Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit A.3_Growth Management Review_Staff FindingsExhibit A.3 Growth Management Review Staff findings Page | 1 Sec. 26.470.050.c – Employee Generation Review Any applicant who believes the employee generation rate is different than outlined that outlined in Title 26 may request an employee generation review. In establishing employee generation, the following criteria shall be considered: 1. The expected employee generation of the use considering the employment generation pattern of the use or of a similar use within the City or a similar resort. Staff findings: The application includes a full audit and thorough analysis of the number of employees generated by resort operations vs. the number of employees housed. According to the First Amended PUD Agreement from 1988, a total of 331 employees were generated from lodge operations, requiring mitigation for 198.5 FTEs (33 x 0.6 = 198.5). Although some aspects of the development have evolved overtime (e.g., in 2003 Council approved the conversion of multiple lodge rooms into timeshare units), the number of employees generated by the development has remained relatively consistent. In 2010, the St. Regis submitted an audit to the City showing employment numbers from 2006 to 2009. According to the audit, employment at the St. Regis never exceeded 331 FTEs during that time. The most recent audit covers employment numbers for winter 2022-2023, which comes to a total of 330.6 FTEs – 0.4 FTEs below 331 for which mitigation has been provided. Staff agrees with the application’s analysis that no new FTEs will be generated from the new structures, with two caveats. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Any unique employment characteristics of the operation. While staff agrees with the Applicant’s employee audit, certain conditions should be placed on the approval to ensure adequate mitigation is provided in future years. First, uses allowed within the seasonal structures should be limited to those allowed by-right within the Lodge (L) zone district such as one-off events like weddings and corporate retreats. Such uses are appropriate as the staff and infrastructure required to host these events are integral to existing resort operations and comply with underlying zoning. Conversely, using the structures to accommodate uses unrelated to lodge operations such as third-party retail or restaurant operations generates additional traffic, employee demand and other infrastructure-related impacts without the mitigation typically exacted for adding commercial space. Retail use is allowed only within certain designated areas of the PD (none of which are included in this application). If the Applicant wishes to accommodate retail use in the future, a subsequent application requesting Conditional Use Review, or a PD amendment should be required. Second, although the Applicant agrees to pay the mitigation annually assessed at the time of tent permit, and use of the structures is limited to underlying zoning, staff remains concerned about future mitigation constraints. The deed-restrictions associated with four of the affordable housing units – Alpina Haus, Copper Horse, Grand Aspen, and Ute City Place – are set to expire in approximately twelve years (around 2035). These units represent the mitigation provided for 129.5 FTEs when the Exhibit A.3 Growth Management Review Staff findings Page | 2 PD was developed. Following their expiration, only the mitigation from Hunter Longhouse will remain (representing 69 FTEs). Without additional action, the mitigation provided for the St. Regis will fall from 60 percent to 21 percent. Unless the St. Regis voluntarily agrees to work with the City to amend existing development agreements to top off mitigation, it will likely be difficult to require additional mitigation when no development is proposed. As an alternative, staff recommends follow-up analyses (i.e., audits) be included as a condition of this approval. If future audits determine that more than 331 FTEs are generated from resort operations, additional mitigation may be assessed. Given the seasonal nature of the proposed structures, annual tent permit approval is required. If Council desires, staff may withhold the issuance of future tent permits until mitigation is provided. Staff encourages Council to discuss this topic with the Applicant at Second Reading. Staff finds this criterion to be met subject to the conditions described herein. 3. The extent to which employees of various uses within a mixed-use building or of a related off-site operation will overlap or serve multiple functions. Staff findings: According to the application and the audit provided by the Applicant, existing FTEs at the resort will be able to service the proposed structures. The audit showed that during the previous winter (2022-2023), the number of FTEs did not exceed 331 which is what was originally projected pursuant to the PD from 1988. Staff tends to agree with this analysis as one-off events such as weddings and corporate retreats are integral to existing resort operations. It’s worth noting that last winter, some of the structures were used to augment existing lodge operations such as restaurants without generating additional FTEs. Because the approval is limited to uses allowed by-right pursuant to underlying zoning, these structures can also theoretically augment existing operations of the resort and still comply with zoning. There appears to be opportunity for existing employees to overlap and serve these structures while also performing regular duties. However, staff recommends future audits to ensure additional FTEs are not required. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. A proposed restriction requiring full employee generation mitigation upon vacation of the type of business acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff findings: As described in criterion #2 on the previous page, staff proposes multiple conditions to ensure proper mitigation is provided in future years as operations change. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Any proposed follow-up analyses of the project (e.g., an audit) to confirm actual employee generation. The requirements of any proposed follow-up analysis shall be outlined in a Development Agreement, pursuant to Chapter 26.490. Staff findings: As described in criterion #2 on the previous page, staff proposes multiple conditions to ensure proper mitigation is provided in future years as operations change. A development agreement may be required to meet this Exhibit A.3 Growth Management Review Staff findings Page | 3 standard at the discretion of the Community Development Director. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. For single-family and duplex development and redevelopment, Employee Generation Review shall be only available for projects that can show evidence that mitigation was previously provided using physical units (on-site or off-site) which are currently deed-restricted and house APCHA qualified residents. The Planning and Zoning Commission will compare the mitigation provided at the time of the unit's deed restriction with the mitigation currently required for redevelopment using FTEs (Full-time Equivalents) as the basis for comparison. P&Z review shall ensure that any previously provided unit remains consistent with the intent of current APCHA regulations and standards and applicable provisions of the Land Use Code. Staff findings: The application does not request single family or duplex development. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable.