Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.agmc.20010717 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION July 17, 2001 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .................................................................................................. 1 ISIS GMQS EXEMPTION - RESO #2 .................................................................................................................... 1 302 EAST HOPKINS GMQS EXEMPTION - RESO #3 ....................................................................................... 7 8 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION July 17, 2001 Jasmine Tygre, Chair, opened the meeting at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners Ron Erickson, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Haneman, Eric Cohen, Robert Blaich, Ruth Kruger, Peter Martin, Peter Thomas, Mike Augello, Joe Krabacker, John Howard and Steve Whipple were present. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City A~orney; Chris Bendon, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Peter Thomas and Ruth Kruger recused themselves from the ISIS GMQS Exemption Hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: ISIS GMQS EXEMPTION- RESO #2 Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. Chris Bendon provided the notice and explained that this was a re-evaluation required from the growth management 1995 approval with a theatre use or any new use. This was for a conversion of the first floor of the ISIS to retail, which increased the net leasable space that in turn triggered the required mitigation for the number of employees. The applicant proposed 2 scenarios for the retail spaceO 3,000 square feet of net leasable retail space and one theatre on the ground level maintaining 3 theatres in the basement; ® 6,000 square feet of net leasable retail space maintaining 3 theatres in the basement. Bendon noted that the original plan of a 5-screen theatre included on site mitigation for 5 employees (2 three bedroom units, which actually houses 6 employees). Bendon stated that there was to be an audit of employees in two years, but the theatre failed prior to that time, therefore the audit was not done. Bendon stated that there were 3 ways to view the applicationO re-evaluate the whole project; ® theater use has been mitigated, evaluate the retail only and® apply theater mitigation to the retail (theater was over-mitigated, apply credit of 3 to 'the retail use). Bendon said that he recommended scenario 2; which was also the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority's choice. Bendon said that the commission needed to concern themselves with the employee generation rate. The Commercial Core range was between 3.5 and 5.25 employees per 1,000 square feet of net leasable retail space; the applicant did not project any use but was looking for a rate to use in an equation for a tenant to determine the ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION July 17, 2001 mitigation from the use. Bendon said that the retail differences would be caught in an audit. Tyrge asked if the actual number of employees were larger and asked if an audit would pick up that higher employee generation; she said for example a very high- end restaurant would generate more employees than a small retail space. Bendon responded that the audit would pick up the additional employees with an actual audit and could be reflected in the resolution. Tygre asked if it were the applicant or the lessee's responsibility. Bendon replied that it was the property owners' responsibility. John Howard asked how the housing mitigation was administered or enforced. Bendon responded that the applicant was responsible for 60% employee generation mitigation with an on-site recommendation or off-site or cash-in4ieu payment prior to building permit issuance. Bendon explained that the housing authority oversaw rental units and sales units went through the lottery. Mitch Haas, planner for applicant, stated that there would not be any rental units or cash-in-lieu because of the Telluride case. Haas stated that they were not coming up with an actual number but rather and agreement for a formula of 3.57 less the credits. Haas stated that the application was prepared before that ballot question and the goal of the application was met because the community felt that this location should remain a theater but not with an imposed tax. Haas said that a theater venture could not support the theaters and depending if there were 3 or 4 theaters, then the retail space would be either 3,000 or 6,000 square feet. Haas stated that it was unclear if the 100% meant of the employees generated or of the requirement, which was 60%. Haas said that this was unclear from the past approval except that a 5-screen theater would generate 5 employees subject to an audit after 2 years. Haas stated that there was a technical difference in that only half of the provided housing, 3 full-time employees (60% of the 5 generated) was provided as employee housing mitigation. Haas said the other 3 full time employees that were housed were the result of a requirement associated with a request that exceeded the allowable floor area. The Commercial Core zone