl by increasing density averaged a comfort level of 4.42.
Did the city hit the mark?
While Hudson recommended switching to a purely form-based-code system, which focuses on design, the council instead merged it with the existing floor-area-ratio method. FARs regulate a building's volume in relation to its lot size.
"As people started to understand the form-based code, they became more concerned about how high buildings are going to go," he said. "People were concerned with what the buildings would look like."
The city internally did modeling on parcels of land, proposing a building with a FAR of 2.25 and one at 2.5. The latter were boxier, Gourlay said, while the 2.25 had "a lot more architectural intrigue. We knew we'd get much better buildings with the 2.25."
"We think we ended up where we wanted to be," he said. "There's still incentives with inclusionary zoning and added density, retail space and incentivized hotels."
Although people with financial interests were the most frequent attendees at the Planning & Zoning and City Council meetings, other people made their opinions known outside the public forum.
In the past month, Gourlay said, more than 50 people approached or called him about the ordinances.
"The public doesn't like to speak in public," he said. "They'll come talk to us individually."
Some complained that the process was too quick, even before it was further hastened by the looming deadline of Nov. 7. On Election Day, voters will decide Proposition 2, a "takings" initiative that will require local government to compensate property owners for zoning changes that reduces property values.
"People said there wasn't enough time, but it was a year (in the making)," Gourlay said. "I thought the process was awesome."
Is everybody happy? Not likely. View corridors may be compromised, affordable housing linkage fees will boost property owners' building costs, and no one knows whether new hotel regulations will help or hinder such buildings.
But many residents have come to accept the compromises—while pinning their hopes on future revisions.
"I think it's great," said Rebekah Helzel, founder and director of Advocates for Real Community Housing. "I really do believe Ketchum will be a much more livable, workable city in the future. It took a lot of guts. Obviously, there's things I personally would be more aggressive on, but I don't think they left out any option for that in the future."
