Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840522 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22, 1984 Vice Chairman Melton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5 : 03 p.m. with commissioners Pat Fallin, Lee Pardee, and Roger Hunt present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Hunt asked about the satellite dish at KSPN. Anderson answered a smaller dish will be located on the Floradora building. Leslie Lee, planning office, presented to the commissioners sketch plan notebooks and a tenative schedule of long range planning. NEW BUSINESS EAST HOPKINS TOWNHOMES SPECIAL REVIEW Anderson said the first item of new business is East Hopkins Townhome special review. Richard Grice, planning office, said he would not provide a lengthy explanation of the East Hopkins Townhome complex . It has been reviewed enough through the GIIP processes that the Commission should be familiar enough with the project. There are four subsequent reviews necessary before the Commission tonight. Of the four, the second one (special review for FAR bonus ) , the Commission has final authority on. The Commission is the recommending body on the other three. First, with respect to the GMP exemption on part of the employee units, the applicant has committed to deed restricting the three studio units to the middle income category and the three two bedroom units to the low income category as recommended in the original application. The housing authority has reviewed and has recommended approval subject to five conditions listed on page one of the memorandum from the planning office, dated May 22, 1984 . Second is the special review for the FAR bonus. The FAR in the C-1 zone district is 1:1. However, an additional .5:1 is permitted provided that at least . 3 of the additional .5: 1 is employee housing. In this case, the applicant exceeds the requirement . .43 of the additional .5 is employee housing. Approval of this request is appropriate. Third is subdivision exception with condominiumization. There 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22. 1984 is no problem. The site is currently vacant. The only standard condition is to attach from Section 23 .3 the six month minimum lease restriction. The last three conditions of the motion, six, seven, and eight listed on page three of the May 22nd memor- andum, are standard subdivision exception conditions. Finally, the special review for employee housing parking reduction, the code does not require off-street for the permitted uses of the C-1 zone district. The parking requirements for restricted units are established by special review. In this case, the applicant is requesting that he be exempted from the parking requirement for the employee housing units. He is providing some on-site parking unless those six parking spaces are to be restricted to use by the professional office/townhorile units, two per unit . Poss argues in his application that the unique concept of the project which is living and working in the same place provides an auto disincentive. Grice adds that the project is very close to the commercial core and mass transit . There will be some adverse impact on the on-street parking, but that is the trade-off necessary to obtain employee housing. Grice recommends that the Commission recommend approval of this request also. Roger Hunt moved to recommend approval of the GMP exemption for employee units, subdivision exception for condominiumization, and special review for exemption from the employee parking require- ments, and further moved to grant special review approval for the FAR bonus to an FAR of 1 .5 :1, subject to the following condi- tions: 1 . The three two-bedroom employee units shall be deed- restricted to the 1984 price and income guidelines for the low income category. 2 . The studios shall be deed-restricted to the 1984 price and income guidelines for the middle income category and the proposed 450 square foot units shall be increased to a minimum of no less than 500 square feet (the applicant will provide an additional 50 square feet of storage space per unit subgrade) . 3 . The standard of 50 year deed restriction shall be placed on the employee units, and documentation of the applicant ' s agreement to the housing restrictions shall be signed with the housing authority and filed 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting_ Planning and Zoning Commission May 22, 1984 with the city of Aspen prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4 . In the event of condominiumization, the employee units will be sold within the price and income guidelines that apply at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy and that a resale agreement shall be drawn up by the applicant and submitted to the housing authority for its approval. 5 . There shall be a contractual agreement in the resale agreement that if any of the employee units are sold to an employee employed on-site and that employee' s employment should terminate, the unit shall remain restricted to the respective low or middle income guidelines for rental and the employer shall have the first option to buy back the unit. 6 . The applicants shall prepare a plat meeting the final condominium plat requirements of Section 20 -15 to be approved by the city engineer prior to recording. 7 . The applicants shall prepare a "Statei;tent of Subdivision Exception" to be approved by the city attorney prior to recording, including a limitation that all residential units shall be restricted to six month minimum leases, with no more than two shorter tenancies per year . 8 . The applicants shall agree to join any improvement districts which may be formed in the area in the future. Seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. NEW BUSINESS OUTDOOR DINING SPECIAL REVIEW POUR LA FRANCE AND ROARING FORK & SPOON Lee made the presentation . The two restaurants have made a joint application for special review to do outside seating during the summer months. Both restaurants are in the commercial core. Pour La France which has a total of 1,586 square feet of open space is requesting that 207 square feet be utilized for outdoor seating. Roaring Fork & Spoon is requesting 300 square feet of its 790 square feet of open space be utilized for outdoor seating. 