Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19880119 A .. ,.",,' RECORD OF PROCEEDIRGS PLANNING & ZONIRG JANUARY 19. 1988 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Welton Anderson, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Ramona Markalunas and Michael Herron. David White, Mari Peyton and Jim Colombo arrived shortly after roll call. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. 925 E. DURANT STREET TOWNHOMES PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION steve: This is a proposal to build a 4 unit building on 4 lots on East Durant. The applicant requests subdivision exception from construction of a four unit townhome project. It is located between the Alpina Haus and the Landeau Apartments. Across the street is the Brass Bed Inn and the old Httfiter. ooe h ~nJrd This is an in-fill project on a vacant site that has been known for the hole which was excavated a number of years ago. It is a proposal to build 2 3-bedroom free market units and 2 2-bedroom free market units. The applicant has submitted sufficient information for prelim- inary subdivision thereby we are going through a 2 step process rather than a 4 step process. Regarding subdivision review: The comments from the referral agencies indicate the utility services are adequate. The Water Department was satisfied with the hookup. The Sanitation District had no problem. The Engineering Department made some comments with regard to the proposed on-site and adjacent right- Of-way improvements that are being proposed. They thought that the storm drainage plan was adequate. They made a request that there be an improvements agreement and guarantee for the various improvements that are being proposed in the project. That is installation of the sidewalk along Durant, sidewalk and bicycle rack in the right-of-way, installation of the internal walkway, a trash enclosure off the alley and provision of an easement for either a transformer or a switch gear. .._~,,,, r- -;, PZMl.19.88 There is no problem with the electric easement off the alley. The Planning Office believes the project meets the subdivision review criteria. It has a suitable site for development. The design appears to be appropriate in that there are no unmitigated adverse effects on the surrounding area. We recommend approval of the preliminary subdivision subject the 4 conditions which are listed on 5 a 6 of my memo. (Attached in records) Regarding cash-in-lieu for employee housing: The applicant has proposed $226,000 cash payment to house low income employees. We are recommending that one I-bedroom unit be provided on site, deed restricted to low income and that the remainder in cash be accepted. We think that there is sufficient land area on the site to accommodate a 5th unit. The result of adding a 5th unit would be to make three 2-bedroom, one 3-bedroom and one I-bedroom unit which would be the employee housing unit. That is what the density allows. We think that this bedroom meets the intent of the RMF zone district which is for higher density primarily permanent residents to have some employee housing on the site. This is a mixed zone district and it has all the services with proximity to the community facilities that would make it an appropriate employee area. The 1973 Landuse Plan identifies this area as residential mixed and the concept is to promote a mix of permanent residential uses. We feel that this would be very consistent with this aspect. The project design seems to allow this without a major modif- ication. The parking has worked out in such a way that there would be a separate garage. We think that with regard to the project design of the bulk that rather than to have two large luxury duplexes that are connected by the upper story connection that it has a more justified impact if there is one employee unit on the site. Finally we think that the cash-in-lieu alternative should not be considered the ultimately most desireable option in all case s. We note that it would save the applicant $51,200. And so there is a certain financial benefit that is associated with that. The remaining $174,800 would still go to the housing authority which would be a generous contribution. We recommend that there be one on-site deed restricted unit. 2 PZMl.19.88 - Wayne Ethridge: Regarding the recommendations of the Planning Office on the preliminary subdivision application, we have no problem with the conditions that have been placed. This is a vacant lot consisting of 4 townsite lots between the Landeau units and the Alpina Haus. We have excellent proximity to commercial services and also public transportation. Our major concern with the issue that has been raised as a last minute issue. We have not had time to prepare for it. It is the question of providing employee housing as an integral part of our development. This places us at a considerable disadvantage. We went to considerable detail. We looked in great detail at the neighborhood and what we are trying to do on the site. We took it to the preliminary level of subdivision because we wanted you to see the level of development intent--the level of quality of landscaping. This proposal does not include an employee housing unit of I-bedroom unit. Those of you familiar with the process know it is not that easy once you are this far in the process to simply change it and add a unit. steve mentions a 1973 Master Plan which calls for a mix of employee housing and residential uses. I don't think that was intended to mean that every site has to have employee housing. The Alpina Haus right now is dedicated to employee housing. Steve also says we will save $5I,200. That is true unless you consider the construction cost of putting in a I-bedroom unit and the redesign that goes into that. That is really not the issue. Our proposal is to provide $226,000 which we think is a more efficient way to provide employee housing where it can do the most good. Individual isolated small units have some problems. They have some enforcement problems. Once this project is developed and in the hands of a condominium association, we have no further control over it. We know the problems with enforcement. The advantage of cash-in-lieu is that it allows the joint housing office to work together. They can pool monies to provide employee housing on sites that may be close to town that can do more than a single isolated unit can do. Our goal in developing this project is to provide an infill development with the least possible impact on the neighborhood. The neighborhood context was studied very carefully. This is a multi-family development. 3 PZMl.19.88 - This is the only development on Durant Street which has an entry at virtually the level as the street. Steve has a concern about the fact that we are somewhat below the street grade. The fact is that our proposal is more consistent with the neighborhood than inconsistent. The opening between the buildings provides a view for the Aspen Silverglow complex and the Chateaux Snow. Another reason for providing this design which was a very conscious process, is to provide some relief for the people who live at the Chateaux Snow and in the Silverglow and visit that area. This opening is not at all insignificant. The landscaping we are providing in the center of this courtyard provides some relief in the rear of the property. We did not look at just the front facade of the building. We fit very nicely in context with the surroundings. One of the things we did to mitigate the concerns about the side setback is increase it 3 feet on the Alpina Haus side respecting the proximity of that development which is close to the setback. There is also an existing row of trees which deserve preservation. We have provided a very large front setback and a larger than required rear setback. The water line is adequate. Fire protection is adequate. We did not want to tear up what is a dead end street unnecessarily and chose instead to put that money into employee housing. This works out to $56,000 per unit for a 4 unit complex. Welton opened the public hearing at this time and asked for comments on the subdivision for this project. Welton read into the record a letter a letter from Coates, Reid & Waldron, representatives for the Chateau Snow Condominium Association cautioning P&Z to take into consideration current zoning and height restrictions before granting approval on this application. (attached in records) There were not further public comments and Welton closed the publ ic hear ing . Jasmine: At the current level of existing business and residences, we cannot house the employees that we already need. Anybody who works in any service business in town can tell you of the difficulties that we encounter in all areas of service business. It has become apparent to the Commission that there are times when cash-in-lieu, which is a very valuable tool, is not appropriate because we already have a situation in which the demand for affordable housing is far in excess of the actual housing in place. - 4 PZMl.19.88 As a part of growth management the essential services include not just things like water and sewer but the people who perform the essential service