HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19930817A G E N D A
---------- ------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 17, 1993, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING
A. Condominiumization Text Amendment, Francis
Krizmanich
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Early Learning Center Transportation Plan, Leslie
Lamont
B. Aspen Highlands Village General Submission Referral,
Leslie Lamont
IV. ADJOURN
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Adm"inistrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas -
DATE: August 17, 1993
Special Meeting - August 24
Kastelic PUD/Subdivision (LL)
Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan Review (KJ) (To be Tabled)
Regular Meeting - September 7
103 Park Stream Margin Review Amendment (KJ)
935 E. Hyman Survey Monument Landmark Designation (AA)
Aspen Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan Review (KJ)
Regular Meeting - September 21 .
835 W. Main St. Landmark Designation (AA)
Snow Queen Lodge GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing and Special
Review for FAR in the LP Zone District (KJ)
a. nex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Francis X. Krizmanich
RE: Condominiumization Amendments - Public Hearing
DATE: August 17, 1993
SUMMARY: The Planning Staff discussed proposed amendments to
Section 7-1007, Condominiumization, at worksessions with the
Planning Commission on July 20 and August 3, 1993. A new state
statute, the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA)
requires that local laws cannot treat properties differently merely
because of the form of ownership; it appears that the Aspen
condominium regulations, as written, may be in conflict with this
statute.
The staff has recommended that the condominiumization regulation
be amended to be a simple administrative subdivision platting
process. The requirements for housing mitigation would be deleted.
The Planning Commission seemed to agree with this recommendation.
In addition, based on direction from the City Council in December
of 1992, the staff originally proposed the requirement that most
of the residential districts be restricted to long-term occupancy
(six month minimum lease) with two shorter tenancies per year
allowed. Alternatively, short term accommodations (hotels, motels,
lodges and some residences) were proposed to be limited to short
term occupancy. This proposal recommended adding a new subsection
"F" to the residential and lodge zone districts. Subsection "F"
generally requires six month minimum leases in all residential zone
districts; in lodging districts, short term rentals are required.
This proposal is attached as Alternative "B".
The Planning Commission expressed the following concerns with this
proposal regarding the six month minimum lease:
• It does not appear that the proposed restrictions are
necessary at this time.
• The trend appears to be away from the short term rental of
dwellings in residential zones, in part due to an increased
supply of quality hotel accommodations in Aspen.
• The market tends to "adjust" itself to maintain a balance
between resident and short term accommodations.
• Enforcement of lease restrictions would be extremely difficult
and would probably be somewhat unpopular with the general
public.
At the second worksession with the Planning Commission on August
31 1993, the staff discussed a softer approach to occupancy
restrictions. The staff opinion at this time is that the existing
zone district "Purpose" sections and the Land Use Code definitions
adequately define and regulate residential and tourist
accommodations; however, in an attempt to strengthen the
residential nature of certain zone districts, "long term" has been
added. The relevant definitions and the purpose sections (with
"long term" inserted in bold print) are attached as Alternative
"A". This is the staff's recommended code amendment language.
The discussion on August 3 also focused on the need to require six
month minimum lease restrictions in residential districts as well
as requiring short term leasing in the lodging districts.
Originally, members of both the City Council and the Planning
Commission, as well as the Planning staff, voiced concerns that
removing the six month minimum lease restriction would lead to
increased displacement of local residents from, long term rental
housing. -Based on our research (See Exhibit 11111) and discussions
with the Planning Commission, the staff opinion at this time is
that removing the six month minimum lease restriction from the
condominiumization process will have little effect because most of
the larger projects that house employees have been condominiumized
and/or contain six month minimum lease restrictions. In fact, it
appears from reading the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act
(CCIOA) that the six month lease restriction (based on a
condominiumization application) is precisely the type of regulation
that is prohibited.
While the CCIOA prohibits regulations that treat condominium
interests differently than other property ownerships, this Act is
not retroactive. All previously restricted residential
condominiums which have a six month restriction would remain
restricted unless those restrictions are repealed by City Council.
One approach which the Planning Commission discussed at the August
3 meeting is to amend the condominiumization regulations to make
them a simple platting procedure (to comply with CCIOA), while
making the recommendation to the City Council that the six month
minimum lease requirement should not be removed for any previously
approved condominiumization. In addition, it appeared that broadly
applying a six month lease restriction to all residential
properties ignores the diverse qualities that make each
neighborhood unique ("messy vitality"). Based on the above, the
Planning Commission discussed the potential of holding a future
worksession with City Council and the possibility of analyzing the
true effect of occupancy restrictions - short and long term - as
they affect the character of Aspen.
Staff finds that the proposed text amendments outlined in
2
2
Alternative "A" meet the review criteria for text amendments (24-
7-1102) as contained in Exhibit 112".
RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Planning staff recommends amending Section 7-1007,'
"Condominiumization", to state:
"A. General. If conversion of an existing or proposed
development to a condominium form of ownership is
proposed, a condominium plat shall be submitted to
the Planning Director for review and approval as a
subdivision exemption pursuant to the standards for
subdivision plats contained in Section 7-1004,
"Subdivision Approval"."
2. The Planning. staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve the recommended text amendments outlined in
Alternative "A", which recommends that long-term uses for
residences be added to the purpose section of the residential
zone districts.
