Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840508 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8, 1984 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5: 01 p.m. with commissioners Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee, David White, and Roger Hunt present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS White reported the highway alignment issue was raised last night at the Democratic caucus . More effort should be directed to long term transportation planning. Vann should be here to bring the Commission up to date as to what is happening. Fallin asked about the satellite dish at KSPN. Paul Taddune, city attorney, responded there was a meeting this afternoon on this issue. The historic preservation commission has approved the concept of locating a mesh antennae, a small dish, on the Floradora building. A tenative decision was made to expedite the special review. The dish has been located to minimize its visibility . Anderson noted the dish is located on the flat portion of the roof. Anderson said two and a half years ago the Commission approved the demolition of the buildings to the west of the Pitkin County Bank with a parking lot . For the last month that parking lot has been chained up. Why is the parking lot not used? Taddune said the lot was used for parking by the bank . There has been some inquiry about that space. Perhaps some plans for reconstruction are coming forward . The space is private . This was brought forward to the Commission as inventory so it would be known on the public record what was being demolished and reconstructed. The Commission had the ability to attach conditions because it was an inventory. Bil Dunaway, publisher for the Aspen Times, noted that Cheap Shots is moving. Taddune continued. Someone asked for a verification of the amount of square footage that could be built in the configuration. Colette Penne, planning office, explained that the bank still owns the lot . There is a plan for redevelopment and a plan to tear down Cheap Shots . A verification was done more than a year ago when the building, which housed Gracie ' s, was torn down . The verification of square footage was split into so much square footage per lot. The submission checks with that footage . She does not know why the parking lot is chained up. MINUTES 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8. 1984 September 20 , 1983 . David white moved to approve the minutes of September 20 , 1983 ; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor; motion carried. October 4 . 1983 . David white moved to approve the minutes of October 4 , 1983; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor; motion carried. October 18 , 1983 . Harvey noted on page four, second paragraph from the bottom, second sentence , insert "review" in " . . .the applicant should review the determination. . . " Pat Fallin moved to approve the minutes of October 18, 1983, as amended; seconded by David White. All in favor; motion carried. March 27 , 1984 . Pat Fallin moved to approve the minutes of March 27, 1984; seconded by David white. All in favor; motion carried. April 3, 1984 . Lee Pardee moved to approve the minutes of April 3, 1984; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor; motion carried. aril 4, 1984 . Lee Pardee moved to approve the minutes of April 4 , 1984 ; seconded by Welton Anderson . All in favor ; motion carried. April 10 , 1984 . Pat Fallin moved to approve the minutes of April 10 , 1984 ; seconded by Welton Anderson. All in favor; motion carried. white abstained. PUBLIC HEARING ASPEN CLUB: REZONING, LOT SPLIT AND PUD AMENDMENT Harvey reported the planning office requested additional information on the case and suggested tabling this application to June 19 , 1984 . Harvey opens the public hearing. Pat Fallin moved to continue the public hearing to June 19, 1984, and to table the application by the Aspen Club to June 19, 1984; seconded by David White. All in favor; motion carried. (Roger Hunt arrives in the chambers. ) OLD BUSINESS 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8. 1984 ENDEAVOR LODGE - SPECIAL REVIEW Welton Anderson steps down; he is the architect for the applicant. Penne introduced the application. John Werning, owner of the Endeavor Lodge, went through special review for an expansion to 1: 1 FAR for the Endeavor Lodge and for a complete reconstruction of the building in March of 1983 . At that time he asked for a GMP parking exemption for three employee units. He has since that time re-evaluated the configuration of the lodge and concluded that dorm rooms are not acceptable. He prefers to offer a more traditional lodging experience. Werning wants to modify that special approval to provide larger guest rooms with private baths rather than a dorm room with shared baths . Three small separate bedrooms with shared baths and kitchen facilities for employees will be replaced with a two room employee suite with private bathroom and kitchen, and an employee bedroom located in the lower level of the lodge. The same number of employees may be housed; the number may be less depending on who shares the suite. The housing office supports the new configuration, it is a better living situation for employees. Penne clarified that the employee unit at the lower level is an addition. Welton Anderson, architect for the applicant, has submitted a series of drawings to the building department. The building department checked the drawings for compliance with FAR. In the last submission by Anderson there was an employee unit located at the lower level . Prior to the review by the Commission in 1983 , there was no deed restricted housing at the Endeavor. That is still the situation since the construction has not occurred. This change is all right, even though only two employees will be housed. Two deed restricted employee housing units are being generated in a location where there are presently none. The ratios of the types of space according to internal FAR require- ments are presented in the memo of March, 1983, and in the present proposal . Both comply with the internal FAR requirements of the L-3 zone. There is a change in a lounge space, this 320 square foot space is being moved downstairs and totals 1, 250 square feet. The building department determined that since this is accessory space to the primary use and is subgrade, the space will not be counted in FAR. There is one stairway which accesses the lower lounge that the building department concluded is encroaching into the side yard setback . The applicant 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8. 1984 may need a variance from the Board of Adjustment. The planning office recommends approval of the new plans. The FAR will still be 1:1 . The expansion in the new configuration is two employee housing units, one being a suite and the other a bedroom; and the lodge room over the dormitory configuration. One condition of approval is a variance be obtained from the -Board -of Adjustment if there is a setback encroachment . Four additional conditions are conditions of the former approval (listed as numbers two through five on page two of the planning office ' s memorandum, dated May 8, 1984) . Anderson presents floor plans . He describes the old and new plans. The present configuration houses four people, the proposed altered configuration will house two people . The number of guests will be reduced because the type of operation will be changed. The net room count of the new proposal remains the same. A former lounge becomes a guest room. The lounge is replaced by a lounge four times its size located at the subgrade level with amenities such as a common kitchen. There is little change in the shape of the building. This will be signed off by the zoning enforcement officer. Hunt asked if the subgrade lounge is counted in open space. Anderson said it is not counted. Hunt asked if the original lounge which was included in the nonrental space has been taken out completely. Anderson said it has been added into other areas. A hallway has been widened. The amenities are concen- trated downstairs instead of in two locations . The amenities are not counted in FAR. But the internal FAR is as per code. Harvey asked if the parking is being changed. Anderson said no. Harvey noted the loss is one employee room. The new plan offers a suite (with a bedroom and living room) , and a one-bedroom; three bedrooms are in the old proposal . Is there a bathroom on the lower level for the employee? Anderson replied there is a bathroom which is off the sauna that the employee will be able to use. Harvey asked the applicant if this is going to work. Werning responded yes, it is much better. Even the housing authority agrees with the new design. Harvey noted that the letter from Bill Drueding does not address the employee room at the subgrade level. 