functions needed in the community. Wayne: We know that there is an employee housing problem. That is why we made the decision to contribute an extraordinary amount of money, $226,000 for a 4-plex, in response to that question. Had we known this was going to be an issue early in the process, we could have addressed it. We are at a tremendous disadvantage having gone this far and now and finding out that it is a very serious issue with you and the Planning Office. It is very difficult for us to address this at this late date. Rick Stanzione: I am aware of the employee housing problem. I truly felt that $226,000 was a large amount of money to give but I really felt no qualms about doing it. But at this point to redesign the project is literally an impossibility. To ask me to redesign the entire project at this time is just not feasible. Steve: We appreciate the difficulty that it presents the applicant at this time. However this is the first public meeting on the project. I don't think it is inappropriate to raise a fundamental community issue at this time and to ask for some response. David White: We on the P&Z also realize that this issue has not been given to the development community soon enough. But at the same time many of us were not whOleheartedly in favor of the cash-in-lieu. It was something that City Council voted on. Many of us have seen this coming for a long time. We have wanted meetings with the Housing Office. Our job is to look after the planning of the community. We have been seeing that everybody goes cash-in-lieu and we don't get any place to house employees. We feel that if there is development, it has to pay its own way and that includes providing employee housing. Jim Adamski: When you talk about employee housing, you talk about generic employee housing. What we have is marching orders from City Council to produce dormitory units. What you need in Aspen is dormitory housing. The only way you will produce dormitory housing is with a mass of subsidy because the people that are those tenants cannot afford any other. This is where the cash-in-lieu comes into play. So I think what you have to consider is the type of employee or the economic status of that employee. There are two shortfalls in your housing market. There is a shortfall at the low end and the single family type housing. Those are what is keeping the units restricted. There is no - 5 ...,-,~- PZMl.19.88 - ability for the employee to step up in the system. You have to take into consideration what you would like to see in the long run. As it stands right now dormitory housing is the number one issue in the City. For the County the number one issue is single family. You have to take that into consideration when you are dealing with these proposals. Jasmine: It is my understanding in our meeting with you that it was not necessarily dormitory housing but low income housing. I agree that there is a need for dormitory housing but not all low income housing need be dormitory housing. Our other concern which we mentioned to you is that the Commission is very concerned that we try to find sites within the City limits on this side of the Castle Creek Bridge because of the tremendous problems on Highway 82 and the lack of availability of appropriate sites where the employees are close to their work and do not have to drive 82. Those sites have not been forthcoming which is why it seems to us essential to have a mixture. We are not saying to these applicants here that we expect them to provide a significant portion of the employee housing but we are giving them a direction that we would like them to provide some on-site housing to relieve the pressure of this travel ing. We are certainly not turning down cash-in-lieu but we feel a combination of some on-site housing within locations that are appropriate as this one is and cash-in-lieu is the best short term and long term solution. Jim Adamski: I agree with your philosophy of providing employee housing. I disagree with your method. Michael: I think that the policy that we are not going to accept cash-in-lieu should have been more of an announced policy. It concerns me that he comes in here on Friday and finds then that we are not going to do that as we have in the past. We do have a major problem. But I feel that forcing this particular project to put in one I-bedroom unit isn't really going to do anything toward solving the problem and will only create a hardship on the applicant. I don't think it is fair. Welton: The policy has been cash-in-lieu or on-site employee housing. Roger: This seems to be a general problem. Are we going to hold that issue in abeyance at this point and then come back to it. Or are we going to try to do it on each individual basis exclusive of the others. , 6 t. PZMl.19.88 Welton asked for a show of hands for those who want to hold off making a decision on the employee housing section. If we want to save a decision on employee housing for later in the evening we can approve the subdivision right now and put off the employee housing decision till we have the other applications. Jim: I think that we had better get straightened out as a policy whether or not we are going to address employee housing and cash- in-lieu exclusively or cash-in-lieu in accompaniment with employee housing on-site as an individual case of each applicant or if we are going to have a policy for it. David: I think we should defer the employee housing issue until we talk about all the different applicants. We do need a policy. Wel ton: The pol icy has been to look at it on a case by case basis and decide what is most appropriate for each property. This is the first time that we have had a public hearing on any of these projects. It is an ongoing process. There is going to be more meetings for the preliminary on the other one and finals and more public input. But this is the first time that we have had a chance to set policy because it is the first time that we have looked at this. Jasmine: I would rather handle it on a case by case basis. Obviously there are going to be situations in which cash-in-lieu is very appropriate. Sometimes a mixture is more appropriate. MOTION Jim: I make a motion to defer the decision on employee housing till later in the evening. David seconded the motion which carried with a 4 to 3 show of hands. MOTION Welton Durant in the then entertained a motion to approve subdivision of 925 E. mUlti-family project subject to the conditions as listed Planning Office memo dated 1-19-88. (Attached in records) Roger: I so move. David seconded the motion with all in favor except Jasmine. -~ 7 PZMl.19.88 700 MAIN 8'.rREET CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION Cin~y Houben from the Planning Office: This is a stream margin reV1ew. The applicant has taken into account all the criteria in stream margin review. They are keeping the development away from the most easterly portion of the site. There is a nice open view to the river corridor from Main street. There is a sense of open space as you are coming into town around Original Curve. They have kept the bulk of the development to the back of the property to allow a sense of open space. There is a wide amount of public right of way between the property line and the street corner. The applicant has committed Bridge which helps the area. happy with the site design. There are 41 parking spaces underground. There are 4 parking places which are left along Spring Street. All of this works on the site and it is commendable that the parking is underground. It makes for a visually nice site design. to a sidewalk down to No Problem The Planning Office is basically The basic requirement in the RMF zone district has been met and exceeded in certain cases as far as site coverage. I don't think that we have any major concerns. Regarding employee housing: I feel that in this case it is even more significant because the 1973 Comprehensive Plan designates the site and the area is residential multi-family site for high density use and also it should be used for low income housing. There were only 4 sites in town that were designated back in 1973 as areas that might be appropriate for permanent resident population, high density scale and multi-family use. We are recommending that the employee unit be exempt from the growth management process. We also believe that the unit because it is provided in a low income level should not be allowed to be rented by an employee of the project unless they are a low income employee. There is basis in having the guidel ines to allow commercial lodge projects waiver on this but we don't find any precedent for that as far as the residential is concerned. Gideon: We have devised a plan that respects the special features of the site. The first issue of the site is the proximity to the Roaring Fork River. The plan preserves the view from the park as well as from Main Street. The eastern most portion of the site is in proximity to Herron Park. We tried to continue that park-like feeling. We tried to be a transition from the massive street scape along Main Street to the Park and to the River. The bulk of our 8 PZMl.19.88 project sits 65 feet back from the curve. The