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22, 1984 There are no problems or comments from other departments. Engi- neering ' s one concern is that in the original Pour La France site plan the landscape planter was in the right-of-way. That has been changed . The planter area is all within private property. In both cases there is no encroachment into the right- of-way. There is ample room for access and circulation. The table placement was not designated however on the plan. There is plenty of room for seating and still have the ability for access to the building. Planning office recommends approval for both cases to utilize open space for the additional outdoor seating. Pardee said this application is unique. There are two applicants who are not connected submitting one application. Do the applicants save in the fee? Lee said yes . Pardee said this is a smart move. fie suggested advising other applicants to do the same . Lee approached all the restaurants in the beginning of the year who previously had outdoor seating. She told the restaurants of the attempt to formalize the approval process. She encouraged them to pair up if they are interested in the outdoor seating. These are the only two that did apply. Richman noted that the Commission is the approving body. Lee said in the past the process has been haphazard. Anderson noted that Council gave a license on the mall for outdoor seating. Richman said the mall is another issue. These issues are addressing required open space. Pardee said one the citizen ' s biggest complaints is the cost of processing applications . If applicants can apply and be reviewed together then this should be encouraged. Richman commented these two applicants did have a common request, there is a rela- tionship. - - -- -- - - - - - - Fallin asked where the drawings are for the Pour La France, there are no drawings in the packet. Lee presents drawings for Pour La France. She explains that the present design does not encroach. The applicant chose not to encroach at this time because he thought the review process might be too lengthy. The applicant did not want to miss any of the summer season. John Bennett, Pour La France applicant , said this is something he may come back for two years from now. The original idea was to put planting 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22. 1984 along the curb and still maintain a 12 foot wide sidewalk but it became too complicated. Hunt asked if the lower patio of the Roaring Fork & Spoon is or will be used for dining- -Le-e _answered no, the lower patio is used only as an entry. Anderson supported on the last statement of the planning office ' s recommendation : "furthermore, we think this type of outdoor cafes use adds greatly to the viability of streetlife and pedestrian experience which is so important to Aspen. " Roger Hunt moved to grant approval to Pour La France and the Roaring Fork & Spoon restaurants to utilize the requested open space for outdoor restaurant seating areas . The additional commercial square footage would be usable only in the warm months of the year . tie feel that outdoor cafes actually enhance rather than detract from the usability of private open space as proposed by the two applicants . Furthermore, we think that this type of outdoor cafe use adds greatly to the viability of streetlife and pedestrian experience which is so important to Aspen. Seconded by Lee Pardee. All in favor; motion carried. Debbie Seguin, Roaring Fork & Spoon applicant, asked if those people who did not apply and are clearly in violation of the code will be cited. Richman said those businesses will not have the ability to operate unless they get their approval . Seguin said there are businesses operating now. She cited Aspen Bar and Grill . Seguin asked if someone has to complain for action to be taken. Anderson said she just complained and it is noted in the record. The building enforcement officer will be notified of this. Lee said she would give Drueding a call . Fallin asked if the Commission can extend a resolution requesting Drueding to take action against the violators . Richman said the planning office will simply communicate this to him. NEW BUSINESS ROUSH EXEMPTION FROM MANDATORY PUD Lee presents site plans. Barry Edwards, city attorney, said the project is about 75, 000 square feet. It is located between Jim Perry' s house and Anne Austin' s old house. It has a marble, granite exterior . 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22, 1984 Lee said that architect David Finholm is representing the owners. The request is for a special review to get an exemption from mandatory PUD, and to change the single family building which is under construction to a duplex. The site is in the R-30 PUD zone . The lot is 78, 000 square feet . The allowable buildable square footage for the zone is 30 , 000 square feet. A duplex is allowed by right. Finholm did a slope reduction analysis to check how much of the site could not be utilized for density calculation. The result, which she confirms, is 61,000 square feet. Pardee said that in the past the Commission has requested a surveyor make the calculations and verify the figures with a seal of approval . He has never seen a slope reduction which was not done by a surveyor . Anderson argued this is pretty straight forward. Lee said it is a moot point, a duplex in this zone is allowed 30, 000 square feet, 15, 000 per unit. The figure is doubled what is needed. Lee recommends approval with a condition that the owners grant a trail easement 15 feet in width through the property along the west side. The site is within the Pitkin County and Aspen Trails Master Plan. The specific alignment would be determined later . She called Michael 11'1anchester , the project manager , who said the owners would probably agree with this condition . Larry Edwards, commenting as a private citizen not as a city attorney in any capacity, said this house was a subject of sub- stantial litigation among neighbors last September when the construction first commenced. It is a huge house. It is next door to the house owned by Jim Perry who Edwards represented in the litigation. There is some neighborhood feeling about whether or not houses ought to be allowed to duplex in that area. It is clear under city code and city procedures that duplexes are allowed in the area . The city ' s policy is that area is zoned for duplexing and given enough land area duplexing can be done. There are private covenants which have been drawn into question in that subdivision which prohibit duplexing . The neighbors are Don Kopp and Carolyn Ann Jacobson who live on lot four, Jim Perry, Donna and Tommy Iocanno, Patricia ____ and her husband, Construction, the Aspen Community School, and others. These neighbors have not been consulted about this request by anyone . They are not required to be notified at this stage, but it is Edward' s request as a citizen that the neighbors 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22. 