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Nay 8, 1984 Harvey asked if the applicant has any problem with the five conditions. Anderson felt the condition one is superfluous. It is the building department who directs the applicant to go to _the Board of Adjustment for a variance . It already has been reviewed by the building department. Harvey said the Commission does not want to send the applicant to the Board if he does not have to go . Anderson said the Commission does not send anyone to the Board of Adjustment. Harvey suggested attach a condition which says a variance be obtained from the Board of Adjustment for a stairway to the lounge area "if it is required by the building department then the applicant has to go to the Board of Adjustment. " Anderson argued that the stairway is an exit from the lounge area as per code, most stairways at grade or below grade can encroach on the setbacks. Harvey said that is a question for the building department to rule on. Hunt asked if, the Endeavor is ever condominiumized in the future, is the lounge area going to be kept track of. Penne replied yes . That is not a problem. She referred to the review of March, 1983, to make sure there is the same number of rooms . This will be kept to check against for future condominiumization. Roger Hunt moved to approve the new plans for the Endeavor Lodge expansion to a 1: 1 FAR and that the approval for a growth management plan exemption for employee housing be amended to two units with the conditions (as outlined in the planning office memo dated May 8, 1984, page two) : 1. A variance be obtained from the Board of Adjustment for the stairway to the lounge area if required by ci :wilding department. 2 ._ _ The applicant obtain an Encroachment License to retain the five parking spaces in the Hopkins Avenue right- of-way. 3 . The applicant be required to join any area improvement district in the event one is formed. If an improvement district results in the loss of parking spaces they must be replaced in the alleyway. 4 . A final plat of the reconstructed lodge be filed. 5 . The applicant will submit deed restrictions for the 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8, 1984 employee unit which will be approved as to form by the city attorney before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new lodge units. Seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor ; motion carried. OLD BUSINESS ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE PUD Anderson returns to his seat on the Commission. Chuck Brant from Holland and Hart reported on the current status of the project. The bankruptcy court approved the state's plan about three weeks ago to specifically authorize the sale of the hotel and other lands to Commerce Savings. Hans Cantrup asked that that decision be reviewed by Judge Gueck. Cantrup requested a stay on the closing on the grounds that he did not concur with the bankruptcy court judge ' s plan of approval and wanted to make an appeal before the court of appeals. Judge Gueck did not grant the stay but said if Cantrup could come up with a four million dollar surety bond, that Gueck would grant the stay. Cantrup was unable to do that. Last week Cantrup took the appeal of the stay decision to the U. S. District Court. Judge Matche, only hearing oral arguments, was sympathetic to Cantrup's situation. The judge agreed Cantrup had a great deal to lose if the plan and property closed as approved. The judge granted Cantrup a stay without bond. His clients were scheduled to close yesterday but because of the stay his clients have not closed. He will be appealing that stay, that is the bankruptcy estate will within the next thirty days. There is a move for an expedited hearing on that appeal . He is doing everything he can within the courts to overcome the stay . That appeal will be a full appeal for the entire plan as it is approved. He is optomistic that the judge who granted the stay after reading the briefs , hearing a review of the entire appeal , will see it his clients ' way and approve the plans. If he is successful in the appeal the property will close in forty-five days at the outside . If the appeal is not successful then the case would be remanded to the bankruptcy court. What appears to bother the federal court of appeals judge is the situation with chief executive officer. The judge is used to seeing a trustee or debtor in possession making the full arrangements. The plan is a combination of those two. Brant thinks the objection can be overcome . However , if Brant is not successful and the case is remanded to the bankruptcy court, the likely scenario would 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8, 1984 be the removal of and the appointment of a trustee. Meanwhile, not to lose momentum, his clients are proceeding before the Commission and next Monday night before Council. They are continuing with the condominium legal work , the securities work on the hotel, etc. Hunt asked if the condominium legal work includes the hotel . Brant replied yes. Hunt asked if something has changeu or is the concept of the condo hotel the same as approved by the SCC. Brant answered it is the same concept as the condo hotel. Pardee asked if the creditors have to be paid before Cantrup receives anything. Brant answered yes. At this point the secured creditors are fully paid. The unsecured creditors are approximately 16% . Taddune asked what if the appeal is settled. Brant said the unsecured creditors would still have to receive 100% payment before Cantrup received anything in a settlement. I. RESOLUTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS OF THE ASPEN MT PUD Sunny Vann, planning office, stated the two items for discussion: the resolution on the residential components of the Aspen Mountain PUD and a detailed discussion of the applicants ' revised employee housing proposal . The residential component is scheduled for discussion before Council at next Monday' s meeting, therefore the Commission should concentrate on the resolution first. If there are significant changes then the resolution will be delayed. All the concerns that have been raised to date have been addressed. The conditions the Commission has not seen in detail are conditions eleven through fifteen on page three. The remainder of the resolution is essentially identical with exception to some changes in the punctuation. Conditions eleven through fifteen deal with the specific requirements imposed upon 700 South Galena. He has met with J. D. Muller who represents some adjacent property owners in discussing the terms of these conditions as they relate to the memorandum which Muller submitted to the Commission. Unless Muller is here tonight with some additional changes, Muller 's concerns have been satis- factorily addressed. Vann has not discussed the wording with the applicants . They may or may not have objections to the specif ics. 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Nay 8. 1984 Condition eleven reflects the awareness of some subsurface soils and slope stabilities drainage issues associated with 700 South Galena. The request is that the applicants provide a preliminary investigation as part of the PUD subdivision submission so the appropriate conditions, if any, can be attached to this project. The reason the conditions attached to the Cantrup proposal are not attached to this proposal is that this is a revised application. The extent of the site may not be modified as much as by the Cantrup proposal . However , the adjacent landowners are very concerned that any problems identified are expressly conditioned as part of conceptual approval. Therefore, language is included that states that the Commission ' s recommendation to Council is expressly conditioned upon the applicants mitigation of the various problems that may be identified at preliminary PUD submis- sion. Preliminary soils and water table investigations will be submitted to the Commission as part of the applicants' preliminary PUD submission. Harvey said this condition does not read well, it reads conceptual approval is expressly conditioned upon the applicants ' mitigation, in other words the applicants response to a preliminary report. Vann clarified the condition, additional information is wanted at the preliminary level . If there are problems identified then the Commission' s conceptual approval is expressly conditioned upon the mitigation of the problems. The Commission is not requiring mitigation by preliminary PUD. The Commission is saying that a preliminary investigation may turn up problems. The Commission may identify problems. The engineering department may place conditions at the preliminary PUD level. The Commission is only acknowledging ahead of time that those problems will be conditions of approval . At this time include in the resolution that the applicants submit additional information. At preliminary PUD, if there are problems, those problems will be made conditions of approval. The adjacent landowners want the Commission to go on record now that if problems do crop up that the applicants will resolve them. This is superfluous language. Harvey said the concern is the preliminary soils and water table investigations. Preliminary is fine if the Commission was dealing with this at a conceptual level . If Vann is saying that the Commission wants details of mitigation to be included in the applicants ' preliminary subdivision submission then the report should be more than a preliminary soils and water table investi- 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8. 