front part of the project is 3 feet and more below the maximum height that is allowed and we tried to create a smaller scale on Main Street. It is a mandatory PUD which means we had flexibility. We could have sought more. Instead the developer tried to seek less--20% or over 10 ,000 sq ft less than allowed to build. Most of the height of the buildings is below code. Open space and green space all exceed code requirements. Only 32% of the site is covered with buildings. We are relocating transformers and putting them where they are less noticeable. We added trails. We have eliminated all wood burning devices and we have greatly exceeded the code requirements for cash-in-lieu payments. Larry Yaw: One of the key factors in the site design is the amount of open space. From a community standpoint the open space offers transition and relief from movement along Main Street. The zoning requires 35% open space. We have exceeded that to 55% of the site. The building footprint only occupies 32% of the site. That leaves 68% undeveloped. The code allows us over 50,000 sq ft of FAR. We have used only a little over 40,000 sq ft. The heights of the buildings are less than the required code. We have placed the majority of the units back away from Main Street and just a few up front. There are no fireplaces or wood burning devices in this project. ,-- We have left an open space at the corner which is 55' X 70' to preserve the existing Cottonwood trees and create a park by providing park-like benches. The placement of these buildings also provides an important transition from a 4 and 1/2 story building at the end of the Concept 600 down to 2 and 1/2 stories and finally to merge with the open space. Along the Main Street frontage there is over 300 feet. We have only used 1/3 of that. We have extended the natural form here and landscaped it for visual privacy. We have provided over 500 ft of sidewalk along the property line and an additional 300 ft to connect with the pedestrian access to No Problem Bridge. We have provided open space continuing from Spring Street to Main Street. The parking ramp is over 200 ft away from the curb and is snowmelted. The refuge collection area is kept in the lower level except for periods of collection. Joe Wells: Discussed several points regarding employee housing questioning whether we should be reconsidering our employee housing commitment at this late date, the applicability of the 1973 Land Use Plan, the consistency of our proposal with current regulations and housing guidelines and to take issue with the Planning Offices's position that the authority exists to change 9 ._".'~ PZMl.19.88 - our proposal given the consistency with current regulations and guidelines. The 1973 Land Use Plan which is now 15 years old includes a series of policy statements and maps. The Planning Office failed to bring your attention to the fact that twice in the plan itself there is a confirmation that the intended useful life of the plan was only until new zoning code and zoning district maps could be adopted. The zoning code and zoning district map was adopted in 1974. "The plan is to serve as a guide to the Aspen Planning Commission in reviewing applications for building permits until and only until a new zoning code and a new zoning district map are adopted." Cindy pointed out to you that under a residential multi-family area designation, it was the intent that those areas would be a source for low income housing. In our opinion that does not necessarily mean a site for low income housing. We feel that we are still in compliance with that language even if the Land Use Plan did apply by virtue of our cash-in-lieu contribution of $685,000. - We note that this on-site employee housing requirement has not been applied to other projects that have been developed in the area since that plan was adopted. That plan has been abandoned on the Rio Grande property which is an adjacent site to our site that has the same designation in that plan. We don't believe that it is appropriate to apply to us at this late date. In 1985 the City gave developers the option of satisfying the housing requirement by means of the cash-in-lieu payment. It is not, as has been suggested by the Planning Off ice, optional to the City. It is optional to the developers. That is evident by both the prov isions of the GMP Regulations as well as the 1987 Housing Guidelines which were adopted in April of 1987. We are in complete compliance with the current Land Use Regulations in regard to employee housing. We have received the approval of the Housing Authority for our proposal and, as Jim Adamski has confirmed, the number one priority established by the City in its adoption of the housing guidelines is to provide housing for the MAA students as well as seasonal employees and we feel that our cash-in-lieu contribution goes a long way toward getting that started. Under what source the City would have to force us to change the proposal when we are consistent with current regulations, the Planing Office seems to be relying on fraud authority under either PUD or subdivision regulations to require an optional 10 PZMI.19.88 solution and appears to be willing to concede that that authority does not exist under GMP Regulations. By virtue of being designated a mandatory PUD we fall under the PUD regulations. Otherwise we would not be a PUD because we are totally consistent with the underlying zoning. However, the mandatory PUD section focuses strictly on environmental concerns as areas to be reviewed and the PUD in general focuses on site design and architectural considerations. At no point is employee housing discussed as a basis for review of PUD. The ability to force changes under the subdivision regs are, in our opinion, equally doubtful. Section 20.9 which has to do with suitability of land for subdivision states that no subdivision shall be approved which includes elements that are not in conformance with any applicable zoning ordinance but we are in compliance with all applicable zoning ordinances. Larry Yaw: The GMP is the only process by which employee housing has contributed to and paid for by the private sector. It is also a process that requires a very exacting design inclusion of precise set of commitments that demonstrate merit. You sit in judgement in competitive projects and you need and use an exacting set of requirements to evaluate them. So last Friday after working for 3 months with the Planning Office, they are requiring 5 additions on-site employee housing uni ts. Let me tell you why this action, and particularly if it translates to procedure makes design physical planning literally impossible in the context of a GMP. As you know design is an activity that starts and identifies criteria, objectives and it proceeds through an arduous design process which translates all that into beneficial physical design. If you mod or mix the on-site employee housing versus cash-in- lieu as unidentified by factor or public policy, it is virtually impossible to reconcile those design issues to a level required by GMP. Our commitment here was to provide housing for 34 employees which we did. The only way that I know of to reconcile that in a physical planning sense is to create literally 34 different scenarios and mixes of on-site/off-site and free market units. To anticipate something that doesn't at this point that has not even been identified as policy. The Planning Office happened to pick 5 more employees. I don't know what criteria was chosen or if there was one. But I submit again that it was late and with the chance of being somewhat arbitrary. The concept of GMP provides a tool for better community planning. The concept of a roving employee housing policy is absolutely contradictory to that policy. I find it interesting or also contradictory that the Planning Office has held my feet to your 11 PZMl.19.88 fire in terms of exacting GMP compliance in such matters as bench location, lines and sidewalks, stair treatment while at the same time it has requirements to somewhat arbitrary ruling as to the amount of employee housing on site. We are striving, you are striving to create projects that maximize public benefits with tight and restrictive sites. Aside from the generosity of that gesture, it gets us project that could be built. That planning is an exacting endeavor--an exacting commitment. We can't even sharpen our pencils without having established standards for employee housing on or off- site. Gideon: We have a lot of rules and regulations in Aspen. We are strict in our codes but we also strive for fairness. One of the things we have done is we have tried to set up procedures to make this difficult process fair. We have worked on this project for 4 months. During that period of time we have had many meetings with the Planning Office who made suggestions to us on the project that we have incorporated into this design process. All through that time not a single mention was made to us about our on-site employee housing or cash-in-lieu. ,- At 5:00 Friday afternoon when we come to pick up the memo is the first time that we are told about this after a 4 month process of design and development in