district allowed a 1.5 floor area ration by right but to go over it, 60% of the additional floor area built had to be used for employee housing. Haas explained that one 3- bedroom unit was for the original emploYee generation mitigation and one 3- bedroom unit was tied to the additional floor area mitigation. Haas said that this was important in the discussion because the left over 3 employees to be housed was not as a result of the employees generation mitigation. Haas said that they felt that there would be a credit for housing 6 employees on site. 2 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION July 17, 2001 Haas recanted the 3 main issues in re-evaluating the project: fi) re-evaluate the whole project; © the theater use has been mitigated, evaluate the retail only and® apply theater mitigation to the retail. Haas said that the 3.5 employees rate was the best place to start and then have an audit. He said that the only difference was that off credit and he felt that the housing board agreed with them on carrying forward the mitigation. Bob Blaich asked the number of employees when the theater was open in full swing, not in theory. Sam Houston, owner/manager, replied that there were 5 when the theater was in operation. Ron Erickson asked the other commissioners their recollection of the 100% mitigation for housing and was there any special consideration given for a smaller than normal trash and delivery area. He noted that nothing was brought up in the area of trash and with a change in use there could be a significant change in the trash and delivery space. Jasmine Tygre said that this may seem like a change in use but what the commission was faced with the review process had to do with was the GMQS exemptions. Bendon responded that it was not a traditional change in use and a trigger was placed in the 1995 GrOwth Management Review; if there was a change in use from a theater to something else there needed to be a trigger to amend the employee housing mitigation. Bendon restated that if the use changed from a theater then the employee housing mitigation would have to be re-reviewed. Bendon said that the trash and service area were tied to the building approval and were based upon a 6,000 square foot retail space; it was only 4 feet shorter that if the entire building were retail use. John Howard said that for clarification there were 6 employees mitigated for but 3 of the 6 employees were mitigatiOn for the additional floor area of the building and should not even be part of this discussion. Bendon asked how the commission wanted to re-evaluate the project for mitigation. Jasmine Tygre asked who occupied the current employee units. Sam Houston replied that they were rented to qualified housing office approved employees. Eric Cohen asked if the movie theater was ripped out and a nightclub was moved in, would the applicant come back for a review again. Bendon replied that was in the conditions for a change in use for the building. Joe Krabacher asked the total net leasable square footage of the building and the total building square footage. Bendon answered that it was 15,671 square footage. Haas said that he had the total FAR but it did not include the basement and storage. Krabacher asked how much 3 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION July 17, 2001 additional square footage was granted at the special review because of the employee housing mitigation. Bendon stated that it went from a 1.5 FAR to 1.8. Sam Houston stated that they wanted it to be a theater from the beginning and they offered to lease it to the city or a non-profit or sell at $9.5 million with terms. Houston said that the economics don't work as a theater that was the reason for the retail space and they were doing what they could to mitigate their losses. He said that they would have to subsidize the theater with some retail rents. Haas said that anyone would have to apply for another use in the space and mitigate for it. John Howard said to follow up on Ron's comment about the building being for sale, there were payments in-lieu of $250,000.00 for open space that were deferred until 2003. Howard asked what happened if the building sold, who pays that payment. Bendon replied that the decision and approval was with the property and there might be a catch with the city to call that in at the time of sale, and that he was correct that it was not pertinent to this approval. Haas said that it was recorded and ran with the land tied to theater use. Ellen Hunt, public, asked if there was a way to rent out storage space to offset the monthly costs to make it viable to keep as a partial movie theater. Houston stated that he welcomed any input on leasing the space. Bendon stated that storage at a commercial operation was not an allowed use. Erickson said that the theater would be miligated 100%; he asked if that was 100% or 100% of 60%. Haas and Bendon stated that the record was unclear and there was nothing in the record that said that it was fully mitigated. Blaich noted that the climate at the time of the original approval was tosave the ISIS as a theater and give up parking and open space mitigation. Blaich stated that everyone was trying to make it work at the time; he said that