1984 gation. Vann explained the distinction that engineering is making. Certain subsurface investigations and soils analyses may identify problems. If the report concludes there are problems it may say how the problems are to be mitigated. The specific details of how those certain type of mitigating methods would be met would not be engineered or designed until final approval . Further soils analysis and further slope work would then be done. Detailed solutions would be developed. Pardee suggested language : "submission of a soils and water table investigation of 700 South Galena site acceptable to the engineering department to include an evaluation . . . " Harvey instructed Vann to delete "preliminary" and add "acceptable to city engineering. " Vann addressed condition twelve. Prior to 700 South Galena the adjacent property owners were required to grant certain construction easements. There were problems in obtaining those easements from the neighbors. When Cantrup faced financial difficulties this came to a halt. A condition of the revised project was that at preliminary level the applicants identify any and all easements that may be required as a result of this current project. Securing those easements is a condition of the issuance of the excavation permit. This solves the adjacent neighbors ' problems. Construction easements may not even be required given the revised nature of the project. Easements are all inclusive, utilities, etc. Vann addressed condition thirteen. The Commission asked for a completion schedule. Once again, this request is redundant. Preliminary PUD submission requires a specific construction schedule. Depending on the nature of that schedule, conditions may or may not be appropriate. Harvey said the request is for language on minimizing damage to surrounding landowners and keeping the construction area under construction for no longer than is necessary. Vann said if the construction schedule becomes extremely extended or has some detrimental effect on the adjacent neighborhood then the Commission can ask the applicants to come back and explain that the conceptual recommendation was based on the applicants expediting this in a timely manner. Condition fourteen is an attempt to address the height problem. It is difficult to phrase because of the nature of elevations . Vann is reluctant to simply make the condition subject to the height as submitted. There is a tendency to misplace the drawings. 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Nay 8. 1984 The condition, therefore, has been set up to restrict the height at the two most obvious locations: the north and south ends. The condition also sets a maximum for height in the other locations. There is one central ridge point measured from natural grade which is about 42 .5 feet. That is not the case across the entire project . Natural grade to the ridge of the roof is easierly measured than from the mid point. A copy of the applicants revised elevations will be recorded. Harvey asked if the heights should be related to the corresponding number in the code. Put in parentheses L-2 height restrictions. Give a point of reference. Harvey asked the resolution reflect where the applicants started in height and where they have evolved to. Vann said he may have noted that . A similar situation exists with the Top of Mill. There is no reference to the height revisions in the Top of Mill "whereas ' s . " It would be awkward to include this in one project but not the other. If the Commission wants that in the resolution there should be a generic "whereas" that states that following the Commission ' s review that specifically the two projects have been revised in response to the planning office ' s and the Commission's comments on height. Anderson suggested "whereas, after initial conceptual review, the 700 South Galena project has been reduced in height by 8 feet, as high as, and 2 .5 feet, as low as, and whereas, . . . " Harvey suggested the maximum heights be recorded on the final plat. Harvey asked that the height be kept track of by adding something in the resolution; as shown in the applicants revised elevations. . .to be noted and recorded on the final plat. Hunt said on the advice of the city attorney that in condition nine "Summit Street" should be identified as "Summit Street right-of-way. " Wells said the city will get the right-of-way in any case. The extension of the street is at the city ' s option. Vann said the condition of approval is that the city get an easement . Hunt asked about the extension of what is there. Vann clarified the applicants do not have the ability to grant that, it is on other people ' s property . The applicants have agreed to give an easement on their property, the city at its own discretion can extend the street. Hunt asked if the applicants have already agreed to retain the right-of-way. Vann said yes. They will identify this first at preliminary PUD and give the city an easement across their property for purposes of extending the street as the city may choose. 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8. 1984 Harvey asked if condition fifteen handles the concern on Mill Street. Vann said the applicants are going to look with the engineering department at the feasibility of minimizing the jog in the street . Hunt suggested swapping area for area and reduce the sharpness of the road. Pardee questioned the phrase "continuing to explore. " He suggested add that the applicants agree to realign Galena as the engineering department deems appropriate. Pardee addressed condition seven, the issue of increasing the distance between the buildings located at the southern terminus of Mill Street. He directed Vann to include "increase the distance by minimum of eight feet . . . " He spoke to the architect who said he could work with 8 feet, possibly up to 10 or 12 feet. Anderson suggested that the Commission review this at preliminary. Harvey asked if this could be left open until then. Anderson said there may be photographs and models to help judge what this will look like . One may realize that the architect is correct. Harvey said the condition covers the reason why the Commission wants that distance increased, to expand the view. J.D. Muller, representative for the Tipple, reviewed the conditions. His clients still want the heights to be within the underlying zoning . But the Commission has made a decision. The height issue was addressed but his clients do not agree to those heights. The same is true for reduced density . His clients still want to see the density reduced. The Commission last time did not want to recommend that. Russ Pielstick, representative for homeowner Joan Anderman, presented a model . Unfortunately, the contours are off . It gives some idea of the comparison of massing which is one of the considerations in the area. The vertical measurement is off on the hill vice. Jo.bn Doremus, representative for the applicant, said it is inappropriate to look at something that is not factual. He suggested correcting the model and bring it back for the Commission ' s review. Pielstick said the model does give an idea of the relationship of massing, the concern. Vann asked how far is the model off. Pielstick suspected a 20 foot deferen- tial . Joan Anderman, homeowner, said she paid to have the model done. Her house is the lower of the two homes. This is her second go- around. She decided to have a model built . Hans Cantrup' s project was at 32 feet. That was fine. The present project 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8. 1984 is 33 feet. If the applicants do not agree with this model perhaps they can do one. She wants to address the drainage also. Cantrup cut ten feet into her corner. The engineers reported then the land would slough off within three years. At the point the city engineer and Cantrup agreed to fix it. Depending how long the current project will take, the fact is the land is sloughing off. There is only eight or ten feet between the two properties. Harvey asked what was the agreement with the city. Anderman replied that the city was unaware of what Cantrup was doing. Cantrup cut the cliff off . The house is near the cut. She then hired engineers to assess the situation. The engineers reported that a special kind of retaining was needed. Harvey asked if the cut is on her land. Anderman answered the cut is below the property. Vann said this is the same problem 925 East Durant is experiencing. There are holes. There are problems created by the results of prior activity and a prior owner . The present applicants may or may not be able to resolve these problems as part of their work. Cantrup is not available for recourse. He does not know how to get compliance. He will explore this with the city attorney and city engineer . Doremus noted his clients cannot touch the property. The soils engineers will come up with the answers. Vann said the immediate solution is a problem for the city to get compliance under Cantrup or the estate. The Alpina Haus has some safety problems also with the adjacent hole. He will pass both properties onto the city attorney. Harvey suggested expedite this so some decision can be made as to how to handle the problem. Doremus said the estate is in a legal position to handle an emergency situation. Harvey directed Vann to contact the city attorney and city engineer to see what needs to be done by the estate. Jack Crawford, member of the public, addressed the misconceptions about the height. He is concerned with the size and bulk of the proposed building and its relationship to the surrounding buildings. He presented an elevation drawing. Richie Cohen at the last meeting questioned Crawford ' s measurements of the North of Nell. Crawford double checked the measurements . They are correct . He also presented some photographs taken from a parking lot. The height of the building from that view will block everything in the area to the first building of the Durant. Part of the proposed building is 39 feet with the maximum height at 43 feet and the minimum height 34 feet. The average height is 39 feet. North of Nell along Durant Street is 37 feet high. 