working together. How did we get our employee housing basis? We worked with the Housing Office. We were told what the number one community priority was on employee housing. And we went ahead and implemented that. There is nothing wrong with cash-in-lieu. Let me remind you of something. In 10 years of residential GMP, before cash-in-lieu, we got less than 5 units of disbursed employee housing. There are problems enforcing it and we weren't getting any. So we decided to try something else--cash-in-lieu. Cash-in-lieu we all know is going to need time. And David is right. You guys had a problem with cash-in-lieu. But the City Council chose to adopt it and so we have to live with what they have adopted and what applies to us. We are greatly exceeding the code requirements. I don't see why we should have this imposed on us at the last minute. The 1973 Planning Office interpretation of the Master Plan wasn't applied to anybody else in the neighborhood. Why should it be applied to us now? To me it is a question of fairness. I would like to read you a quote. "I think that what happens now is that you are doing a disservice to the applicant for this year's residential GMP because I don't think it is anywhere clear in the code. While it would be a good thing to get employee housing on- site, the applicants are going to turn around and say how can you - 12 ;&C_, - PZMl.19.88 do this to us now? And I think they would have every right to say that." Jasmine's quote says everything that echoes my feelings at this particular point in time. Jim made a very important point at that last meeting. He said there are no standards for accepting cash-in-lieu. We have identified that we have a problem and we really agree with you that it is a problem. But you can't set standards now. You can't sit down when an application is in front of you and decide at this point in time that this is the standard that is going to apply. The code is clear. It gives the option to the applicant. Cindy: It is important to remember that this is the conceptual level of plan. This is not final plans. Alan: We brought this up the way we did for 2 reasons. Number I because of the comments made to us by the Planning Commission last Tuesday when we were considering amendments to the new code and number 2 because when we review applications doing our detail review, Cindy looked at the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan which we are required to do. When she looked at that plan she discovered the designation on that plan of this site as a source of low and moderately low income housing. We wish that 3 months ago we had identified this site as the way it was designated on the Land Use Plan. We didn't. It is unfortunate that we were unable to identify for the applicant months ago. But Cindy makes a point. This is conceptual PUD. It is the first time you are reviewing the application. If this isn't a time for negotiation between the Planning Commission and the applicant, I don't know when it is. I don't think we are too late simply because we didn't notice this in pre-application. The real point here is to go back and look at the record as to what we wrote when we wrote the cash-in-lieu option and whether we do have the capability to apply cash-in-lieu option. (Reading from memo to Council at the hearing that adopted cash-in-lieu) "Providing this option puts the City in position where it has more choice and flexibility in how our housing needs can be met. But never requires that the City accept the cash-in-lieu that any developer that is not in the Community's best interest at that point in time." From the minutes--"Richman told Council the cash-in-lieu provision is an option--not something Council has to accept. An applicant can propose cash-in-lieu and Council can make a determination that the cash-in-lieu will not get them to their housing goals. Richman said there is nothing in the provision 13 PZMl.19.88 _ that requires them to accept." Those are the key comments that we made. You, as a planning commission, have an obligation to determine the need for the kind of housing an applicant is proposing. If you don't believe that the need is there--the $685,000 in cash. But if you think the need is there for a certain amount of housing on-site, I think you have every basis in Section 24- 11.10. And the City Attorney advises me to tell you that you have the legal authority to request that housing to be on-site. I think in terms of PUD regulations you absolutely have the author i ty. The very first section of PUD--Section 24-1.2 says "Developments which are presented to you must be in accord with the Master Plan". The bottom line is the 1973 plan is the most up to date one that we have. It is the adopted plan of the City of Aspen. Your decision should be in accord with that plan. You should have housing on this site. Gideon: Alan is right. When you go back and look at the minutes like Alan looked at and maybe he made that representation. But what is adopted in the code is what we have to read and what we have to abide by. We are in compliance with the Land Use Code because we are contributing to that. It really comes down to a situation where you have decided that maybe the cash-in-lieu benefit doesn't work. I really don't think that at this particular time on this particular project that it is appropr iate. Let's not lose sight of the fact that you are getting a very important cash-in-lieu contribution. One that greatly exceeds what we are required to give and one that is strongly supported by the Housing Authority. Just as zoning matters are delegated to you, housing matters should be delegated to them. Jim Colombo: I don't understand why we have a Housing Commission who was charged with the responsibility to decide what the problems, solutions and applications of the employee housing are and what the solution should be. And yet we get different recommendations from the Planning Department which I don't believe spends as much time with those housing issues as the Housing Authority does. Is our Planning Department talking with the Housing Authority? And if they are, why can't you guys come up with something which you both agree on before you get it to us and to the applicant? Alan: The housing office is not required to look at the Aspen Land Use Plan. We are. We are working with the Housing 14 PZMl.19.88 Authority on an adoption of the housing element so that the Planning Office and the Housing Authority will have the same plan for housing in the future. We don't at the present time. We are on the same philosophical bent. The Housing Authority is pushing for as much cash as it can get so that it can produce units. We are sympathetic with the position that I heard several members of the Commission voice last week which is the cash-in-lieu is a wonderful option. I wrote the program, I endorse the program strongly. However, it is an option. It is not the only way the problem can be solved. What we are suggesting is the amount of cash we get here is somewhat less than the cost for production. We are not suggesting no cash. We are not suggesting trying to produce housing for 34 people by this development. That would be outlandish. We are suggesting some compromise that we think that is reasonable based on the fact that there is additional density. -,.." Jim: Is it unreasonable for me to assume that the Housing Authority with your help should have a full perspective of the entire problem and should work on that problem with a whole approach to it both in land use and in housing? Otherwise why should we have a Housing Authority that deals with nothing more than putting beds up and pillows down and putting people in them? Alan: The Housing Authority on a case like this is a recommending body. They are a referral agency. They are an agency that makes a suggestion of conditions which we bring to you and which you will bring to the City Council. The Housing Authority is no more than a recommending body. They are what is called the City's Housing Designee. They have been designated by the City as the expert on housing. Jim: Can I make a suggestion that what you should do is educate the Housing Authority what the concerns are that you have. I am not saying that they should have the same recommendations as you. There is going to be a difference of opinion. That is fine. But we seem to have a total different concept of where employee housing should be going between the Planning Department and the Housing Authority. Alan: Neither Jim or I would agree with that at all. about as close as you can possibly be. We are Jim Adamski: We work very closely together. We are implementors. We implement financing mechanisms. We implement production. We work with the developer at pre-conferences. We talk about the needs. We disagree with some methods. Our methods are based on pragmatism. If you look at our Board and .......... IS PZMl.19.88 - see who sits on it, you will see that there is the appraisal side, the attorney side and land development. We feel that to fill the goals and objectives that the City Council has stated that we need to do this through cash-in-lieu in this time and space and not scattered sites. If we had wanted