1984 at least be notified of this request and be given the opportunity to come in and respond to the request. Pardee remarked it is not within the Commission' s purview to enforce restrictive covenants . He cannot imagine even if a notice of a public hearing was posted that the Commission would vote any differently. This application is clear cut. Someone bought a piece of land in a R-30 zone with a mandatory PUD. Neighbors ' comments would not make a difference. He visited the site, it is horrendous . But the job of the Commission is to enforce zoning regulations. There are eight criteria to consider for exempting someone from mandatory PUD. A single family unit does not have the impact that a regular PUD has. Edwards agreed the city ' s policy is not to get involved in the enforcement of private covenants. Pardee was prepared to vote. Hunt concurred with Pardee. Fallin opposed Pardee ' s comments . She was going to move to table the application. This house is absolutely atrocious . Pardee argued that the Commission is not an architectural review committee. The building is within setbacks, within height require- ments, etc . The Commission is here to enforce zoning codes. If the applicant meets the eight criteria he is entitled to an exemption from mandatory PUD. Anderson concurred with Pardee and Hunt. Fallin would vote no. Anderson said the neighborhood is responsible for enforcing the covenant opposing duplexing, the Commission cannot do that . There are no reasons for denying the request . Hunt may not like the project, but he will have to vote in favor. Lee Pardee recommended approval of duplexing of the single family residence located on Lot 6 of the Castle Creek Subdivision and of exempting the project from mandatory PUD. The proposed duplex meets the objectives of a planned unit development and does not appear to create any additional impact on the site and or the surrounding area. As a condition of approval, it is recommended that a trail easement, fifteen feet in width on the eastern side of the property bordering Castle Creek, be dedicated by the owners to the city of Aspen. The 1973 and updated 1979 Aspen- Pitkin County Trails Master Plan identifies a proposed bicycle trail alignment to be located on the west side of Castle Creek and, therefore, passes through the applicant' s property. Seconded 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22, 1984 by Roger Hunt. Discussion . Hunt reinforced Fallin ' s position. He does not necessarily disagree with her negative vote. The rationale for her vote is that the approval is not in the best interest of the community. Those are in the basic overall guidelines for this Commission. There are very valid reasons for her position. Anderson called for a roll call vote : Lee Pardee, aye; Pat Fallin, nay; Welton Anderson, aye; and Roger Hunt, aye. Motion carried. Bil Dunaway, publisher for the Aspen Times, asked if one of the eight conditions is compatibility with the neighborhood . Fallin said the project does increase the impacts on the site . Pardee said the footprint already exists . Dunaway said the Commission is saying the applicant does not have to go through PUD regulations . He argued when the applicant goes through the PUD, the public does have a chance to comment. He is not sure that the Commission is correct in saying that the Commission or the public cannot do anything. There is a condition on com- patibility. (There is a discussion on the eight criteria . ) Dunaway said this one step process is not for controversial cases. The Commission is eliminating the chance for the public to comment by cutting out some of the steps. Lee lists the criteria: adequate roads, fire protection, snow removal , suitability of site for development, effect of development on natural water shed, air quality, compatibility with terrain, . . . disturbance to the terrain, clustering of building if applicable. Pardee argued if the footprint did not already exist the case would be different . If it is an existing building where ownership will be divided then the question becomes parking. There is ample space for everything. Hunt said one of the items the Commission looked at is increased utilization of the site due to duplexing. This is not a criteria but is certainly an argument against this case. The house is already big, and now in effect this is another marginal impact on top of that. Pardee said • mandatory PUD could have been obtained in the beginning, then • duplex could have been built by right. Someone reiterated that an increase utilization of the parcel is not a criteria. RESOLUTION: ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE EMPLOYEE HOUSING Sunny Vann, planning office, presents an incomplete resolution 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22, 1984 to the Commission. John Doremus , representative for the applicants, presents a current schedule analysis. Vann said a couple of choices need to be made both by the Commission and the applicants. This is not intended to be a final resolution, it is an attempt to put the disparate opinions by the commissioners in some type of form to tali: about them. Vann said there are a number of "whereas ' s" and three substantive sections of the resolved portion of the resolution, two of which do not have conditions attached. The Commission concurs with the applicants ' proposal with the exception of the Airport Business Center . Given the make-up of the Commission