3. The Planning staff and the Planning Commission recommend that
the Aspen City Council refrain from removing the six month
minimum lease restriction from previously approved residential
condominiums, unless and 'until further study shows that the
six month restriction is not necessary to protect Aspen's
residential housing supply.
3
I
ALTERNATIVE "A" - STAFF RECOMMENDATION
In order to comply with CCIOA and to address the issues outlined
in the memo, staff recommends the following revisions to the Land
Use Code:
1. Amend Section 24-7-1007, "Condominiumization", to state:
"A. General. If a conversion of an existing or proposed
development to a condominium form of ownership is
proposed, a condominium plat shall be submitted to the
Planning Director for review and approval as a
subdivision exemption pursuant to the standards for
subdivision plats contained in Section 7-1004,
"Subdivision Approval"."
2. The zone district "Purpose" sections generally appear to
contain adequate descriptions of the intent to have
residential or hotel uses. The staff has added "long term"
to strengthen the purpose sections in the residential sections
in the residential zone districts. The zone district Purpose
sections are quoted below with "long term" inserted where
appropriate in bold print.
For your review and discussion, the relevant existing definitions
follow:
• Dwelling means a permanent building or portion thereof which
is used as the private residence or sleeping place of one or
more human beings, but not including hotels, lodge units,
clubs, hospitals, temporary structures such as tents, railroad
cars, trailers, street cars, prefabricated metal sections, or
similar units.
• Dwelling, multi -family means a dwelling containing three (3)
or more attached dwelling units, not including hotels and
lodges, but including town houses; with accessory use
facilities limited to an office, laundry, recreation
facilities and off-street parking used by the occupants. One
(1) or more dwelling units located within an office, retail,
or service commercial building shall also be considered a
multi -family dwelling.
• Dwelling unit means a separately enterable, self-sufficient
room or combination of rooms which contain kitchen and bath
facilities and which are designed for or used as a residence
by a single family or guests, independent of other families
or guests.
• Hotel/Motel/Lodge means a building containing three (3) or
more individual rooms for the purpose of providing overnight
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Any Margerum, City Manager
FROM: Diane Moore, City Planning Direct r
Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: December 7, 1992
RE: Condominiumization - Analysis of Impact of New State
Statute (CCIOA) on City of -Aspen Land Use Regulations
SUMMARY:
On July 1, 1992, a new state statute titled the Colorado Common
Interest Ownership Act ("CCIOA") went into effect. Staff has been
analyzing the new statute to determine the impact of CCIOA on
planning/regulatory issues within the City. Staff is providing
Council with this confidential memorandum (due to potential
lawsuits) and has scheduled this issue as a discussion item for the
December 7, 1992 Council agenda.
As you will recall, several applicants have requested
condominiumization and staff has advised them that until such time
as the Municipal Code is amended, condominiumizations will follow
existing requlations. Two applications are scheduled for second
reading on the December 14, 1992 Council agenda.
On October 26, 1992, Jed provided with you with a memorandum
that outlined the legal implications of the new
statute. The section of the Act that addresses "Applicability of
local codes" states that:
(1) no local building code may impose any requirement upon any
structure held in common .interest (e.g., a condominium) which it
would not impose upon a physically identical structure held in a
different ownership (except fire walls), and (2) no zoning,
subdivision, or other real estate law, ordinance, or regulation may
impose any requirement upon a condominium which it would not impose
on a physically identical structure or development under a
different form of ownership.
1
I
In 1987, the city planning staff addressed the policy concerns
associated with condominiumization. They also believed that
condominiumization was much less of a problem in 1988 than in 1980
because much of the housing stock had already been condominiumized.
The planning staff conducted research to document the relationship
between residential development and the need for affordable
housing. Their experience was that "condominiumization resulted
in an increased propensity for units to be occupied by tourists,
rather than residents". It was also clear from their research that
units which, house tourists require significantly greater levels of
employee services than do units housing residents. They quantified
an employee housing impact attributable to condominiumization. The
result was the creation in 1988 of the affordable housing impact
fee that has since been applied to condominiumizations; this is
the fee that exists in our current regulations. -
Condominiumization Data
In order to understand the extent of the condominiumization of
lodges and residential units within the City, staff undertook
background research on these.units (See Exhibit "C").
The research information can be summarized as follows:
* Most of the large free-market residential developments such
as Hunter Creek, Lone Pine, Riverview, and a majority of
duplex units, which are typically occupied by long term
tenants, have been condominiumized and currently have six
month minimum lease restrictions in place. It should be noted
that the new state statute cannot be applied retroactively,
,thus the existing six month minimum lease restrictions would
not be rendered invalid.
Other free-market multi -family residential developments that
are located within the L/TR zone district at the base of Aspen
Mountain, such as the Dolomites, Gant, Aspen Alps etc ... are
exempt from the six month minimum lease restriction and may
be leased without limitation. These units did not have to
undergo city review for condominiumization because the city
code did not require it at that time. Additionally, current
regulations exempt residential units in the L/TR zone district
from the six month minimum lease restriction. These units are
typically occupied by tourists or residents desiring shorter
term occupancies and a six month minimum lease restriction
would not be appropriate for their use.
* Most of the tenant displacement from condominiumization has
already occured since a majority of the condominiumizations
have taken place in the 1970's and 1980's.' Within the past
3
\0
affordable housing.