much of the approval came through HPC, but everyone wanted the project. Cohen asked why would it be mentioned if it were not some sort of exception to the norm. Bendon replied that it was a review criterion but reiterated that it was not reflected in the minutes or resolution in 1995. Cohen stated that since the building was for sale that he wantedto see the number for mitigation in writing so the potential buyer knew what he was getting into. Cohen said based upon that he wanted to see the entire project re-evaluated at the maximum highest potential employee rate and that 3 of those credit should apply, because 3 credits went to the FAR and 3 were for the employees. Roger Haneman asked if we accept the applicant's argument as correct, and then was the applicant allowed to utilize the affordable housing twice. Bendon 4 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION July 17, 2001 explained that the increase in FAR was put into the code to encourage on-site affordable housing. Bendon said that the on-site housing did not use up the credit allotment; it was for use on site to satisfy the employee mitigation. Bendon said the criteria for that FAR increase were merely that it was compatible in design, scale and mass not that it was not used for any other employee generation. Bendon noted that there were not very many other commercial projects in the commercial core developed in the last 10 years. Peter Martin asked if alternatives 2 and 3 tend to encourage theater use over number 1, as a practical matter. Bendon replied that it depended upon the amount of square footage and what applied to the credit; it could come out as a cash-in-lieu payment. The commission polled with a slight majority leaned toward the 2nd alternative with a credit. Haas stated that the alternative 1 and 3 were the same and shouldn't be split. Bendon provided the net leasable formula of 3.5 to 5.35 and said that from the record he read from Sunny Vann's report regarding the employee mitigation of the 2 three bedroom units and 1 free-market unit. Bendon stated that there was no representation of the number of employees to be mitigated, the number was never referenced anywhere, and the criteria for the FAR increase were not at all tied to the use of employee mitigation. Bendon said that housing agreed that the theater would generate less employees but that there was housing provided at this level. Haas argued that the relevant requirement was more than what was needed. Blaich asked which of the 3 scenarios best tried'to insure the facility (movie theaters) that was what was wanted for the community. Haas answered that it would probably be 3. Bendon said that it basically went to the amount that they would have to pay and the applicant could come back under any of the scenarios and suppose that a movie theater couldn't work and needed a nightclub or retail or whatever instead for the numbers to work. Haas stated that the credit gsue was a lot of money to the applicant and that the issue was the amount of credit. Bendon said that there was no requirement that there had to be a theater operated out of this space 'but the employee mitigation would change. Mike Augello said that there may not be anything in the code but we were looking for an incentive for the applicant to put in a theater. Erickson stated that for simplification the issue here was for the range of 3.5 to 5:5 on the employee mitigation. Joe Krabacher said that the whole project should be re-evaluated to make it easier to determine what was appropriate for the whole package. Krabacher said that he would be in favor of the credit since it was used for affordable housing. 5 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION July 17, 2001 Erickson noted that the unknown was the amount of retail space, 3,000 or 6,000 square feet; the employee mitigation should be at the high end. Bendon stated that to re-evaluate the entire project could mean several different things; one could be subject to an audit and another could be the set rate with an audit. Tygre noted that there wasn't a real proposal on the table. Bendon replied that it was difficult because the appIicant was trying to create retail space without a leaseholder and were not exactly sure how much retail space would be created; they were looking fora formula for when the applicant came in for the building permit and for mitigation at that time. Peter Martin stated that he also found the process confusing and maybe the GMC should wait until there was a real project. Haas stated that there was a formula for employee generation, which was 3.5 to 5.25 per employees per 1,000 square feet of net leasable space multiplied by .60 gives the number of employees generated. Haas said that all that they were asking was if the credit was subtracted after the number was determined or not. Haas said that the low end should be used because it was never done before. Erickson said that the rate determined at the beginning and after the two year audit was the rate that would be used for this retail space no matter how many employees were added after the two-year audit period, so it should be on the high end. MOTION: Joe Krabacher moved that the Aspen/Pitkin Growth Management Commission grant the request for an exemption from the scoring competition procedures of the GMQS for the ISIS subject to the following conditions: once the applicant has determined the exact square footage then the applicant would come back before the Growth Management Commission to determine the employee mitigation number and range at that time, deleting the formula but include the 3 employee credit; with the other conditions in the staff memo including an audit in 2 years. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Howard, no; Whipple, yes; Erickson, no; Cohen, no; Blaich, yes; Haneman, yes; Martin, yes; Augello, yes; Krabacher, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 6-4. Discussion prior to the vote included: the determination of the number of employees at the time of building permit, deleting the formula, adding the credit, the range based upon the high end to begin with and caught at the time of audit in two years, the time consumption of audits for every two years forever, and the commission wanted copies of the resolution prior to signing. MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to extend the GMC meeting past 7pm. Ron Erickson seconded. APPROVED 10-1. 6 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION July 17, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING: 302 EAST HOPKINS GMQS EXEMPTION- RESO #3 Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Growth Management exemption for 302 East Hopkins. Chris Bendon provided the public notice and noted that this was an expansion of a historic landmark net leasable square footage. The expansion was 1,340 square feet with a deed restricted one-bedroom on site and a cash-in-lieu payment contained in the resolution. John Howard asked for clarification on the deed restricted unit size. Ralph Mitchell, applicant, responded that the current studio was being made into a one- bedroom as part of the employee mitigation. Mitchell stated that he received conflicting requirements from housing originally in comparison with the recent recommendation from housing. Bendon suggested leaving that option open to the applicant of paying the cash-in-lieu or expanding the deed restricted unit to a two- bedroom unit on site without cash-in-lieu. No public comments. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve GMQS exemption for 302 East Hopkins, Lot K, Block 80, City of Aspen as amended to add to condition #5 the option open to the applicant of paying the cash-in-lieu or expanding the deed restricted unit to a two-bedroom on site unit without cash-in-lieu. Steve Whipple seconded. Roll call vote: Blaich, yes; Haneman, yes; Erickson, yes; Martin, yes; Augello, yes; Cohen, yes; Whipple, yes; Howard, yes; Thomas, yes. APPROVED 10-0. Meeting~.a.djoumext 7:15 p.m. Lothi~i~, ]~e~rit~,'(~i'~x) Clerk 7 MEETING DATE: July 17, 2001 NAME OF PROJECT: 302 EAST HOPKINS - GMQS EXEMPTION CLERK: Jackie Lothian STAFF: Chris Bendon WITNESSES: (1) Ralph Mitchell EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( x ) (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( x ) (Check If Applicable) $ Various maps, drawings MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve GMQS exemption for 302 East Hopkins, Lot K, Block 80, City of Aspen as amended to add to condition #5 the option open to the applicant of paying the cash-in-lieu or expanding the deed restricted unit to a two-bedroom on site unit withOut cash-in-lieu. Steve Whipple seconded. Roll call vote: Blaich, yes; Haneman, yes; Erickson, yes; Martin, yes; Augello, yes; Cohen, yes; Whipple, yes; Howard, yes; Thomas, yes. APPROVED 10-0. VOTE: YES 10 NO 0 ROBERT BLAICH YES x NO JASMINE TYGRE YES x NO ROGER HANEMAN YES x NO MICHAEL AUGELLO YES x NO RON ERICKSON YES x NO ERIC COHEN YES x NO PETER MARTIN YES x NO STEVE WHIPPLE YES x NO JOHN HOWRD YES x NO PETER THOMAS YES x NO GMCVOTE MEETING DATE: July 17, 2001 NAME OF PROJECT: ISIS THEATER RETAIL CONVERSION GMQS EXEMPTION CLERK: Jackie Lothian STAFF: Chris Bendon WITNESSES: (1) Mitch Haas (2) Sam Houston (3) Ellen Hunt EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( x ) (Cheek If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( x ) (Check If Applicable) 3 Various maps, drawings 4 Housing memo 7/17/01 MOTION: Joe Krabacher moved that the Aspen/Pitkin Growth Management Commission grant the request for an exemption from the scoring competition procedures of the GMQS for the ISIS subject to the following conditions: once the applicant has determined the exact square footage then the applicant would come back before the Growth Management Commission to determine the employee mitigation number and range at that time, deleting the formula but include the 3 employee credit; with the other conditions in the staff memo including an audit in 2 years. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Howard, no; Whipple, yes; Erickson, no; Cohen, no; Blaieh, yes; Haneman, yes; Martin, yes; Augello, yes; Krabacher, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 6-4. VOTE: YES 6 NO 4 ROBERT BLAICH YES x NO JASMINE TYGRE YES NO x ROGERHANEMAN YES x NO MICHAELAUGELLO YES x NO RON ERICKSON YES NO x ERIC COHEN YES NO x PETER MARTIN YES x NO STEVE WHIPPLE YES x NO JOHN HOWRD YES NO x JOE KRABACHER YES X NO GMCVOTE