tonight, there is not the ability to endorse the project ' s entire employee housing proposal since three commis- sioners are opposed to ABC or their support is premised on conditions beyond the applicants ability to affect. One decision needs to be made on behalf of the applicants as to whether they want to call for a vote on the endorsement tonight or wait for the full Commission. At a minimum, the applicants want to present some of the information they have prepared in response to the opposition to ABC to give the commissioners a chance to further consider supporting the project. There are two aspects of the resolution which involve a specific review or approval by the Commission. One is a review of the Ute City Place project. Ute City Place is similar to the prior GM P approval of the property. It is %100 deed restricted . It requires the Commission ' s recommendation to Council as to its appropriateness from exemption from growth management . The Commission needs to recommend its review of it as a conceptual subdivision application. The project already received full subdivision approval in final plat, the basic conditions attached at that time have been extracted and incorporated in at conceptual here. There are only a few minor revisions. There is no specific review required for the other aspects of the employee housing proposal. The Commission did review the employee housing commitment in the context of the GMP application for 700 South Galena and for the lodge. It is appropriate that the Commission not necessarily make a recommendation but state support of employee housing proposal as being submitted and 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22. 1984 as it meets the commitment that was made at the time of the G11P application. In the event the Commission does not support the solution or solutions then the resolution should be revised to reflect what portions it does or does not support. It is preferable that the applicant work out the problems at the P&Z level within a reasonable time frame and secure the Commission' s endorsement. But in the interest of time, if the Commission is at a stalemate over the ABC, then the applicants will simply take partial endorsement. The resolution would be redrafted to reflect why the Commission does not endorse the ABC. There are no specific review requirements the applicants have to meet. Vann reviews the "whereas ' s . " The first whereas states that as part of the GMP application and of the PUD process, the applicants made certain commitments. Those commitments remain unchanged to this day. One commitment is to provide nine two-bedroom units which would house twenty people in conjunction with the residential GRIP allocation for 700 South Galena. The other commitment is to provide housing for 60% of the additional employees generated by the Aspen Mountain Lodge project. The current estimate is 145 . The third commitment is to provide housing for an estimated thirty additional employees who would be displaced as a result of the demolition of existing employee housing units on the Aspen Mountain PUD site. That particular aspect the Commission did not see as part of the GITP application. It is not a prerequisite. Condominiumization of the residential units at the Top of Mill and the lodge requires the applicants mitigate the impacts of the displacement. The applicants need to house the employees previously housed on the project; the proposal is to house thirty employees who lose housing due to demolition. The data associated with the employee generation of the lodge is currently being updated and refined. As the hotel project evolves, the generation figures may change . The reason for the changes is that Council requested a reduction of 30 , 000 plus square feet of accessory commercial related support facilities of the hotel. The final figures will not be set until the final program comes in at preliminary PUD. The second "whereas" says the applicants have submitted a revised proposal for fulfilling that commitment. This removes the necessity for what was previously known as the Ute Avenu,--Benedict-Larkin proposal. Therefore, the applicants request for rezoning to R-6 (RBO) conceptual PUD subdivision and exemption from growth management for the fifty unit project on Ute Avenue is no longer required. 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22, 1984 The third "whereas" states that the revised proposal for fulfilling the commitment outlined in the first "whereas" consists of the following: one, the acquisition of deed restriction of thirty- two of the existing sixty-four units of the Airport Business Center ; second, the acquisition and conversion of the existing Alpina Haus and Copper Horse to deed restricted employee housing; and third, the construction of a twenty-two unit deed restricted multi family residential project, Ute City Place. There is no revision for revising a GTIP application to a %100 deed restricted employee housing. This is a new application under the ;100 exemption provision of the code. It is similar to the project which previously received GrP and subdivision approval . The fourth "whereas" states that the housing authority has reviewed the revised proposal and has submitted for the record a resolution stating its endorsement of the proposal subject to the fact that the applicant continues to revise the generation. figures. The fifth "whereas" states the specific review mechanisms for the next several whereas that are required to accomplish the revised proposal . The conversion of existing lodge units to deed restricted employee housing is subject to the change-in- use provisions of the code. The historically designated structure is exempt from those provisions. The sixth "whereas" states that the Copper Horse is an historically designated structure and therefore is exerlpt from the provision. The seventh "whereas" states that the exemption of a %110 deed restricted employee housing project, Ute City Place, is subject to Council approval based on the COmmiSSl01' s recommendation. The eighth "whereas" states that the Ute City Place project is subject to subdivision review because of its multi family nature. The ninth "whereas" states that in the prior resolution, Resolution #84-1, which recommended conceptual PUD for the lodge, the Commission found the Alpina Haus exempt from growth management subject to certain conditions . These conditions will be attached in the resolved portion of the present resolution. The final "whereas" states the Commission considered various aspects during a series of meetings held over the last several 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22. 1984 weeks. There are three resolved components . Section 1 states what the Commission endorses the applicants ' revised proposal for fulfilling the employee housing commitment . The endorsement can be in totality or part or none. There are no conditions attached at this time because it is not clear what the Commission' s position is . The type of conditions would be a restatement of the conditions attached to the change in use provision for Alpina Haus and Copper Horse. Parking would be reviewed at preli- minary. It would be subject to the execution of deed restriction as outlined in the applicants ' proposal and consistent with the housing office ' s guidelines. It would be at the time the applicants have to close the property. There would be other miscellaneous housing authority ' s conditions. This section is outstanding, the applicants want to talk about the AEC. Section 2 and 3 deal with Ute City Place. Section 2 recommends to Council that the Ute City Place project has a 100% deed restricted employee housing and be exempt from the growth management proce- dures. The appropriate conditions are the acquisition of the project and the deed restriction under the guidelines. Section 3 is conceptual recommendation of conceptual subdivision review. The conditions that were germaine to the prior approval have been extracted and amended. The first condition is a provision of an interconnect, and a subdivision agreement from the prior project on funding . dumber two, the only substantive change, the Commission approves access to Cooper Avenue on the western edge of the property, and the Commission restricts turning movements in order to alleviate some of problems of the driveway' s proximity to the adjacent street. The engineering department has reconsidered the access to this project and wants to explore with the applicants several alternatives which might alleviate the need for limited turn signage that would be difficult to enforce and which might provide better access to the project . Engineering wants to review amending the site plan with the applicants. This proposal involves shifting the building on the site to the west, moving the access further to the mid block since the alley has been vacated, providing access that is adjacent to Cleveland Street, and eliminating the restricted turn movements. Condition three is a prior condition for a sidewalk. Condition four is a detailed landscaping plan. Five is the fireplace ordinance which supercedes the original proposal . Six is those items which are expressly contained but are part of the original submission. And seven 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22. 1984 is a condition that all the above conditions be met prior to preliminary subdivision approval . Doremus presented revised sections and elevations of the project which indicate the expansion of the employee areas in the lower level . The changes deal with some of the problems Hunt raised as to the desirability of the units. Vann recounted the commissioners position : Anderson favored the ADC; Tygre would consider ABC; Pardee did not particularly like the ABC aspect; Fallin opposed the metro area concept and wanted on-site employee housing ; White concurred with Pardee and Fallin; Hunt would support ABC if the level of transportation was the same as on other bus routes; and Harvey supported ABC. Vann reiterated that the code expressly provides for housing in the metro complex. The accessibility of it is a reasonable concern, given the fact that it may or may not be servicing the employees of the hotel . The applicants do have alternatives for addressing the accessibility, the units might be deed restricted to nonhotel employees. Fallin' s argument is outside the code provisions. The code may need amending. Pardee restated his position . If there are no other viable alternatives he is willing to support ABC. He presented Hunter Creek as a viable alternative. A three-bedroom is selling for $99, 000 . Hunter Creek is the same as ABC, the units are rented to employees but not deed restricted. He suggested the applicants approach Jay Kuhne. Pardee preferred employees be housed at Hunter Creek than ABC. Richie Cohen, consultant for the applicants, replied that the applicants explored this alternative with Kuhne last month . The cost for doing what needs to be done on those units is too great. The costs are unaffordable to his clients. Hunter Creek was the first project that his clients looked at. Vann said the applicants are only allowed to charge rent on the standard square footage allowed under the housing guidelines. This is a basic problem. The Hunter Creek units are substantially in excess of that. Square footage is bought whose cost cannot be recouped. Curtis said all these projects have a deficit, the question is how much. Doremus asked Vann to address the height issue of Ute City Place. 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and zoning Commission May 22, 1984 Vann said the GMP allocation for the original project cane in with a height provision at code in existence at that time . Council imposed a moratorium to address the duplex issue in the residential neighborhoods . Since duplexes are allowed in multi family _ zones, the Council imposed this by zone district . This applicant petitioned Council for exemption from the moratorium in order to proceed. It was multi family, it was lower than the adjacent structures, it was exempted from that criteria, and it proceeded toward a building permit. For a variety of reasons it still has not received a building permit. As part of the duplex provisions, Council imposed a reduction in the effective height in the multi family zone district to 25 feet from 28 feet. The reduction in height in the multi family precluded duplexes from taking advantage of the multi family height