2. New or reconstructed single family and duplexes are
required to mitigate employee housing impacts by one of the
following methods:
a) Payment of an affordable housing impact fee.
b) Provision of an accessory dwelling unit for single family
development.
c) Duplex units have various options for employee mitigation.
While the method used to address the existing affordable housing
inventory in Ordinance 1 is different than the affordable housing
impact fee for condominiumization, the goal is the same i.e.
maintaining the community's stock of affordable housing. Since the
current condominiumization affordable housing impact fee is imposed
on existing and new residential units, then the "affordable
housing" pruv sions of Ordinance 1 would address those residential
dwelling units that result from the demolition of resident multi-
family structures, or from new or reconstructed single-family and
duplex dwellings.
An area that would not be addressed (if the existing
condominiumization regulations were eliminated) is if an existing.
multi -family structure would condominiumize, then the provisions
of Ordinance 1 would not apply. It is not clear as to how many
existing multi -family structures would fall into this category and
the loss of dollars to the housing/daycare fund.
The City has collected approximately $116,052.00 in housing impact
fees since the adoption of Ordinance 1 in 1990.
Another area in the Code that would address the construction of new
residential development is Article 8, Growth Management Quota
System. If new residential development is proposed, then the
applicant is required to provide affordable housing for a minimum
of 35 % of the employees generated by the proposed development.
This -effectively addresses the provision of affordable housing
through growth management competition.
Staff believes that existing ordinances will address most of the
affordable housing issues associated with the elimination of the
condominiumization affordable housing impact fee.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the sunset provision for
Ordinance 1, Series of 1990, be eliminated as Ordinance 1 will play
an important role in maintaining our affordable housing inventory.
This is also a recommendation contained within the draft Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Key Issue - Six Month Minimum Lease Restriction: Currently,
Q
Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council consider addressing
the land use issues posed by the elimination of the six north
minimum lease -restriction through amendmends to the permitted use
section within the various residential zone districts.
For example, the permitted use section of the residential zone
districts would restate the six month minimum lease restriction
(along with exceptions for shorter tenancies). The language could
be wr]-t.ten so that all residential units would have to adhere to
this restriction, or the language could be specific for duplexes
or multi -family structures.
*This approach would be a major policy decision as the focus would
be on the use of all residential dwellings within the zone
district, not just condominiumized residential units. There
probably -would be considerable backlash -to this concept in -addition
to an increase in enforcement. If the language was specific to
duplexes and multi -family residences within the zone districts,
then single family homeowner resistence would be eliminated.
Key Issue 3 - Lodge Condominiumization: Lodges that are
condominiumized are required to remain in the short term market so
that they are available to the general public as tourist
accomodations.
Response: The -concern is that the lodges remain in the short term
rental market and provide for the lodging needs of the resort. Our
research has shown that a small portion of the lodges within the
city have been condominiumized. One way to approach these
concerns is to amend the permitted use sections for the
Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) and the Lodge Preservation (LP)
zone districts to restrict any long term leasing of the lodge units
and encourage short term usage of these units.
For your information, staff has not had discussions with lodge
owners regarding this issue.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council consider amending
the permitted use sections of L/TR and LP zone districts to
restrict long term leasing of the lodge units.
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY:
1) Eliminate the sunset provision for Ordinance 1, Series of 1990.
2) Amend the permitted use sections of the various residential
zone districts to restate the six month minimum lease restriction
for duplexes and multi -family units.
3) Amend the permitted use sections of the L/TR and LP zone
districts to restrict long term leasing of lodge units.
a
1Z
Exhibit "B"
Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code sets forth the
condominiumization regulations for residential and lodge units.
The regulations are summarized as follows:
1) Condominiumization of residential units
a. Existing residents must be given a right of first refusal
on the sale of an existing unit that is being condominiumized.
b. Residential condominiums may only be leased for terms of
not less than six months, with the exception of two shorter
tenancies per year (to allow locals to rent their units over
the holidays) and this applies to residential dwelling units
in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, R-15B,. R-30, R/MF, MHP, •SCI, NC,, and
C zone districts. Residential dwelling units in the RR, C-1
and O zone districts shall be restricted to six month minimum
leases unless an applicant can prove that.unit is in an area
that is predominantly short term accomodations.
Residential dwelling units in the L/TR zone district or any
zone district with Lodge (L) overlay may be, leased without
limitation.
c. An affordable housing impact fee is applied to the
condominiumization of existing and new residential units,
however, the condominiumization shall be exempt from the
impact fee if affordable housing has been provided pursuant
to GMQS.
The fee ranges from $3,350 to $8,050 per unit.
The fee is not applied to the condominiumization of units
restricted to the affordable housing guidelines.
An applicant may request 'a waiver of the impact fee by
demonstrating that the unit will remain available to employees
of the community, however, it would still be subject to six
month minimum lease requirement and deed restricted' as a
resident occupied unit.
2) Condominiumization of lodges
a) The condominium units shall remain in the short term rental
market and shall be used as temporary tourist accommodations
available to the general public.
b) The lodge shall provide minimum sleeping accommodations
for two employees.
9
�J
Exhibit "C"
1) Residential Condominiumization:
The earliest record of a condominiumization that required city
review occured in 1973. There are many units that were
condominiumized prior to 1973; a rough conservative estimate would
be 350 dwelling units. These units, such as the Gant, Aspen Alps,
and Dolomites did not have to undergo city review to condominiumize
their structure because the code did not require it.