to scatter sites we would have recommended scattered sites. We are trying to produce units for employees. That is our goal. Larry Yaw: If you want production, give these guys the financial support they need. There are objectives that have been set. They don't have the money to do that stuff right now. Give this policy and these guys a chance to go from concept to production. If the projects in GMP are prepared to support that via the cash- in-lieu--don't cut it off at its knees. Welton opened the public hearing for public comment. There was none and Welton closed the public hearing. Gideon: For clarification--Cindy said that the 5 bedrooms can just be added. Under current zoning that is not the case. There is an underlying land requirement that would prohibit that. j"~ There is double FAR in that zone distr ict. We don't have enough underlying land to have 5 bedrooms. '- Michael: The code itself is clear and although the notes to the Ci ty may have said that they were going to have a choice, the ordinance does not say that and the ordinance is the law. The ordinance says absolutely it is up to the applicant. There is no place in the ordinance that says it is up to the applicant subject to the approval of the Commission or the City Council. I think they have satisfied the code and I think it is fundamentally unfair as well as possibly illegal to turn around at this point and say to them "Now by complying with the code you have not complied to our satisfaction and you are not going to get your approvals". MOTION Roger: I would like to move that we move off of employee housing considerations at this time and go back to subdivision. Welton: With the 3rd project it is not a question. We can solve this right now for both of these projects. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. 16 PZMl.19.88 ",,- Roger: Basically I like the project very much but there are a few technical things and it has to do with parking and access to the project. There is an inconsistent designation where in one place there is called a guest/service parking and another is titled arrival parking. I need a clarification of what you call guests. Arrival parking to me connotates a lodge type of operation. Larry: The services now call it arrival parking. If someone has a question about where to go that is why we put the employee housing up there and this parking right next to it as well as postal service deliveries, packages--it all goes to one source then it is distributed throughout the project. Roger: My concern is that on a project of this size that there is not suff icient non-resident guest parking. My suggestion is to add some parking on Main street for a short portion where you could get somewhere between 5 and 8 spaces. My only other concern on the project is the activity in the area of Bleeker and Spring Street where you have the Creek Tree Drive coming in more or less opposite Bleeker. Then add to it with the planned additional use of this area in the future from so-called Spring Street extension. Is there anything you can do to help relieve a potential problem in that area? Larry: The driveway is placed a distance away from Main Street to avoid traffic conflict. It has a 20 to 30 foot waiting area so that when a car comes up he has plenty opportunity to stop and look clearly both ways. This whole thing was conceived to avoid putting more traffic problems on Main Street than were there. There is currently a curb cut there. We thought that in the interest of traffic planning that by eliminating curb cuts and traffic movements there by consolidating them on the Spring Street side that we were actually creating a parking and traffic plan in conformance with the ideas of safety and traffic planning. This is the solution which the Engineering Department preferred. We doubt that 17 units will generate more parking needs than the 45 spaces we have provided underground even with guest parking. David: A concern of mine is we don't have enough parking in the City and just for parties and things like that where people would park. Along with Roger I would make that a point with the Engineering Department. George Wier: About 50% of the cars there have been setting there 6 weeks or so. They are just parked there and left. The rest of 17 PZMl.19.88 them belong to County employees. They park there and walk up to the Courthouse. Jasmine: I think the project looks very attractive. It has been identified as a high-density area for permanent residents. I just don't think that this will be affordable to most current permanent residents of Aspen. This represents a second home market rather than long term local permanent residents. I am concerned that this is a piece of land the intent of which was that it is a desireable spot for permanent residents who would have more need of using the kind of support facilities available nearby. People who buy a 3/4 million dollar second home tend to have maids go to the supermarket for them and they don't come here to do their own vacuuming. They require a lot of people who will do these support services for them. It seems it would be desireable from a marketing standpoint to have availability of some support people on site to service the kind of people who are going to living in this project. Roger: I think the proj ect should be addressed as East Main Street. ~- Chuck Roth, Engineering Dept.: I was concerned about stream margin because I don't think the Engineering Department has commented and I know there is a problem. There has been a loss of trees in the river during high water in recent past years when we got our flooding problem. We would ask the applicant to consider doing something to stabilize the banks so that no more trees are lost. George Wier: Having lived there for 40 years, there has been 2 trees lost or washed out on that bank. In other words they are permanently anchored in rocks and the water coming up there don't really wash. And even when the water is clear over that flat down there there is not enough pressure to do harm. Chuck: There was I that went within the last 3 years. George: That was because of some kind of movement that the City was in there on that pipe up there to put water pipe in there. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the conceptual sub- division stream margin review exemption from GMP for the employee housing units approval for the 700 East Main Project with the following conditions: Conditions I through 6 to be identical to the Planning Office memo dated January 19, 1988. (Attached in ,,,,""-, '~hlo..' 18 ~. PZMl.19.88 .- records) New condition 7 shall read "Applicant shall correct project address from Main to 700 East Main Street. New condition 8 reading "The applicant shall deal with the stabilization of the river bank to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. Gideon: That is committing us to something we have never even had an opportunity to discuss. Welton: It shouldn't be a problem. Roger: If it is a problem with the Engineering Department, we should deal with it right now. Gideon: I would like to reserve the right to bring that issue back here. David seconded the motion with all in favor except Jasmine. Welton: Do we want to deal with this employee housing question now or after dealing with the 3rd subdivision which does not have any problem with this. It is obvious we are not going to get to the GMP scoring tonight. Jim: I support the cash-in-lieu program and I think that the Housing Authority's recommendation is the one I would prefer to take. I think that more can be done for this community in a more continuous type of housing for the employees by the cash-in- lieu program. I also challenge the real compatibility of 3/4 million dollar townhouses being comparable with I-bedroom low income employee housing. The main philosophical problem I have is that I wish the Planning Department could work in an architectural office during the creation of one of these projects. I completely agree with the architects on this problem. If you say you have to put employee housing in at this late date it becomes financially impossible for a project to exist. Alan: I think this will be the last time we will have this problem because of the new code. We are separating concept ual subdivision and GMP. The competition will not happen in conceptual anymore. This is a perfect case of why we are making that recommendation. Jim: I think the idea of fairness becomes the issue. The inappropriateness of this being given to the applicants on Friday is not fair in my opinion, nor correct. , Welton: What we want to do here to resolve this question is to 19 ,-;"" PZMl.19.88 - poll the Commission as to how they feel after hearing the oratory from the applicants and the Planning Office. Roger: I think it is unfair to the applicants so I have to agree with the applicants. I agree with the concept that there should be a mix of housing on-site and where appropriate cash-in-lieu. I would be in favor of accepting these applications as they are in this case and we will get on with it next year as far as correcting the problem. Mari: Alan, has a rule been changed or is it just that there was an assumption made on the