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8, 1984 The North of Nell blocks the hill at 37 feet . The proposed building will start at 39 feet and rise to 43 feet . The proposed building is still too high . 700 South Galena is a discreet project, it should be considered as a separate condominium. Other quality condominiums stay within the code . He encourages getting closer to the code . He made suggestions as to how to alter the plans to meet the height requirements in the code . The Blitt ' s duplex is at code height, 28 feet . The Tipple Lodge is 25 feet. As to condition fourteen, leave the language as is that the south facade will be 34 feet, and change the language on the north facade, replace 39 feet with 34 feet; make the maximum height of the entire building 39 feet . That is a reasonable compromise. The height is then more in keeping with the code and the neighborhood . The height will not block so much of the views . Anderman asked why the applicants are receiving more than the allowed height. Vann explained the applicants are requesting to vary the height under a PUD. Remember the planning office and the Commission had a problem with the original height variance requested. The applicants returned with a reduction in height . Based on the spot elevations of the adjacent structures, the majority of the Commission last week agreed that the height reduction was satisfactory. Harvey noted under the PUD designation on this property variances in height are allowed . Anderman argued this is an economic issue with the applicants. She has owned her home for twenty-five years, and her home will be buried, her home will be below the project . If the applicants build at the legal height without the variance, her home will be safe . Vann replied that the material submitted last week clearly indicates that the Anderman home is not below the proposed structure but above the roofline of the structure. The model is disceptive as presently prepared . One concern with the Commission was the fact that the hill houses would remain above the proposed structure . The Anderman home will look down upon the structure . But the structure will not block the Anderman home . The home is twenty feet above the structure . wells restated that there is twenty feet from the Anderman roof to the proposed structure's roof . Anderman argued then the difference is eight feet . Vann said the Anderman floor would be approximately eight feet above this structure ' s ceiling. Anderman argued she has had that home for a long time . She sees no necessity based on economic reasons for someone to change the height . Harvey replied that the Commission does not review 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8. 1984 economic reasons . Anderman asked then why allow three stories . Harvey replied it is a design consideration for the site . Anderson explained the additional height is a trade for less ground coverage. Anderman favored the ground coverage . She is the closest to the building, she is the most effected by the height . The building is ten feet from her window . Doremus contradicted her, the Blitt's duplex is closer with 25 feet between the buildings . Harvey asked if anything has been done with the interior ceiling heights. Anderson said ceiling heights scaled out at 9 feet floor to floor, it is an 8 foot ceiling. Wells said he thought everyone was satisfied with the ceiling height . Pardee supported Crawford ' s thoughts . It appears the Commission feels comfortable with the minimum height of 34 feet, and with the maximum height of 43 feet, and with an average height of 39 feet. Harvey interjected it is a maximum of 39 feet along the north facade . Vann said the height is taken from the crown of the highest point of the ridge . A flat roof measures at 39 feet but a pitched roof provides a better view. Pardee said the Commission and Council have been very stringent on all the other aspects of this PUD. It is one thing to make concessions to have lodge rooms which are drastically needed; it is another thing to favor a structure with a fair amount of mass and with little connection to the lodge . What is the thinking behind the height decision? Harvey summarized the last session. The applicants can accommodate whatever height the Commission deems appropriate by spreading the project out over the site. The applicants by setting the building back from the Tipple properties and by creating more distance and more of an open feeling have consolidated the building . The model does not reflect the steepness of the hill . It was the Commission ' s feeling to lower the north end of the project . The Commission accepted giving the variance on the height according to the regulations in the PUD if the decision achieved a better overall design than what was acceptable. The Commission looked at the open space, 53 feet between the project and the Tipple . The Commission accepted that setback in order to accommodate the Tipple. Doremus said site lines were shown and mass studies were provided. There is a slight hole in the natural grade because Cantrup excavated and cleaned out that area . The project is two or three feet below the curb cut line. That compounds the problem. Five of the surrounding buildings are taller than the proposal . Crawford is exagerating the impacts on the Tipple . Class studies 14 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8. 1984 indicate the project is five or ten feet away from the northern property line . Vann noted one argument was that previous approval was in fact consistent with the requirements of the prior code allowed five foot setbacks lot line to lot line . The argument of additional bedrooms used by Crawford does not effect the size of the project. There are no more additional units . In this case there are less units than the prior approval . There is also a much smaller footprint; usable open space is enhanced with a trade off of additional height . The proposal could be reduced in height, and could be spread out to cover lot line to lot line . A certain amount of density is allowed by right. Wells said the reason the project was modified was to avoid changing the project in any other matter substantially so as not to trigger a reconsideration of the GMP. That is the procedural burden that results from the choice of maximizing the open space, to 40% open space rather than the required 25% open space . To really modify the building any further a GMP revision is necessary . Crawford suggested his modification is no more drastic than the one that has already been done . Vann said assuming the project could be constructed with a reduction in height then Crawford is correct. Crawford said the change is a minor archi- tectural modification similar to what was done last week . It is not true that the GMP would have to be revised . Vann said the revision in the GMP may be true . If the north end is reduced to 34 feet, in order to maintain the same architecture, the building would have to be lowered into ground further on the north side. The building is already below grade with respect to a parking garage . Whether the lowering can work without changing the configuration of the building cannot be determined. The applicants have lowered the building into the ground as much as possible. Whether it can be lowered further remains to be seen . Reducing the building height does not reduce the building proportion. Crawford said the setback as proposed is rather critical to the line of site . There is nothing in the resolution that specifies that . Is it appropriate to put that in to guarantee that the building will be setback where it suppose to be . Otherwise, the developer may choose to locate the building further north which would have a drastic impact. Vann replied that the building has to be built consistent with the way it is shown. Harvey 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8. 1984 asked again if there is any reference to this in the resolution. Vann noted condition eighteen references it : "all material representations of the conceptual PUD subdivision and residential applications not specifically referred to above being made a condition of this approval . " Otherwise, every feature of the project would have to be reiterated to guarantee compliance . These facts are also located in the prior submission . Crawford said he has never seen the submission. There is no site plan on the location of the property attached to the GMP submission. He wants this attached as part of the approval . Vann said there is a site plan attached as part of the GMP submission . It is a condition of approval . Any deviation in any significant part of the site plan will be noted in the preliminary PUD review . It will also be a condition for denial . Harvey again said all the site plans and the representations are documented through the minutes and through the submission. Anderman asked if she paid to have the model redone, would the architects for the project critique it before it is brought to the town meeting . Doremus said all he wants is accuracy . He would be happy to look at it. Anderman is very worried she is going to look at a blank wall . She is the only person who has built a house, has lived there happily, and is not selling . She is not going bankrupt . She has lived there twenty-five years. Vann noted this project is coming back for a public hearing at preliminary PUD . At that time if more detailed drawings indicate the building is not located where the applicants say it was then obviously that is an area of concern for the Commission. They will address this at that time . Now, the Commission is only saying that conceptually the project is all right; the project does not block views . If it turns out that it is blocking Anderman's view, then the Commission will surely consider this . Harvey entertained a motion . Vann suggested because of the minor nature of the changes, the Commission authorize the chairman to sign off the resolution in the planning office . Welton Anderson moved to approve Resolution #84-5 as amended during the public hearing cf Tay 8, 1984; and he further moved that these changes be approved as to form and content by the chairman; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor; motion carried . II. ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE EMPLOYEE HOUSING 16 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning. Commission Liao 8. 1984 (White leaves the chambers .) Vann remembered that the applicants made a brief presentation at the last session on the employee housing solutions . For a number of reasons the planning office did not conduct a detailed review at that time. The planning office has reviewed the material submitted by the applicants. The specifics of Ute City Place need to be discussed . The Commission also needs to resolve among itself whether it is willing to accept the Airport Business Center deed restrictions as a component of the employee housing solution . There is no specific review with respect to that deed restriction . It is the Commission ' s responsibility to pass on to Council a recommendation as to the appropriateness of using those units as part of the solution . Assuming the specifics can be worked out tonight; Vann proposed to draft a resolution for the next regularly scheduled meeting on May 22nd. The resolution would contain specific conditions relating to when deed restriction should be applied, etc . It is still necessary to get beyond the conceptual review: first, is ABC appropriate; and second, are the Ute City Place project specifics acceptable. In reviewing the prior Ute City Place approval, the cleanest way to effectuate a revision to that would be to duplicate the original review process for the new project . The new project is similar to the prior approved project for this property. The existing approval can be maintained, it continues on for a building permit ostensibly to proceed toward construction in the spring . The new proposal would be re-reviewed in the same review process as the original application. Tonight the Commission would be looking, first, at a conceptual subdivision application for the Ute City Place project; and second, at the appropriateness of exempting this project if it is a 100% employee housing from growth management. If that is satisfactory then the Commission can make a recommendation for similar action to Council . At preliminary PUD the Commission can hear the request for rezoning to RBO. (White returns to t he chambers. ) The Commission is being asked to choose between an approved RBO that is heading toward a building permit and possibly con- struction this spring (if not the allocation will be lost) and a very similar project which has been reduced in footprint in overall FAR and is 100% deed restricted as opposed to partially 17 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8, 1984 deed restricted. The property has received a RBO. Harvey asked if this has to be done again for the new proposal . Vann replied that the RBO ordinance runs with the specifics of the project . It is based on a specific analysis of the project . In order to alleviate future potential questions, the cleanest way is simply to re-review the proposed project as to the appro- priateness of a RBO for the current project. It did not occur to his predecessors that someone might need an opportunity to amend a RBO. There is no specific provijion for amendment . That does not mean that a RBO cannot be amended, there is simply no provision for amendment . The simplest solution is to say here is an applicant who would like to propose an alternative project on this site. It is similar to the prior project . It may even better because it provides a 100% employee housing, it is smaller, it impacts less, and it provides more open space. Therefore, the original review should be duplicated and a condition of final approval should be that the prior GMP application be relinquished and returned to the quota. The current proposal is an 100% employee housing with the same mix of units and same number of twenty-two units . The RBO is required to get that number of units . Under existing zoning only half of the number of units are allowed . RBO allows a reduction in minimum lot area in exchange for employee housing. If it made sense to grant a reduction in the minimum lot area to produce half of the units as employee housing, then it makes sense to grant a reduction to produce all the units as employee housing. (Harvey leaves the chambers. ) The question is which project is better : the larger project which cannot be stopped or the reduced project which is more attractive. The RBO is still required to get the FAR. There did not use to be a FAR requirement in the R/MF zone district . The RBO ordinance proposed a 1 : 1 FAR allowing an increase to 1 .25: 1 on RBO projects . The old project was close to that FAR; in the past occupied space was not counted. Remember the FAR regu- lations were amended to include separate units that are habitable . The height of the project is also lowered. As a result, under today ' s rules, the FAR for the revised project is about 1 .09 or 1 .1: 1 and the FAR for the original project is 1 .3 : 1 . There 18 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and zoning Commission May 8. 1984 is a definite reduction in the FAR on the revised project . The RBO is required for the unit count . The parking is increased from 26 to 28 spaces. (Harvey returns to the chambers . ) There are two problems which resulted from the changes in the FAR regulations. First, there did not use to be an open space requirement in this zone district at the time the original project was approved. The original open space was about 130 . The code now requires 350 . Open space is reduceable in RBO by special review as in a PUD. The revised project produces 23% open space which does not meet code . But, there is a provision for reduction. If the Commission directs the applicants to redesign the project to meet the 35% open space requirement, then the old project will simply proceed. It is a question of which is the lesser of two evils . The second consideration is that the original height in the zone district was 28 feet. As a result of the changes in the residential neighborhood R/MF is now 25 feet. This old project was approved at 28 feet. (Anderson leaves the chambers .) There is no provision in the RBO for an increase in the allowable height. He asked the city attorney today how to address this in context of the prior approval . It would not be wise to encourage the building of the other project over the difference in the height . (Anderson returns to the chambers . ) wells said there maybe a variance required . Vann said this project might be construed as part of the overall PUD and PUD regulations allow for height variations. There are many ways to deal with this . He does not have the recommended solution at this time. Since the Commission is going to be reviewing