restric- tion. This does not effect the prior GMP approval. The applicants can proceed and build to the original height. However, under the code this application represents a new project. This is a %100 deed restricted employee housing project and, therefore, subject to the provision which is currently in place. The ability to reduce the height to conform and still maintain the same proposal is certainly questionable. Since it is not part of the PUD, it is not contiguous to the PUD site, the height cannot be varied under the PUD regulations . The only recourse is for the applicants to pursue a variance from the Board of Adjustment based on certain hardships . There is a good case for a hardship. A condition is needed which says the recommendation is subject to a resolution of the height problem. Pardee suggested the Commission give a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment based on Vann' s explanation. The project structurally is the same as its predecessor . The change is in the use. Therefore, the proposal becomes a different application. That is what has caused the problem. This is certainly a hardship to the applicants. The project will all be employee housing . This is more beneficial to the community as a whole. Vann inter- jected in exchange for height the town will get a free market deed restricted project. Vann said the planning office is going to support the hardship and the planning office is preparing to appear before the Board. The planning office will present before the Board the Commission' s position on this. Hunt concurred with Pardee on drafting a resolution to the Board 14 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22, 1984 of Adjustment in support of this. This present project is much more beneficial to the community as it is than the alternative which can go ahead with a much higher 28 foot building . The options should be pointed out to the Board. It should also be pointed out to the Board that the Commission considered the options. Roger Hunt moved to direct the planning office to draft a resolution to the Board of Adjustment along these lines ; seconded by Lee Pardee . All in favor; motion carried. Doremus presented the applicants thinking on the ABC issue. Some of the commissioners have philosophical problems with the approval of ABC which have nothing to do with the code. There are many other significant problems to be solved with respect to the entire PUD than whether or not a few units at ABC are appropriate or not. The applicants want to get on with this . On the other hand, the applicants have worked long and hard, and if it only takes another week or so to get the Commission' s endorsement, then the applicants will try that. There is time at this moment to try to persuade opinions . There is a value in getting the Commission' s endorsement before going to Council . He is inclined to hang in and work this out. There is no other alternative. Fie is inclined this evening to try to sell the Commission on the idea that ABC is acceptable. First, the Ute City Place is a quality project. lie presented sections of the revised courts o the lower garden units. Prior plans showed the building being pulled back in plan eight or ten feet. The courts were very small and very unattractive . The present plan provides a 14 up to 20 foot deep court. He points out the units with the 14 foot deep courts and the units with the 20 foot deep courts. The 20 feet does does not account for that much more because there is a larger covered balcony above. But there is 20 feet of light and air. He argued that moderate is an appropriate income designation. Low cost is not necessary. Fallin asked about the pricing on the units. Curtis answered the units will be restricted to moderate guidelines of 86 dollars per square foot for sale, and 68 cents for rent. The six garden level one-bedroom units range in size from 601 square feet to 685 square feet. The guidelines for affordability of moderate income one-bedroom units are between 600 and 700 square feet . Those units have been specifically designed to accommodate the 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22. 1984 moderate hotel employees . The rental price is 86 cents per square foot, and the sale price is 90 dollars per square foot. Vann compared the Centennial sale units which are over a hundred dollars per square foot . Pardee asked if the sale price for a one-bedroom units is $61 , 650 . Hunter Creek is $70 , 000 for a one-bedroom. Two-thirds of the employee allocation are proposed for ABC. He again suggested approaching Kuhne. Curtis clarified that ABC will house 69 employees in thirty-two two-bedroom units. Vann said of the 111 units proposed, 32 are proposed for the ABC. The Commission should require the applicants to deed restrict the ABC units to meet the requirements of 700 South Galena . Some units would be left over for the use by hotel employees. Require the applicants to use Alpina Haus, Copper Horse and Ute City Place exclusively for employees of the hotel . The lowest employees, the shift workers, will be the closest to commuting distance to the hotel . Hunt said this solution satisfies his concerns over Ute City Place. Doremus said there are two issues to be addressed with ABC: the public transportation matter and the history of rents compared to the increases that have occurred in the housing price guidelines. He presents a statement on "Current Schedule Analysis" of the Aspen Mountain PUD Transportation for employee housing . The ABC is serviced by bus every hour except mid day. The Aspen Highland' s route which includes Castle Ridge runs every thirty minutes. All bus routes begin service at 7 : 00 a.m. The Snowmass route during on-season runs until 1: 00 a.m. and during off-season until midnight . This is more service over a longer period of time. The Highland' s route ceases at 11: 00 p.m. , it begins service at 7: 30 a.m. The ABC route begins at 7: 15 a.m. The hourly service would work for all the major shifts for any local employer . it is not significant that the service does not run every thirty minutes. The longer service is more important. If any area receives f ree service it will be ABC. All the down valley lines pass through ABC. Bus service may be instigated to the airport. There is a greater work force located down valley. Snowmass is growing. More service will be augmented probably in the years to come to the ABC. Also the bus service can be augmented with a jitney service from the hotel if it is required. 