part of the developer that the option was at the developer's discretion rather than the City's discretion. Is it clearly in the code? Alan: The rule has not been re-written since it was adopted in 1986. Mari: So the language is in the code. Alan: We feel comfortable-- Wel ton: Is it clear that it is the City's option and not the applicant's option? Alan: As clear as it could be. Mari: Then I don't think the rules have been changed. Gideon: The cash-in-lieu section says it is the applicant's option. Roger: That is why I am in favor of the applicants in this case. David: I think that fairness is definitely the question. However, we as a Commission did not favor the cash-in-lieu. And many of you developers out there have known that. We are responding to a problem and I think that we as representatives of the community are committed to do that. So I am siding with the Planning Office in this. Jasmine: I would agree that the language in the code is sufficiently imprecise that it is not clear to an applicant what the situation was. I do think that it is unfair except that none of the applicants ever even thought about the possibility of production for the units. They never asked either. Obviously they didn't want to have to produce the housing let alone on- site. 20 PZMl.19.88 ,~_ I don't think it is surprising to anybody that a developer who is putting up expensive homes would rather pop out $20,000 per employee and consider it generous. But I don't think that is fair to the community. When you talk about fairness or unfairness what are you going to say to the people who buy those homes and then can't get maids and nannies for their children. They can't squeeze those maids or nannies into a 3 bedroom apartment of their own. And they won't be able to get them from the community because they won't be ava ilabl e. They won't be able to have people shoveling their sidewalks, etc. These are things you rely on from the loan level service employee to do for you. You put pressure on the community that is a cost to the community. It is not fair for somebody who wants to come here and work hard not to be able to live here when they could be providing a valuable community service. That is not fair to the person. That is not fair to the community. I think you are asking the community to take an unfair burden of supplying employee housing when you have got terrific location which is appropriate to put at least a few employees in without destroying your plan. We have to bear this cost. Where is the fairness in that? ,....... Ramona: I agree with the developer. I think the Planning & ." Zoning Commission is partly responsible for the employee housing problem. Never in the Zoning Code have we put in a zoning area or for a good many years overlay a district that would require employee housing. We used to require employee housing on-site for lodges and for various other things. That has been in the last IS years written out of the code. P&Z has been in charge of that in making recommendations to the point where the code is today. So I don't think we can lay it onto the developers. They come here. They abide by the rules. They have in this instance totally abided by the code. It is written in there. It says they can make a choice. They made the choice and I think that we should live with that. And if we don't like it that way then we should change it. Michael: Basically, I agree with what Ramona and Jim have said. I think we have to look at the legalities of it. That is the only basis that we or anybody else has of looking at this. You have got to go along with what the laws say. Employee housing is a major problem. The developer has done nothing wrong with taking the option which are available in the code. And the code clearly says it is the option of the developer. I don't see how you could look at that code and say it is anything else. 21 PZMl.19.88 -- I think we are overlooking what the Housing Authority, who is the City's designee, said is important. We are not in a position to make that decision. Right now the Housing Authority says we need dormitory housing and they want cash to do this. Obviously the City Council thought it was important enough to change the code to put a cash-in-lieu in there and that is how they are doing that. I don't think we should penalize them and I also don't think we should penalize them because they are not building low cost housing. That is not their obligation. This is a free economy where people come in a build whatever they think is going to sell. And if they feel that they are going to sell to people that can pay more money than we can afford, that is their prerogative. And I don't think they should be penalized for it. Mari: I agree with the Planning Office. Welton: As much as I hate to miss the opportunity of providing employee housing on both of these projects for low income employees, I really feel that it is totally unjustifiable to come in at the lIth hour and change it. It is a flaw in our code as it is right now and I hope it has taught us a lesson that we can avoid in our re-write of the code in both sequence of GMP and subdivision and in the wording to make it clear that this is an option that should be discussed with the Planning Office early on and before a lot of investment. I was leaning the other direction near the beginning. It is a lot easier to change drawings than it is to change the act ual completed project but I think we are going to have to bite the bullet and realize that we made a mistake and try to do better the next time. I think this ordeal that we have gone through this evening has put the development community on notice that this is going to be something that is going to have to be negotiated on in the future. MOTION Roger: For the 925 East Durant Townhomes I recommend acceptance of the applicant's cash-in-lieu for employee housing. Jim seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Jasmine Tygre, no, David White, no, Roger Hunt, yes, Mari peyton, no, Ramona Markalunas, yes, Jim Colombo, yes, Welton Anderson, yes. Motion carried 4 to 3. , ~~/ 22 PZMl.19.88 MOTION Roger: For 700 East Main Street residential project I move to accept the applicant's cash-in-lieu of employee housing. Jim seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Jasmine Tygre, no, David White, no, Roger Hunt, yes, Mari Peyton, no, Ramona Markalunas, yes, Jim Colombo, yes, Welton Anderson, yes. Motion carried 4 to 3. There was discussion here regarding employee housing on-site for employees working on the project who would not be low income employees. Paul Taddune: There are guidelines that were adopted by the City Council and you do not have the authority by motion to supercede the City Council guidelines. MOTION Roger: I move to reconsider a prev ious motion concerning 700 East Main Residential Project so we can reconsider the proper designation of the on-site employee unit. Jim moved to reconsider his second. Everyone voted for the motion except Jasmine. Roger: We are going to have to discuss what is the proper designation of this unit--Iow, moderate or middle income. MOTION Mari: I move that we re-designate that unit as a moderate income unit. Jim: They are going to lose points. Roger: I will second so we can discuss it. designation of this unit? Gideon: We don't know since we haven't hired somebody yet. Since we don't know what it will take to get somebody there, you can't designate it moderate or middle because we don't know what the person-- Is that the proper 23 "" PZMl.19.88 - Jim: It will more than likely be an employee on-site that is living there. Gideon: Yes. Jim: Obviously the intent of this situation is unique in that they want to provide housing for an employee on-site which is supposedly our objective here. Is there a problem with saying that should the employee by qualifying as low income housing at this time--should the employee that they hire have to be paid a wage that would make him moderate income, could they not make an arrangement among themselves in which his income is adjusted towards the rent so that their rent is not considered part of their income. Do we get into a legal problem there? Gideon: We are more than willing to commit to what was done last year. We will commit to the low. Paul: You should not make a representation that you are putting in a low income employee and get more points when in fact you are putting in a moderate income employee. Welton: white. Your choices are this. Your choices are black and Roger: Do we have to do anything at this point? Can we leave it as it was? Do we re-designate it moderate incomel Mari: There is a motion on the floor that-- Welton: We had a motion to reconsider the previous motion. Roger: And she al so moved that it should be re-designated as~ moderate and that was seconded. Welton: Would you withdraw that motion? Mari: In favor of what? Welton: A motion designating it low income. Mari: No. Gideon: We are committing to charge the low income. Ramona: I have to point out to you that on the adoption of the subdivision PUD with conditions #2 provides that an on-site unit shall be restricted to low income units. Roger: I had seconded that motion. 