this further, conceptual approval can be subject to the ability to resolve the height problem. Doremus presents drawings to the Commission on the Ute City Place. Vann said the reduction in the size of the project results from reducing the free market units. Rent can only be charged for a certain size unit; there is no point in building free market units which rent cannot be charged for . Wells points out the original footprint . There is a reduction in the footprint on the revised plan. The reduction occurs 19 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 88, 1984 on the alley side. Doremus said this improves the project in several ways. It increases the open space. It allows the patio wells to be widened . He points out on an elevation the old building line and the revised building line . The building was pulled back which allowed the widening of the patio wells . The room mix is exactly the same. The room size is smaller to conform to the guidelines. Vann noted that the project as originally submitted would not be approved today. There is value in the GMP allocation and in proceeding forward for a building permit now. There is a possibility for some economic reason that the project might not go ahead and the allocation would lapse . There is also the possibility of picking up a substantially better project and one which is an ideal solution to part of the employee housing problem: one, because of its proximity to the site; and two, because it is in a multi family area already. It is consistent with the scale of the adjacent buildings . It is located on a bus line . It provides adequate parking at one per bedroom for the employees who reside there. Pardee noticed the applicants have requested moderate income guidelines. Vann said at this point planning office no longer involves itself with the appropriateness of the income guidelines. The housing authority has signed off and endorsed the two alternate proposals and the Ute City Place and its proposed price guidelines for the units based on the information submitted. He does have a letter from Jim Adamski, housing authority, in the file which signs off the proposals . The mix may continue to change as the hotel is refined . The applicants agreed at conceptual to take out 30, 000 square feet from the lodge component . This may change the amount of commercial space, may change the amount of lodge room services, etc. This is a proposal based on the approval to date . At preliminary there may be further refinement on the mix or the actual number of people housed. Hunt asked when does the Commission get to see the mix of the housing proposal as far as low and moderate income. Jim Curtis, consultant for the applicants, replied he is prepared to present that to the Commission this evening. Hunt wants to see the mix. He assumes the Alpina Haus will house lower income. Curtis said the proposal is consistent with the GMP application . The Alpina Haus is all restricted to low income . Vann said the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse combined will house 89 employees or 45% of the applicants ' employee housing commitment . Curtis 20 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8. 1984 noted both _of_ the -projects- are _below the established affordability guidelines . The guidelines are setup based on 30% of one ' s income for rental housing costs. Both projects do not exceed 25% of the employee ' s wages. Both projects are below what the present low income guidelines are. The Ute City Place and the ABC are proposed at a moderate income guidelines which is consistent with what was proposed at the original Benedict-Larkin site . Essentially these projects will house employees who will earn an estimated $15, 000 to $23, 000 per year. Curtis said Ute City Place will house 37 employees, ABC will house 69 employees . Nine units out at the Airport Business Center or 20 people will be price restricted to the low income category. Twenty out of the sixty-nine people out at the Airport Business Center will be price restricted to the low income category. That fulfills the GMP application on 700 South Galena Street. Vann said there are two other employee housing solutions which the Commission has already dealt with. One is the Alpina Haus . The Commission found the solution to be exempt from change in use provisions. The Commission attached certain provisions one of which was to further address the parking issue at preliminary. The second is the Copper Horse. The Copper Horse is an historic structure and is exempt from change in use requirements. But the Commission needs to make a recommendation as to its appro- priateness as being included in the employee housing solution. -Vann suggested the Commission draft a resolution to Council which specifically pertains to the employee housing proposal . State that yes the Commission has exempted from growth management the change in use of the Alpina Haus subject to conditions . State that it is the Commission 's opinion that the Copper Horse is an appropriate component of employee housing solution subject to deed restriction. Parking needs to be addressed at preliminary for both solutions . State the Commission ' s position on the Ute City Place subject to conditions . (He will pull out the conditions of the final approval of the prior proposal, for example, curb cuts, etc. ) State that the Commission recommends conceptual subdivision approval on that particular project . The other aspect of the resolution would be to endorse the Airport Business Center project if the Commission concurs with the solution with conditions . One condition might address how the applicants propose to solve the transportation problem. The Commission might also want to restrict the occupancy of Alpina Haus, Copper Horse, and Ute City Place to hotel employees so that the bulk 21 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8. 1984 of the employees would be housed in town. As a general rule housing that is provided for residential competition is not restricted to a price guideline. Harvey polled the commissioners on the Ute City Place and the RBO rezoning. Hunt expressed one concern with the Ute City Place : the lower units are similar to deep-holed Calcutta spaces and are not designed as moderate income units. Otherwise, he thoroughly favors the plan. Use those less desirable units as low income units. White expressed the same concern about the subgrade units . He also addressed parking. Since Ute City Place is near the Alpina Haus, is there a way to get more parking? Doremus said that is why two more spaces were added. wells said there was discussion whether was anyway to alleviate the Alpina Haus parking problem. He does not believe the one space per bedroom requirement is needed. White supports the RBO. Fallin favored the two issues . Pardee agreed the lower units should be low income. Also low income salaried employees should be within walking distance of the hotel . Anderson expressed no problem with RBO. However, he suggested the lower units be treated similarly to the Larkspur . Doremus requested the opportunity to ameliorate the concerns before the units are priced at low income. Harvey said the RBO is fine . The Commission has always stood by the goal of providing low income housing . The housing authority does make those determinations. It is all right for the applicants to explore alternate designs. But, the mix of units should be determined by the housing authority. The consensus is the Commission instruct the planning office to draw up a resolution stating that the Commission feels the Ute City Place is an appropriate housing solution, that the Commission recommends conceptual subdivision approval, and that the Commission is supportive of a RBO. Pardee remembered the Commission did not want to recommend conceptual approval of 700 South Galena just because it received a GMP. He asked if the Commission has reviewed Ute City Place thoroughly enough. Vann reminded him that the old Ute City Place proposal did receive full subdivision approval . The only thing different with the current proposal is that the present proposal is truncated and is 100% employee housing . It is better . The only issue which Jay Hammond, engineering department, noted is a potential problem in access on Highway 82 . The applicant must secure 22 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Nay 8. 