16 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22. 1984 There is a housing requirement of 50 employees who are not directly related to the hotel : 700 South Galena employee requirement and the employee replacement requirement . The ABC will house 50 out of 69 employees, leaving 19 hotel employees to be housed at the most. He argued that those 19 may not directly be related to the hotel project. ABC is good housing. There is a likelihood it will be lost employee housing. Curtis ' s figures indicate that the rents are increasing faster than the housing guidelines. Curtis said the other question relevant to ABC is the rent in- creases. Over the past five years the average annual rent increase at ABC is 6 . 2% . The housing authority guidelines limit rent increases annually to 50 . There is a greater restriction there. That will be a compounding effect over the fifty year deed restric- tion. There is no guarantee that ABC will continue to have these types of rent increases. There is no guarantee what will happen to the units. Vann said this could be a residential application. It can be assumed that it is if the other components of the employee housing are deed restricted . The code provides for a residential G11P application for off-site solutions in the metro area. The code provides also for a deed restriction of the conversion of existing structures . This helps by-pass the growth rate problem. As a general rule the conversion and deed restriction of free market units is preferred. ABC does have a history of being in the employee housing pool . Would one be unwilling to accept ABC as a solution to the employee housing given the level of transpor- tation service available to ABC now and the distinction that is being made between ABC and the potential projects located throughout the area? Maybe there is a need to change the code. The policy of metro in conversion from non deed restricted to restricted is not appropriate. There is a trade-off . ABC has been in the employee pool . ABC may well leave the pool. There is no guarantee. riarket demand and other housing effect this. It does provide access. It does provide an opportunity to provide deed restriction over _time . Pardee said a general concern is transportation. But people can adjust their lives to an hourly schedule. There is a grocery store and liquor store at ABC. ABC can be considered a bedroom community of Aspen. That is not all bad. The area is not noisy. 17 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22, 1984 The area is clean. A portion of ABC can be considered residential, all but nineteen units. The Commission should not be concerned with on-site or near-site as long as the units are in the metro area. On the negative side, there is a project which truly has been employee housing . The indications are that it will continue to be employee housing. In effect, the Commission is taking 32 employee units and putting them into something that already exists . There is no generation of new employee units. The Commission would be assuring its predictability for the future . He is not strongly against the ABC, but he prefers another alternative. That is why he was e.:cited at seeing the reduction of rates at Hunter Creek . Vann has indicated that the size of the units is larger than required and therefore no credit is given, more money is paid for . This is a very gray situation. He is cognizant of all of the trade-offs . He will probably vote for the ABC but with great reluctance. Fallin said the bus solution does not provide equal transportation. Coming into town one has to cross Highway 82, that is dangerous. The bus does not come into the Airport Business Center coming into town. Georgia Taylor, consultant for the applicants, commented that all this will be solved with the new highway design. Fallin said that design will take years. Doremus noted this design is two or three years from being effectuated. Fallin reiterated the transportation is not equal to date ; paying a quarter is not equivalent to a free ride. Doremus said that is mitigated by saying in the original application that the applicants would support the cost of public transportation for the employees. Fallin argued that now the plan is not to locate hotel employees out there. TIM other non-hotel employees be given an allowance? Doremus replied to the exterit the hotel employees do, yes . Fallin quarrels with the code as to the meaning of "metro. " Not every effort has been exhausted to locate the hotel employees in town or on-site. Hunt agreed with Fallin on transportation. The issue is neither the frequency nor the cost . However, if the applicants are willing to mitigate that cost, fine, but there is still a problem with frequency. The expansion of hours is a slight plus. Locating employee housing that far from the center of the community does have community costs ; it translates to how the employees get to town. There is a cost to the community if the employees drive their own cars into town. Transportation is a problem. He has to think about the proposal of not putting the hotel employees at ABC. That may mitigate the situation. The same 18 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22, 1984 degree of transportation, frequency and cost, needs to be provided as the employee housing at Highlands. Pardee said the units are existing. People live in the units now. People are using the roads. There is no increase on the impact on the highway. A positive action only guarantees that the units remain within the employee pool . The Hunter Creek solution would result in the same thing as ABC; units which are currently being used by employees would be converted to employee housing. One issue is to get employees out of the area where Hunter Creek is located. He is prepared to vote for the ABC. Cohen addressed transportation and busing. A bus stop was built on the ABC property. The buses, even those coming up valley, used to turn off into the ABC to pick up people and then