24 - PZMl.19.88 Welton: Is there any further discussion. Roger: I am going to vote against this motion. Welton: If you do, you are withdrawing your second. Roger: I withdraw my second. MOTION Roger: I move to modify condition #2 (attached in records) for the 700 East Main street that the on-site unit shall be deed restricted to a low income rental unit and that that unit shall be used exclusively for an on-site employee. David seconded the motion. Michael: What if they don't have an employee? Joe Wells: If we commit it to low, then we ought to be able to fill it with someone else if we don't have an employee. Gideon: We could have it that the priority should be given to an employee of the site but if there is none then we could rent it to someone else. , Roger: Then I will amend my motion to indicate the on-site unit shall be deed restricted to low income rental unit with priority to be given to employees of the project. David amended his second to the motion with all in favor. 771 UTE AVENUE REZONING AND CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION steve: There are 3 aspects to this project. rezone the site from L-l to L-2. The subdivision. The 3rd is the cash-in-lieu. The first one is to second will be the With regard to rezoning we noted that the new code has created the lodge tourist residential zone district that would combine those 2 zones and the only difference now is that L-I excludes mUlti-family and all residential whereas L-2 allows residential. So the concern is already there that it would be more consistent with the combination of those and we do think that rezoning allowing multi-family project on this site is compatible with the area. The area and bulk requirements are the same so there is no issue there. ',,,-, 25 ""'- PZMl.19.88 - The second review criteria is with regard to expected traffic generation. We find the impact on the existing streets from this multi-family project acceptable. There is no difference in air and water quality resulting from the rezoning. With regard to community need we find that the zoning doesn't have the significant effect on the overall community balance. With regard to compatibility with the Aspen Area General Plan: In my memo I reported that mixed residential is the zoning category. Sunny Vann pointed out that it shows more clearly that it is Recreation Accommodations or Recreation Transition area. This doesn't change our recommendation. We think that the intent of the land use category is still consistent with this type of tourist oriented residential project. In the transition area of bulk, height and scale of the new development as related to the ski area and the mountain we do consider that an issue that we will bring up with regard to subdivision. We think that rezoning promotes Aspen's health, safety and - welfare. So we are in favor of this rezoning. Regarding subdivision, we think the flat portion is well suited for development. Obviously the hillside area is not developable. We do have a concern that this structure appears to be too large for the site and may produce some off site cost to the public. We think this is somewhat overbuilt even though this project is somewhat smaller than the lodge that had been proposed. We estimated that the effect of FAR on the property is at 1.4 if you exclude the road which is partly on their property and if you exclude the hillside. The open space contains minimal green area. We think that is insufficient for a residential project. It doesn't provide for enough privacy, on-site recreation activity or natural area. It appears out of character with the existing neighborhood. We feel that this is a very urban type of design particularly for a residential project. There is a 35% open space requirement in the RMF zone which if you didn't include Lot 41, this proj ect would not meet. I estimated that the site coverage on this property without Lot 41 26 _ft<>. PZMl.19.88 - is 44% of the site. It is 29% if you include all of the property that they have. With regard to the project improvements on-site and adjacent right-of-ways there is basically no special comments in the improvement agreements and guarantees should be provided by the applicant. with regard to platting there is a concern that the Aspen Mountain Road actually may be a public road. The survey shows the property line going through the middle of the Aspen Mountain Road at this time. The applicant is proposing that they would make that into an easement and they would actually pave their portion of this area; There seems to be an ownership problem that should be resolved through the planning process. We don't think it effectively changes this application. With regard to cash-in-lieu the Planning Office supports the Housing Authority's recommendation on this. Our reasons for that are that it is in the lodge district. The neighborhood doesn't seem appropriate for having long term residential. There is not a lot of long term residential in that area. The project itself does not appear to require on site employee housing and the cash contribution does seem to offset the impact. So we are supporting cash-in-lieu in this case. Jasmine: It seems to me that we were all very concerned about the panhandle being counted in terms of allowable floor area. It is barely contiguous and does not give the impression of being one parcel. Visually there is no way that you would know that this is the same lot. In terms of your employee housing, the letter specif ically mentions facilities but does not mention management. I think we should have certain clarifications of that if this is going to be residential and be run as a lodge type of operation because of its accessability to the gondola and its good location for short term accommodations. But if, in fact, you don't have a hotel accommodation then obviously the whole question of on-site becomes very different. David: I have to disagree with the Planning Department. I can't see any reason why if any other project that is going to be at this quality level, I can't understand why this one doesn't. There is no justification in my mind why the Planning Office says there should be employees in two others and not in this one. Obviously we have an employee concept in this community that is not very clear from one project to another. If a project is built to a certain quality we on this Board know that is going to 27 PZMl.19.88 be some employees that need to be connected with that project. I am shocked by the Planning Department. Where is your concept in being consistent with one project to another. A lodge should have employees living on it. I don't care what the community says. If you go to any great lodge anywhere in the world they have employees living on that project. Sunny: Under the subdivision regulations, Section 20-9 of the code addresses the suitability of the land for subdivision. Sub Section (d) deals with increased public cost attributable to the subdivision I s needs for public services. It makes no mention whatsoever of building size or open space. These issues are not germane to the project's subdivision review requirements but are appropriate to GMP. Steve, we believe here, has partaken considerable license in incorporating these issues in basic plat-related considerations of subdivision. This is not PUD which incorporates architectural concerns. It deals with plating of land and the compliance to the subdivision design criteria. There will be no subdivision of this property. The only reason it is a subdivision is by definition of multi-family development. And it will be required to be condominiumized under subdivision regulations at a later date. .~'" - The architectural considerations which Steve is referring to are not listed anywhere in the regulations and are not an appropriate consideration of subdivision. Section 20-12L which Steve has also referred to deals with the adverse impact resulting from the construction process itself. Again Steve is attempting to use this provision of the code to address the architectural design of the project. Subdivision regulations in and of themselves do not contemplate or require architectural review. It deals with the proper planning of land, provision of access, utilities, etc. Once again this is not a PUD. We are not suggesting that he has not raised valid considerations. We just do not believe the appropriate forum is under subdivision. Steve would prefer that you review it from an architectural point of view and attach conditions to the subdivision approval that deal with architecture. Our position is they should be attached as part of GMP if they are appropriate. The one problem which the staff seems to have with this project is in site design and coverage. Steve: He is correct in that typically subdivision issues are strictly a matter of how lots are laid out and the efficiency of the transportation system. I am referring to Section 20-12L. I do think that the attempt that he makes at subdivision does ~- 28 ~ PZMI.19.88 - indeed deal to some extent at the surface improvements and the construction projects. Those are 2 of the aspects to be considered in preliminary plat review. The purpose in reviewing multi-family projects in