1984 a driveway permit from the State Department of Highways. Conditions of the prior approval address turn movements from that access point to Highway 82. Hammond also requested that the applicants explore other alternatives to the original set of conditions; those can be done between now and preliminary PUD. Vann intends to include this as one of the conditions. There will also be conditions attached to the recommendation of conceptual approval . They will be identical conditions which the Commission attached the last time around . If the Commission feels that there is something that may have changed since the last time the Commission reviewed this application, the Commission can go through the review process again. But they are identical projects with the exception of the reduction on the footprint. Vann will draft a framework from which the Commission can work with the issues. Pardee is uncomfortable not looking at the current proposal . The Commission is agreeing to the current proposal only because the Commission looked at a similar proposal before. This is not part of the PUD parcel but it is part of the approval f or the larger PUD. Vann suggested the applicants put up site plans and elevations at the time the resolution is reviewed. If there are any questions at that time the engineering department will be here to comment . By then engineering will have reviewed this. He will also present to the Commission the three conditions of the prior application. He proposed to take the conditions of final approval from the earlier application and attach them at this stage to this proposal . The project will be identical throughout the entire process. Hunt said the problem is not with the housing authority ' s mix as far as numbers are concerned, but with location. He has great reservations about the location of low income units at ABC. He wants to see low income units in town. Vann suggested a condition agree with the mix and price guidelines established by the housing authority. The Commission can request the applicants re-evaluate the distribution of those units under the guidelines as a condition of conceptual approval . Give the applicants an opportunity to address the problems. Harvey noted the ABC units, based on page four of the letter from Jim Curtis, one-bedroom units are 550 square feet, two- bedroom units are 750 square feet. White preferred as much employee housing in town including the 23 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8. 1984 lower income units. The lower income employees will not have cars . He wants the building to be a mix of income levels . Hunt argued there is not a convenient transportation system at the ABC. That is the problem. Harvey argued the level of convenience of the transportation system is determined by the carpooling and vans the hotel provides and the bus system. Harvey said include something on the Commission' s concern about the distribution of the mix in the resolution. Vann proposed to include in the resolution the circumstances surrounding Alpina Haus and Copper Horse and the conditions which have been placed upon them by the Commission. He plans to send a complete packet to Council on the employee housing . The Commission adresses the appropriateness of the ABC units. Harvey said the issue with ABC is the confusion over the word "metro . " Although the Commission has said the "metropolitan" area is the proper place for employee housing, many commissioners are now indicating differentiating areas within the metropolitan area. Vann said it would be helpful to define the nature of the problem with ABC from the commissioners. Price or mix is not a problem if the distribution is resolved. The only issue the planning office raised as to the appropriateness of ABC is transportation. It can be argued that ABC is already serving employee housing functions, and, therefore, employees are being dislocated . This dislocation has to be balanced in a way that the housing authority addresses the problem: there is no guarantee the ABC units will service employees in the future. It has always been the policy to deed restrict units which are currently built to guarantee the availability of employee housing and which have no negative impacts on the growth rate. There is an application pending before the county for consideration of condominiumizing the ABC. The units are functioning already at a price level that is becoming less competitive with the rental market place in town. The units are full during the peak season and vacant during the off season because of the price structure. The units are becoming less long term housing. ABC is not comparable with Castle Ridge and Centennial Phase IV. The owners of ABC are already looking at ways of converting these units to condominiums . The depreciation on the rental 24 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8. 1984 units is finished. The units have been there for a considerable amount of time. There is a good chance the ABC units will disappear from the rental pool . There is now the opportunity to deed restrict half of the ABC units for fifty years and to provide the units at a rental level which are lower than is what currently charged at ABC now. Anderson expressed no problem with the ABC alternative with the exception of the transportation. The applicants ' solution is ambitious . It is the proper approach. Harvey said the premise is that people have been living out there already and have been driving to town or downvalley . There is no new construction which would impact the highway or increase usage on the highway. It is good the applicants can consolidate the transportation. Historically many buildings built as employee housing have made mistakes . After a period of time the depreciation is gone, and a time comes when owners need to figure out what to do with the units, for example, condo- miniumize. Subsequently, the units are withdrawn from the rental market. Pardee said if this were the only proposal by the applicants he would oppose it. But the fact that two-thirds of the employees will be in town mitigates some of his concerns. What are the other alternatives? He does not like restricting units that are already rented close to what is in effect employee rentals. However, the units are getting older . The market is bearing what it can. The Commission is not changing the price structure much deed restricting the units. The opportunity for housing 69 employees elsewhere is relinquished . On the other hand, the applicants are providing legitimate employee housing in town . The applicants can mitigate transportation problems by returning at preliminary with a transportation schedule commit- ment . But the city is not gaining any employee housing with this solution. He prefers to look at other alternatives. Two- thirds of the employee housing solution is acceptable. Wells cited Hunter Creek . This was a rental project which the owner received the right to condominiumize. It would be desirable now to buy the units and deed restrict them. Pardee favored someone buying the units, and not deed restrict but rent them. Wells said that is what will happen at ABC. Pardee did not think so. ABC is not close to town. There are no views. Vann said the ABC units would have to be improved just like Hunter 25 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planninu and Zoning Commission May 8. 1984 Creek. The idea at ABC is to get permission to build additional row houses . Economic reasons are driving the owners to submit an application for condominiumization. He assumed the owners would upgrade the facilities with cosmetic treatment, like Hunter Creek, and sell the units . Pardee said the real question is how much will the units sell above the guidelines. Harvey argued the issue is the units will be outside of the guidelines and they will not be controlled. Pichie Cohen, consultant for the applicants, remembered these units are being deed restricted for fifty years. Given today' s circumstance, the units are renting slightly above the guidelines. What is the price going to be in five years when Centennial is finished? What is the price going to be when there is a real demand again for employee housing, and the city has lost control of the Airport Business Center? Fallin is opposed to the ABC solution. She does not favor the distance from town. The applicants have not made any effort to put any employees on-site . The applicants ' argument is that square footage on the PUD has been reduced by 76 , 000 square feet, and, consequently, there is no room for employee housing on-site . The applicants have not resolved this issue. She wants more employee housing within the city limits. White concurs with Fallin and Pardee. ABC is not in Aspen metro. Harvey interjected according to the definition of "metro" ABC is within Aspen metro area . White continued . He _supported the other three proposals in town. He would like to see the same thing with ABC. He will be more lenient toward ABC if it is proven the applicants have exhausted all alternatives . Doremus emphatically said the applicants will never consider building something new. The applicants do not want to go through the constant hassle with height, bulk, density, etc. Building new units is not viable. Also, there are no opportunities to build. Vann said in all fairness to the applicants the code does not discriminate against off-site locations . It is unfair if the applicants provide off-site housing and the Commission turns around and says off-site housing is not an acceptable component of the housing solution . If the Commission wants to phrase the objection in some other terms, for example, the commuting time, be advised phrase the objection that way. 26 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8, 1984 White replied then transportation is the reason for his objection. Curtis