Number of free market units condominiumized (after 1973)
in accordance with city regulations: Approximately 750 units
NOTE: Fully deed restricted affordable housing units are not
included in this figure..
2) Six month minimum lease
The end of 1977 appears to have been the approximate date when six
month minimum leases were established in the city land use
regulations. However, some projects as early as 1973 had six month
minimum lease restrictions placed on them.
Approximately 15% of the 750 units condominiumized do not have six
month minimum lease restrictions. This is due to the fact that
waivers were granted, city regulations were not in place that
required six month minimum lease restrictions, units in the L/TR
zone district were exempted along with historic landmarks. It
should be noted that the city rarely granted waivers from the six
month minimum lease restriction.
3) Affordable Housing Impact Fees:
As discussed previously, these fees were added to the
Condominiumization regulations (residential units only) in 1988.
The City, has collected $251,527.00 in affordable housing impact
fees from condominiumization.
4) Lodge Condominiumization
City records indicate that eight lodges have been condominiumized
that required city review.
11
ORDINANCE 81 SERIE S OF 1992.- Undergrounding Improvement District
Cemetery Lane
Series of 1992;
ce
Councilwoman Richards moved to read Al Ordi in favor, motion carried.
seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton.
ORDINANCE #81
(Series of 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITYRI� WITHIN
COLORADO, TO CREATE A LOCAL IMPROVEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF ASPEN OVERHEAD ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATIONS
CONVERTING EXISTING
p;,ND ADOPTION OF
FACILITIES TO UNDERGROUND LOCATION;
Nwas read by the -city
DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS T
clerk
manager, reminded Council they took
Cindy Wilson, assistant city This district has to
action on this district at the last . hearing will be January 11,
be approved by ordinance. The public
1993.
t Ordinance #81, Series of 1992,
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Pro Tem
. corded by Councilwoman Pendleton. Roll call
on first reading, se es; May
v ote; Councilmembers Pendleton, Yes; Richards, y
Peters, yes. Motion carried.
CONDOMINIUMIZATION DISCUSSION Jul the
director, reminded Council last Y
Diane Moore, planning Act went into effect. Staff has
Colorado Common Interest ownershipAs n's regulations. Ms. Moore said
made some recommendations p fee. Currently
the
first issue is the affordable, hou ized impact an impact fee is paid
when a free market unit is condominium 'needs generated by the
to the housing fund to mitigate the housing
n. The second issue is the 6 month minimum lease
condominiumizatio is.required in an effort to maintain long term
restriction, which a condominiumization. Lodge
residents. The third issues in thegshort term rental market for
units are required to remain
tourist accommodations.
staff has done extensive research in this
Ms. Moore told Council nnot be lied retroactively and
area. The new state statute lea es cannot be rendered invalid*
the existing 6 month minimum since 1988,
Moore told Council under the housing impact •fee,
Ms. Moo 251,000• There are existing ordinances in
the city has collected fordable housing not through condominiumi-
place which address of quota system also addresses
nation. The growth management Y
•r_ S. Ms. Moore recommended
construction of affordable housing unit
9
Reqular Meeting Aspen City Council December 7, 1992
ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Peters agreed with the elimination of
the sunset provisions of Ordinance #1.
Mayor. Pro Tem Peters supported the planning office recommendation
to limit the allowed uses in the residential zone district to
basically long term uses. Councilwoman Pendleton agreed with staff
recommendation. Councilwoman Pendleton requested staff look at the
enforcement issues. Mayor Pro Tem Peters said he would like all
residential zones covered.
Councilwoman Richards said taking units in a residential zone and
turning them into short term business licensing and sales taxes
should come into play. Mayor Pro Tem Peters said short term uses
in residential zone districts should be eliminated other than those
like Christmas rentals. Mayor Pro Tem Peters said the LTR and LP
zone districts have allowed short term uses by rig
thCouncilwoman
and man
Pendleton said these uses should be kepte
LP
districts. Ms. Moore said staff has not had discussions about
stricts with .local lodge owners. .Ms. Moore
changing the lodge di
pointed out the community has always encouraged maintaining small
lodges. Mayor Pro Tem Peters said there should be exemptions for
some long term units for owners, managers and staff. Councilwoman
Richards said she would like to hear comments of the lodge owners
from staff.
Mayor Pro Tem Peters said he would like to hear from staff on more
areas for self -enforcement. Any Margerum, city manager, said the
code may have to be amended in.some areas to impose fines.
Councilwoman Pendleton said for the amount of money the city
collects, she would just as soon eliminate the condominium fee.
Councilwoman Richards said she is more interested in maintaining
the character of neighborhoods and the inventory of affordable
housing. Mayor Pro Tem Peters agreed with eliminating the fee for
housing impact.
Caswall recommended Council hold up all condominium applications
while staff processes a code amendment rather than process
applications and accept fees. Caswall said the city can schedule
first reading for condominiumization ordinances but put off second
reading until code amendments are adopted. (Mayor Bennett came
into the meeting). Ms. Margerum said she is concerned about
holding people up while an amendment is processed. Ms. Margerum
suggested applicants could proceed and the city could hold the fee
is escrow. Caswall said applicants would have to file a legal
action within 30 days after approval of the condominiumization
challenging the city's right to impose conditions upon them.