depart. That was halted in the last couple of years . If there is a concern about people walking across the highway then the county should address this just on a safety basis. Anderson said his response to the argument that the units are currently employee housing is how long will they last as employee units . Prices may increase as the market determines. Prevent the Silverking circumstance. Twelve years ago Silverking was guaranteed to be employee housing forever, but prices increased to the point where the scenario changed . It is a very valid process the applicants have gone through to find the best possible locations to disperse the employees who will be generated by this project throughout the community. Pardee suggested Vann write a statement presenting the pros and cons of the ABC. Vann said the Commission is echoing the same problem the planning office has had all along with ABC. The majority of the proposal is conversion. The result in the net increase in the inventory is there but not perhaps the degree that all would like to see. The conversion has its benefits; it locks in housing which would have gravitated to a higher and better use. It also has the added benefit of reducing the growth rate. Since ABC is already occupied the impacts remain the same. There is a desire for a net increase to a substantial degree in the inventory available. If a project this size cannot find a solution in which a substantial amount of new employee housing can be built with a cost that works, it is no wonder that the small projects are turning to 19 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission flay 22. 1984 cash-in-lieu, to deed restriction and or to conversion of existing units . There is not the awareness to eliminate the "not in ray backyard" syndrome and to upzone to that which is necessary to carry the density to make the projects reasonable to construct within the employee housing guidelines . The incomes from the guidelines are not commensurate with cost of construction and land cost. There is a limit to what an applicant can subsidize even though the applicant is willing to subsidize. There is a real problem in producing new net inventory other than alternatives such as Centennial or Castle Ridge. In those cases a zero land cost is provided by the public entity in order to subsidize the project . The Centennial project now is marginal to the developer even with the subsidy. The cost of the I-uhne suit and the utility hookups are driving that cost. In the present case costs are borne by what it takes to get the project out of bankruptcy. This may or may not have any real value associated with the true value of the land. T�Jhat is left over after building is subsidy for employee housing. Doremus stated the applicants have combed the community for workable housing. No one would ever propose new housing when other solutions exist ; and no one would ever locate employee housing on-site until the code is changed . It does not make economic sense to the hotel . It might for small lodges which have a FAR with extra room. But it will never work with a major project of this kind. Vann said if the FAR is varied it would work. But the PUD regul- ations are emasculated and strict underlying compliance is demanded, the ability to vary FAR diminishes. Back in the late seventies, early eighties employee incentive legislation was enacted . At that time an inventory of potential sites was done. The areas that met the criteria of proximity to bus lines, proximity to walking distance to the commercial core, major employment centers, etc . were identified. Three areas identified were on the fringe just west of town, Castle Ridge which was proposed, aborted and purchased for open space to preclude development ; two, the Smuggler area and the major public holdings which there has been a direct effort to abort that project ; and, three, on the east side of town on discreet parcels, Ute Avenue and Benedict. Ute City is not palatable at a level that will make it work within the economic realities . Ute City Place is another site. There is a lack of sites for a project of this size . A duplex can be built and deed restricted in the west end. But in terms of the magnitude of the employee housing solution required 2 G RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission May 22. 1984 there are no solutions. Solutions have been precluded through other decisions. John McBride, owner of ABC, said the ABC was built about ten years ago as free market. The rents are above the moderate income rates now. The vacancy is increasing. After ten years there is little depreciation left to the owners. The time has come to make a change through upgrading, selling, or changing the use. The area is not zoned for housing. The area is zoned B-2 . The business center is basically finished. Avery attractive business might come to town. The largest site at the ABC is employee housing. It would be attractive to tear down employee housing for a business project on land already zoned for this . Something is bound to happen after ten years through improvements from individual ownership, or may be through corporate ownership so that the depreciation clock can start running again for someone else. There is a transition pending in the next three years. Anderson directed Vann to present a memo on the pros and cons of the ABC, present a draft of the resolution supporting the height of Ute City Place, and to present the expanded conditions of the entire resolution on employee housing for the next meeting on June 5th. Vann said in the past when people are gone on alternate meetings and data is still trying to be produced, if the consensus is to pass the resolution then the Commission can agree among itself to permit the passage in the absence of a specific vote by registering complaints in the record. It has been done before. The only thing missing are the income deed restrictions which are the specifics from the housing authority. He needs some direction on the conceptual subdivision approval. The conditions attached to the sections will be drafted for the June 5th memoran- dum. Melton Anderson adjourned the meeting at 6 : 50 p.m. ��l'ttjl�r /Gl� Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk 21