asked if the issue is the impact on Highway 82 . White is talking about the impact on Highway 82; talking about the employees checking in at 2 : 00 in the morning; talking about at least eight employee parking spaces on-site; etc. Curtis asked if white agrees by operating a shuttle into a common location that the impact on Highway 82 will be reduced. white said he does not disagree from a conceptual point of view. He disagrees based on actuality. Curtis replied that translates into impact on Highway 82, there is an inconsistency in his statement . White said the transportation impacts have not been mitigated to his satisfaction. Curtis argued the applicants are reducing the impacts. Vann said the clear issue is transportation. There are measures which the applicants can take which will reduce the transportation implications associated with housing some of the people in that location. One way to deal with this is to restrict the occupancy at ABC to a minimal number of hotel employees. Locate the bulk of hotel employees in town. If the applicants house off-site outside of downtown, employees for 700 South Galena or the hotel, the propensity for increased traffic is probably greater than if the employees are housed in town. There is no way at this point to determine how many will ride the van, will drive to town and park illegally, etc . It is reasonable to say that the transportation implications will be different between in and out of town . The applicants have taken a position to try to mitigate problems. Another way to address the issue is to restrict the occupancy in town to hotel employees. Doremus asked the Commission to consider the employee . The ABC apartments are quite nice . It is an attractive place to live, more attractive than anything else . If the applicants relinquish the ABC solution, and if there even was another choice, the alternative would be less attractive from an employee ' s perspective. Not everybody wants to live on Cooper or Highway 82 . Not everybody wants to live in something like the Alpina Haus. There is a need for a mix. ABC is nice housing. The applicants will fight very hard for ABC, it is preferable housing. Hunt shares Pardee ' s and Fallin ' s concern . However, he also agrees with Doremus ' argument. But the only way the Airport Business Center would be acceptable to him, and the only way he could conceptually think of the project in the metro area, 27 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8. 1984 is if the project has the same level of transportation service as the Water Plant Housing or Cemetery Lane . That does not eliminate the solution of a shuttle service to serve the hotel employees . That means there be the level of transportation that the other areas enjoy. Vann said this is impossible . The route which services the Airport Business Center, the downvalley route, provides a different interval than the city bus service. Hunt replied then that is a problem. Harvey said the problem can theoretically be mitigated depending on the employees schedule. Harvey noted his problems . He would like to see housing in town or on-site. The applicants have to solve the transportation. But he agreed with Doremus . He has encountered the problem of employee housing with the Hotel Jerome. Employee housing cannot be located all at one place . Employee housing has to be mixed. Employee housing has to work for the employee. The reason for employee housing is to encourage employees to stay. If good employee housing is provided an employee will stay . He likes the mix of the four projects. In summary the Commission' s position is: two favor the solution, one needs to have the transportation solved, two opposed . It appears there is not a consensus vote on the employee housing unless ABC is further discussed. Cohen commented that some arguments have been based on that there are other alternatives and that the applicants have not exhausted the alternatives . There are parcels of land that could conceivably work as employee housing if the parcels receive the kinds of zoning changes that had been available before. The Council will not permit those kinds of changes. What might be a logical site becomes absolutely unworkable. The Benedict- Larkin site was dependent on a zoning change which the Council was reluctant to grant. The planning office made certain recommen- dations . That project did not work at all within the price guidelines . The neighborhood revolted . Between fifteen and twenty possible projects have been analyzed. ABC works. Wells commented that before serious consideration was given to Ute City Place, there was a question of whether prior approval of the Ute City Place was still in effect . He is confident if the prior approval is not still in effect, this Council will never approve it . The prior approval provides the leverage to make Ute City Place work. 28 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 8. 1984 Doremus asked if the Snowmass county bus runs every hour on the hour . Harvey replied the service changes during the year . Fallin noted there is a charge also. Hunt suggested the applicants approach the transportation authority and lobby support to service ABC. What good is it to shuttle employees back and forth, and then later the employee has to take his car to town? Doremus said the buses run on the hour every hour during peak season. Pardee suggested a condition that the applicants satisfy the transportation issue. His concern is philosophical . He does not think the city is gaining any employee housing. Cohen' s argument is valid. Five years from now Aspen may experience only 6% increases, and everyone else 80 , that is a sizeable difference . That needs to be considered. He does not have the answers. what happens with future applicants? What happens to next year 's GMP? Harvey said a problem has been created. The inventory of low housing is being eaten up. Employee housing was created to avoid a discrepancy. But the results will be two types of housing: the very rich and the regulated housing; there will no housing in between. Pardee said then anything that is not restricted will sell quickly; this supports Cohen' s argument. Vann reiterated the housing authority supports the entire solution. They are a recommending referral body. The Commission has no review authority with regards to ABC other than recommending its appropriateness. This is same authority the housing authority has. He suggested the Commission put a resolution together. If the Commission cannot resolve the ABC, then include denial of this solution, include the housing authority ' s opinion, and then Council can resolve the issue. State the Commission is divided on this issue . The applicants are not in a position at this time to look for other solutions . Harvey agreed to the resolution with the understanding there is dissension . Curtis said John McBride is in before the county for condominium- ization. McBride argues he is consciously raising the rents, and, therefore, there are more vacancies than a year ago. Clearly McBride is mandating a certain level of vacancies because it is in his best interest. How many people would one be placing in three to five years if McBride continues along that procedure? (Anderson leaves the chambers. ) Harvey suggested Jim Adamski be present at the next meeting. 29 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning_ anI Zoning Commission May 8. 1984 Hunt asked if any other commissioners support his proposal on transportation. Vann said the applicants may have no ability to affectuate this. Doremus replied the applicants do not want to take responsibility for this. Harvey said there is a level of traffic on the highway during the peak season that emanates from that housing because that housing exists. There is currently no control over the amount of traffic impact on the highway. The applicants will improve the traffic situation on the highway if they come up with a reasonable plan for shuttling their employees which revolves around shifts, changing at the hotel or some format. To mandate that the service at a certain level according to the clock is the wrong way to handle the problem. Hunt reiterated ABC, to be valid employee housing, has to have the same services as provided to employees within the close metro area. Vann said then the code needs to be amended as the acceptableness of metro housing because there are metro locations that have no service whatsoever. wells reminded the Commission that the ABC may not house hotel employees, the extraction required is in association with the residential GriP proposal not necessarily with lodge employees. Vann suggested the Commission think about why it put "metro" in the GMP application. That is a recognition on the Commission' s part that there are very few sights politically acceptable in the local area. White encouraged more attention be given to the overall transpor- tation plan for the valley. The Commission needs to provide some input on this issue . Perry Harvey adjourned the meeting at 7: 30 p.m. ��J/li Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk 30