Councilman Peters said Council has agreed to eliminate the sunset
provision in Ordinance #1; to start amending zone districts to
M
�xhrb�t "z,
Condominiumization Text Amendments - Review Criteria
Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
review standards for amendments to the Code are as follows:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: There are no apparent conflicts with any other sections
of the Municipal Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Response: The AACP does not specifically address
condominiumization regulations. However, retaining a housing base
for long-term residents is a goal on the Plan. As mentioned in
previous staff discussions with the Commission, housing needs for
the community must be addressed by other means within the land u'se
code. Condominium regulations are not the appropriate avenue to
secure housing units or housing funds.
The City has been trying to address the need to streamline
governmental processes. This code amendment will eliminate the
one-step City Council review for condominium (ownership). approval.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use
and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: This amendment is not site specific. On a case -by -case
basis, ownership interests in a multiple dwelling structure has no
discernable impacts. Removal of minimum lease requirements for new
condominiums (duplexes or multi -family structures) will have
negligible impacts to neighborhoods, simply by virtue of the
limited number of units to be condominiumized.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
Response: This standard does not apply to ownership interests
created by condominium approval.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the
extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Response: This standard does not apply to ownership interests
created by condominium approval.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
1
environment.
Response: This standard does not apply to ownership interests
created by condominium approval.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The only compatibility issue is perhaps the minimum
lease requirements of the current code language. which must be
removed in compliance with the new State regulations. Without
further study, conclusive evidence is not available to prove the
real effectiveness of these lease requirements on protection of
community character.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Response: The State's enactment of the CCIOA regulations prohibits
the City from treating condominium structures different from non-
condominiumized structures of the same type. This is a city-wide
issue rather than a neighborhood -specific issue.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent
of this chapter.
Response: According to the State legislation, our current language
regarding condominiums is not in the public interest. Therefore
the City of Aspen is obliged to revise its condo regulations.
2
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: August 17, 1993.
RE: Early Learning Center Traffic Plan
SUMMARY: The Commission approved the conditional use for
educational related uses at the June 8, 1993, public hearing. One
of the conditions of approval was the ELC shall develop a
loading/unloading and parking plan. "The .plan should consider:
signing of Bleeker Street parking for patron use of the building
only enlarging the. loading zone at either end of the building,
relocation off the site of Wildwood drop-off, and alternative
exiting location for Waldorf School preferable onto Garmisch or
First streets. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Parking Director, and Planning and Engineering Departments on or
before August 2, 1993."
In addition, the ELC shall make a presentation to the Planning and
Zoning Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting August 17,
1993, to verify that all the conditions of approval have been met
and there are no violations of this conditional use approval.
STAFF COMMENTS: Attached for your review is a traffic plan as
proposed by the Early Learning Center. Staff made suggestions to
the Center for their consideration during the preparation of their
plan.
Specifically staff suggested:
1. Bleeker Street - because of the pending resident parking permit
program as part of the overall Transportation plan, the City does
not support signing the Bleeker Street parking for ELC building use
only. In fact, when the program is implemented, probably at the
end of this year, most of those Bleeker Street spaces may be
reserved for drivers that participate in the resident permit
parking system.
2. Signage staff would suggest that ELC place two signs at
either end of the Bleeker Street parking spaces indicating, with
arrows, that the building's entrance is around the corner.
3. Pedestrian Walk - there is a narrow strip of land between the
Sleeker Street parking curb and the fence . This should be enlarged
(widened) to enable people to park and then walk around either
corner up to the entrances of the building. Chuck Roth has
observed that the end of the angle parking could be moved further
out into the street without posing a hazard to traffic flow.
4. Loading/Unloading - staff suggests that Waldorf use one
entrance at one end of the building and the ELC classes use the
other. We also recommend that, rather then enlarge the loading
zone or require a loading cut out of the curb, that Garmisch and
First be blocked off during the times of the day that parents are
dropping off and picking up their children. Orange cones with
signs indicating ELC and Waldorf use only would be posted at either
end of First and Garmisch Streets at their intersections with
Bleeker and Hallam.
The schools will be responsible for placement of the cones and
obtaining proper signage (as is the case with the signs at the
Bleeker Street parking).
The Hallam Street loading and unloading for Waldorf should be
eliminated.
5. Rildwood - Bill Efting is working with Wildwood to secure an
alternative location for their pick-up activities.
The Early -Learning Center, in response to staff's suggestions has
submitted a revised plan. Please see attached plan. Specifically
the ELC intends to develop a traffic education program for parents
and tenants of the building, hire a property manager to not only
manage the building but to also monitor potential
tenant/neighborhood problems and organize traffic educational
programs, and sign loading and unloading zones for all three
entrances - Garmisch, Hallam and First streets.
RECOMMENDATION: Although the ELC has revised staff's suggestions
for a traffic plan staff supports the plan. A property manager on -
site with the responsibility to monitor the use of the building may
help resolve conflicts before they become significant problems.
A strong education program is also a positive step toward ensuring
that the building's activities are more neighborhood friendly.
Staff recommends that the ELC identify a date for which the
property manager will be on board and notify neighbors and this
department of the selection. Therefore if problems arise people
will know who to contact. Specific dates for installation of
signage should be provided.
Staff also recommends that the ELC work with Chuck Roth of the
Engineering Department to increase the width for pedestrians on
Bleeker Street between the fence and head -in parking.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the ELC parking plan with
the following conditions:
1. The ELC shall identify a date for which the property manager
will be on board and notify neighbors and the Planning Department
2
,I/
(Leslie Lamont) of the selection. Specific dates for installation
of signage shall also be provided to staff and the neighborhood.
2. The ELC shall work with Chuck Roth of the Engineering
Department to increase the width for pedestrians on Bleeker Street
between the fence and head -in parking.
3. The ELC shall also update the Commission as to their compliance
with the other conditions of approval to include what tenants have
leased space in the building to date.
3
r�
Early Learning Center Traffic Plan
In an effort to have a safer operation, compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, the Early Learning Center (ELC) child
care center in the former yellow brick elementary school building
agrees to the following.
1. Relocation of the Wildwood School bus stop. As a great deal
of the traffic and congestion problems at the ELC building
result from the impacts of the Wildwood School bus stop, drop
off and pick up for Wildwood ,children will be relocated. Bill
Efting, Assistant City Manager, is working on a new bus stop
at Koch Park. He has approved this new location, pending
discussions with the neighbors. We are aiming for Wildwood to
begin using the Koch Park location by the beginning of the
school year, September, 1993. The Wildwood bus used the
Bleeker Street parking area at the ELC twice a day. The
relocation will reduce the number of parents and children
present in the peak use hours of the ELC, increase the number
of available parking spaces on Bleeker during this time period
and will increase safety.
2. Property Manager. The ELC has restructured their program and
staff and is hiring a property manager for the next school
year beginning September, 1993. The hassles of being the land
lord of an older building have taken away from the quality of
the ELC child care program and the director's ability to
manage both the building and the program. The property
manager position has been created to manage the tenants of the
building, take care of building maintenance and keep the ELC
books. This person will run and monitor the traffic plan's
educational programs, keep in touch with the neighbors and
their concerns and implement this traffic plan.
3. Education Program. A very important and effective part of our
traffic plan is the education of the various users (parents,
staff, tenants) of the ELC building and the surrounding
neighbors. This education program is to inform the various
parties of past problems, proposed parking and traffic
improvements and safety changes in the operation of the
school. The various educational program activities will be
monitored to evaluate their effectiveness and the necessity
for more frequent and increased educational programs. Such
programs will include the following.
a. Parents. Periodically and as often as monitoring shows is
necessary, the ELC property manager will give parents
informational flyers asking them not to double park or idle
their vehicle engines, to always use their parking brake,
never to leave a child unattended outside the building and to
use the appropriate entrance when dropping off and picking up
their children. In the past when this has been done, the
informational flyers have worked very well for a few weeks,
then adherence seemed to drop. Therefore the property manager
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Diane Moore, City Planning Director
Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: August 17, 1993
RE: Referral - Aspen Highlands Village General Submission
SUMMARY: This is the first of two meetings scheduled for the
review of the Aspen Highlands Village (AHV) General Submission
development proposal.
Pursuant to Section 6-3.4 B.2A of the County Land Use Code and
consistent with Colorado State Statutes, any proposal within two
miles of a municipality shall be referred to that jurisdiction for
review. Aspen Highlands Village is approximately 1.5 miles from
the City -of Aspen boundary and the Aspen Highlands Village (AHV)
General Submission application is being forwarded to the Commission
for review.
The County review process divides project review for significant
developments into two categories, general submission and detailed
submission. General submission is designed to flush out threshold
issues such as affordable housing requirements, infrastructure
capacity, density, compatibility with existing land use code, etc.
Detailed submission would include information regarding the number
of sale verses rental affordable housing units, the mix and income
categories, number of shuttle vans to operate the transit system,
etc. This first level of review is also intended to identify
missing elements that must be included in detailed submission.
This type of review could be compared to the City's conceptual
verses final PUD development review.
Staff's goal in the review of the application for referral to the
County is to provide constructive comments. The intent is to
enable the applicant to make adjustments, during the County review
process, and design and build a project that meets our community
goals. Staff believes that the most efficient way to review the
proposal is to consider the application based upon it's consistency
with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Our reasoning is
twofold. It does not make sense to recite the County Land Use Code
standards or base our review upon the City Land Use Code standards.
The AACP was adopted for the metro area and was intended to make
recommendations regarding growth and land use issues that are metro
in scope. It is also the policy document that guides our land use
reviews and legislation.
Secondly, if the applicant requests City water, the water policy
of 1993 . requires Council approval and their review entails
consideration of the project's consistency with the AACP. Recently
Council has relied upon the Commission's recommendation of a
project's consistency with the AACP.
In this memo, the Community Vision section of the Aspen Area
Community Plan is evaluated and the Housing, Commercial/Retail and
Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plans are considered
in the review of the development proposal. The Growth and
Transportation Action Plans will be reviewed at the next meeting.
APPLICANT: Gerald D. Hines Interests Limited Partnership
LOCATION: Aspen Highlands Ski Area and Base of Highlands
ZONING: AF-1 (agricultural/forest),
AR-1 (accommodations/recreation), and R-30 (residential)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant seeks approval for:
77 single-family detached dwelling units;
85 lodge rooms;
105 tourist accommodations condominium units located in four
separate buildings;
138 affordable housing units located in four separate
buildings to accommodate 264 local residents;
37,440 square feet of retail space; and
14,385 square feet of restaurant space.
Site Description: According to the application, the site is
bordered by the Aspen Highlands Subdivision, metes and bounds
single-family lots, and the Moore family property to the east. The
USFS (ski area) is to the south, and the Heatherbed Lodge and the
Le Chamonix Condominiums are to the west and north.
The site is 188.6 acres and is improved with the Maroon Creek
Lodge, three ski lifts, and the Aspen Highlands Ski Area base area
facilities which include four tennis courts.
According to the application, there are approximately 780 off-
street parking spaces in the existing lot and the Highlands RFTA
bus route terminates in the same parking area.
Currently, there is a total of 39,.194 square feet of commercial
space (22,890 sq. ft. retail/office space, 1,970 sq. ft. skier
services, and 14,334 sq. f t . maintenance / storage) . This space will
be demolished and replaced with 37,440 sq. ft. of retail space and
14,385 sq. ft. of restaurant space, which includes hotel accessory
commercial space.
Over the past seven years Pitkin County has awarded general
submission land use approval to the Aspen Highlands Resort and the
Lodge at Aspen Highlands. The Highlands Resort previously received
2
v
200 tourist accommodation GMQS allotments and obtained credit for
18 existing on -site tourist accommodation units for an existing
total credit of 218 lodge GMQS allotments.
The Lodge at Aspen Highlands previously received BOCC approval for
49 tourist accommodation units (replacing the 49 units that were
demolished) , 8 affordable housing units and 6,300 square feet of
accessory space. The total lodge units available today for
development are 267 units.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE AACP
A. Proposal Objectives - According to the application the
objectives of the Aspen Highlands Village are to:
1. offer diverse winter and summer recreational opportunities;
2. develop a ski village which contains a mix of tourist
accommodations, single-family dwellings, multi -family dwellings,
and limited commercial facilities populated by visitors, seasonal
and permanent residents;
3: to make the Village a community gathering place for the village
residents and Castle/Maroon neighborhood residents;
4. to provide frequent and user-friendly mass transit service to
and from the village;
5. to be consistent with the AACP; and
6. to limit the impacts below those that would have developed from
the approved Aspen Highlands Resort and the Lodge at Aspen
Highlands.
B. Community Vision - The Community Vision section of the AACP
encompasses four themes of the plan from which the action plans
were developed.
The four themes are:
* revitalize the permanent community
* provide transportation alternatives
* promote environmentally sustainable development
* maintain design quality/historic compatibility
The applicant maintains that, by providing a mix of tourist,
seasonal and permanent housing, the village will become a vital
permanent community and gathering place for residents of the
Village and neighbors in the Castle/Maroon neighborhood.
3
The applicant also contends that the density of the village will
enable an efficient bus/shuttle system to be operated with 10 to
15 minute headways. (Analysis of the transit system will be
provided under the Transportation Action Plan section.). A new
pedestrian/bicycle path will be constructed linking the Village to
Iselin Park where the trail currently terminates.
Basic services, including a grocery and pharmacy will be provided
in the Village for residents of the Village and neighbors in the
Castle/Maroon neighborhood.
In order to obtain single family development allocations and reduce
overall impacts of the project, the applicant is proposing to
"convert" existing lodge development allocations to single family
residential development allocations. The applicant's analysis
indicates that a single family home is only occupied 25% of the
time (during peak) while a lodge room is occupied 850 of the time
(during peak). Therefore a shorter occupancy period of single
family homes creates less impacts.
Staff questions whether a "permanent" community can be achieved
without higher occupancy of the 77 single family homes. Thus, the
goal of a permanent community is not consistent with the proposed
method of GMQS allotment conversion.
However, staff believes that if the single family home becomes a
permanent verses seasonal residence, there may be greater impacts
generated those of a lodge room. In addition, the maintenance of
second homes typically occur on a weekly basis, year round, i.e. -
lawn and garden care, snow removal etc.
Additionally, if the affordable housing units are only rental
units, then the Village is likely to remain a seasonal community
verses a permanent community. Similarly, if there are no year
round free market condominiums located in the base village (the
center of the village), a balanced permanent community may not be
achieved. However, this is a general submission application. The
applicant should be encouraged to address these issues during
detailed submission.
C. AACP Action Plan
1. Growth - This section will be reviewed at the second meeting.
2. Transportation - This section will be reviewed at the second
meeting.
3. Housing - The intent of the Housing action plan is to create a
housing environment which is dispersed, appropriately scaled to the
neighborhoods, and affordable.
4
X
The Highlands Village plan is the creation of a small village or
"micro community".
The applicant proposes 190 tourist accommodations, 77 single family
residential units and 138 affordable housing units. The affordable
housing units are conceptually broken down to:
30 - two person dorms
30 - studios
38 - one bedroom
2 - two bedroom
38 - three bedroom
All the affordable housing is proposed within the central core of
the Village.
The Highlands proposal is consistent with several Housing action
plan policies. The proposal promotes a micro community or
neighborhood development to accommodate permanent residents,
neighborhood character, mixed housing types and uses, usable open
space and convenient public transportation.
The applicant's proposal for employee mitigation complies with the
County's requirement to provide for 100% of employees generated.
However, the demolished lodge and commercial space is not included
in the mitigation requirements. Unlike the City, the County does
not require pre-existing commercial development to mitigate for
employees when demolished and rebuilt.
The AHV proposal is also consistent with other policies that
encourage infill development within the existing urban area to
preserve open space and rural areas, enable more employees to be
able to near their work, and locate permanent resident housing near
desired activity centers.
The proposal is consistent with Action item #15 - to work with the
landowners to ensure that future development of property along
Maroon Creek Road and near the schools emphasizes a mix of free
market and affordable family oriented housing and recreational
uses.
However staff finds that the proposal is inconsistent with the
action plan's emphasis on family -oriented housing. There are 38
three bedroom units which may effectively accommodate family's,
however their size and locations have not been determined. In
addition, the applicant has not proposed any single-family, duplex
or triplex detached affordable dwelling units which have been
identified as the greatest need in the community.
Also, the application does not indicate, probably because this is
a conceptual submission, whether the affordable dwelling units will
be rental, sale or a mix of both rental and sale. If all the units
1.1
5
remain rental units there is the potential, as was mentioned above,
that the Village community will remain seasonal and a balanced
permanent community will not exist.
It is also a recommendation from the AACP that every new
subdivision shall provide a, 60% affordable - 40 % free market split
of housing. This application represents a 64%-36% split which does
not include the 190 tourist accommodation units. (Staff is still
discussing whether the tourist units should be excluded from this
calculation or should be included with the 60%-40% split.)
However, the two "subdivisions" (the two seperate singly family
enclaves) -Thunderbowl and Maroon Road have not incorporated any
affordable housing units. In order to achieve a "balanced"
community, staff believes that a mix of affordable and free market
residential units within these neighborhoods is essential.
Finally, Action plan item #30 recommends the establishment of a
salvage program for demolition material from homes and commerical
structures. There may be a significant resource in the existing
structures that are proposed for demolition. The applicant should
address salvage of the materials for future builders.
4. Commercial/Retail - The intent of the commercial/retail action
plan is to provide incentives for managed strategic growth by
locally serving commercial and office uses and small lodges.
The applicant proposes to include within the commerical space a
neighborhood grocery and pharmacy. The applicant has committed
that these spaces will maintain competitive prices. The applicant
does not, however, indicate how the prices at the grocery and the
pharmacy will remain accessible or how to prevent the uses from
eventually turning over to higher end commercial space.
In addition, action item #8 - recommends studying locations for
vertical zoning. The Village proposal includes affordable housing
and tourist accommodations above commerical/retail space.
There is an overall concern about adding additional commercial
space when the goal of this section of the Plan is to reduce the
amount of commercial square footage from a likely buildout of
700,000 sq. ft. to 400,000 sq. ft. This proposal adds an
additional 12,631 sq. ft. of commercial space (which included hotel
accessory space) than was anticipated during the AACP analysis
which considered existing approvals. However, the additional
commerical could potentially reduce vehicle trips by providing
neighborhood commercial uses adjacent to residential uses.
5. Open Space/Recreation and Environment - The intent of the OSRE
action plan is to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of the
area. The action plan recommends developing a stimulating, active
and supportive environment that betters the lives of everyone,
preserves our natural resources and provides opportunities for all
R
to enjoy and to further the growth and development of outdoor
recreation.
It is the policy of the OSRE action plan to support ski area
expansions that are found "to have minimal impacts on land
development, environmental quality and service needs (i.e.,
expansion to existing areas) over ski expansions which are found
to have substantial impacts on land development, environmental
quality and service needs (i.e. expansions involving new base
villages or major infrastructural extensions or upgrades or
expansions into existing wilderness areas).
The AHV plan is consistent with the AACP policy of expansions to
existing area. Although the proposal includes extensive upgrades
to the skier related facilities on the mountain and expansion of
the area to be developed for skiing, these changes are within the
existing ski area boundary.
However, the need to upgrade the Highlands ski facilities and the
desire to expand skier terrain appears to be generating a
significant expansion of the base area: new roads, sewer and water
systems, upzoning of approximately 44 acres, a new transit system,
aerial connection to Buttermilk, and a precedent setting proposal
to convert GMQS allocations from lodge allocations to single-
family residences.
Staff finds these significant base area upgrades inconsistent with
the OSRE policy which prefers expansions that have minimal impacts.
The link between upgrade of existing ski operations and the
development of the base area should be clarified. If the link is
vital for either redevelopment this should be clearly stated and
the extent to which there are interrelated. During the review,
staff is looking for compliance with as many of the goals of the
AACP as possible. Obviously, some goals may not be achieved and
the impacts of the development will be weighed against the number
of community goals and the type of goals that the development does
achieve. A better understanding of the relationship between the
two redevelopments would help staff prioritize the goals of the
Aspen Area Community Plan. Also, staff could more effectively
determine the advantages and disadvantages of a joint review of the
ski area upgrades and base area redevelopment.
The transit system, use of electric carts by single-family
residents, and other traffic demand management techniques are
proposed to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion. These
measures are consistent not only with the OSRE action plan but the
Transportation action plan. This will be discussed in more detail
at the second meeting when transportation is reviewed.
The AHV plan proposes a new nordic trail connecting the Moore
property trail system. A new pedestrian/bicycle path from AHV to
7
Iselin Park, a climbing rock, access to the mountain in the summer
and winter for uphill traffic are also proposed and a school lift
link. These amenities are consistent with the policy in the OSRE
action plan to encourage projects which integrate the developinent
of affordable housing and maintenance of open space.
STAFF SUMMARY: The follow up meeting of this review, September 7,
1993, will review the transportation and growth sections of the
AACP. A final summary of the entire review will also be included.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Aspen Highlands Village Site Plan
n
a