general is to be sure that they generally comply with the subdivision standards. We feel that it is reasonable to review the construction project. Sunny: There is absolutely no reference whatsoever anywhere else in subdivision regulations regarding criteria, dealing with architecture, site coverage, etc. in using it to review this project. I don't know of any other project in which this type of approach has been taken. A more appropriate place to review it is where you are going to be considering our score in those particular categories. This requires us to give you almost all of our GMP presentation with respect to open space and site coverage as part of subdivision. Jasmine: I would tend to think that the adverse effect clause would cover these concerns and you probably have a choice to do something now toward the possibility of reducing the site coverage possibly getting the lower GMP score. Sunny: I am suggesting that I have the opportunity to discuss it under GMP. If you want to discuss it under subdivision and make it a condition of subdivision, I think it is inappropriate. But if you want to hear it I will make that presentation. Jasmine: That is your choice but I think the adverse effect in terminology gives us that option too. Jim: I would rather deal with it in GMP presentation. Mari: GMP David: GMP Michael: GMP Jasmine: I don't care. Steve: The GMP is a scoring with no ability for P&Z to make any further comments about the appropriateness of the project. Subdivision allows P&Z to make conditions of approval. Sunny: We represented in our application that if significant site-related design issues came about and we were still eligible ~- 29 PZMl.19.88 for an allocation that P&Z wanted to see a preliminary plat it would not adversely effect our time line and we would come back under subdivision and preliminary plat. If you don't identify a problem and feel that Steve's concerns are unwarranted in GMP that it would not be necessary to come back with the plat. Welton: I think the problem has been identified. Sunny: Then the only other issue is the employee housing. This is not a situation in which the applicant did not want to do housing. It is on a small site. The site is constricted by the topography on a small portion of it. We have a previously approved project. We did incorporate some on-site criteria as a on-site hotel. The applicant who acquired the project and who already owns the land with the hotel approval does not particularly want to operate a hotel and thought he could improve upon it since he is the adjacent property owner at the Alps. '''''''-'''"', There are a small number of units. They could be considered as 6 or 9. We chose to count them as 9 with one existing unit on the site with a GMP allocation for 8. There are some agreements that are being discussed with the Alps to provide some level of maintenance service to the facility. The units will be condominiumized and owned as is the Alps. Some of the owners may or may not wish to short-term their units. It is permissable in the LTR zone district. - At this time it is a residential project that will be condominiumized for individual sale. If we can convince you that the project is appropriate as designed there is probably no necessity to come back for preliminary plat. If we can't convince you of that then you would not vote to accept us from the full subdivision process and we would have to come back with preliminary plat. Roger: Basically we are deciding we are not going to consider the reduction in size of the structure at this time and therefore the applicant may be subject upon later determination that you will be required to come back for preliminary plat. Welton: I think we can give the applicant a good feel for what we want at this point. Steve: I would suggest that if you feel that the floor area and site coverage issues are germane to the subdivision review that you are not ready at this point to focus in on what seems to be most appropriate. What you might do is say the applicant shall study and present it at preliminary plat review. :- 30 PZMl.19.88 Sunny: That presumes that in the absence of any presentation on behalf of the applicant that there is a problem with the floor area. I would like to think that we could present our case to the rest of the Board. Jasmine: We have read the application. Sunny: Right. But you are making conclusions about the numbers which you don't have any information on other than what Steve has said and he is incorrect. Welton: We all agree that the GMP would be the time that we would have full presentation as to the site coverage and those aspects that are addressed here. So I think make a condition 2A to read something to the effect of--I think it would be fairest to cover the subdivision of all 3 applications and determine them at one meeting and determine the GMPs at the next meeting. I think this one issue though--how can we break this one issue out of subdivision and put it under GMP if you are saying that it is not really a subdivision issue. It is more a GMP issue. Alan: If you look on the top of page 3 you could certainly consider it a rezoning issue. If you have a problem with the size of the project I think you have more than adequate tools in the code to address it right now if you want to give a presentation and make comments. / Welton: We would like to deal with it when the presentation is made at GMP rather than sit through the same presentation twice. We could defer rezoning and use that as the condition that they understand might have to be met at preliminary subdivision. Alan: Why don't you deal with all the rest of this tonight and defer that one condition to GMP. Complete the subdivision review subject to re-opening it subsequent to GMP to address or not address this issue of bulk. Wel ton: That would incorporate approving the conceptual subdivision with the exception of that condition. Welton then opened the public hearing. There was no public comment and he closed the public hearing. MOTION Roger: For the 771 Ute Avenue Townhouses for rezoning I move to recommend the approval of the requested rezoning of Lots ISb, 16, and 17 of the Ute Addition and Lot 41 Section 18 Township 10, 31 PZMl.19.88 .- Range 84 West, City of Aspen from the L-I zone district to the L- 2 zone district. Jim seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Roger: For the 771 Ute Avenue Townhouses proj ect I move to recommend the approval of the requested conceptual subdivision mUlti-family project subject to the following conditions: Condition A shall read "Subsequent to the GMP plan the P&Z Commission will reconsider the appropriateness of the area and bulk requirements. Conditions E through F shall remain the same as in Planning Office memo dated I, 19, 88. (Attached in records) Condition 3 which will be the new condition 2 titled employee housing shall also be the same as Planning Office memo dated I, 19, 88. Mari seconded the motion. Jasmine: I would like to amend condition 3 of the employee housing. Either this is a lodge in which case you need an employment agreement with the Alps or something like that. That would satisfy that or guarantee us somehow that it is not going to be short term. - Sunny: I can't guarantee it be cause there is no decision at this point. It is residential at this point. It is to be condominiumized and sold as such. There are no immediate plans to short term it so therefore there is no management requirement. Should the appl icant wish to or the individual owners wish to short term it, I am willing to accept the condition that as a pre-requisite to doing that that we demonstrate that there is management structure in place to do so as a condition of approval for subdivision. Jim: This is being presented as a residential application in which case it wouldn't require any employees on site. At a time when it changes it would be in the same situation as any other residential application coming before us in the past. I don't think there has been any enforcement regulation in place in the past unless we are going to adopt an entire new philosophy toward enforcement regulation. I don't know how we can do it with this particular project. Roger: If this is a residential complex, that is one thing. If it is going to be short termed, that has some aspects of lodging. And when it has some aspects of lodging, I expect some on-site type of management activities. So here is where I have to agree with Jasmine. 32 PZMl.19.88 Sunny: There is a representation that this application specifically states that it is a residential project that it will be subsequently condominiumized for sale and offered to indiv- idual homeowners. It is designated that way. It meets the requirements of the residential zoning. The problem occurs in that it is located in the zone district which allows short terming. Welton: We are changing that in the code, aren't we? Alan: If you want to protect yourselves why don't you add a provision that if a project is condominiumized, the applicant will as part of the condominium documents, present management concept to the planning commission or City Council. That happens all the time when you do lodge condominiumization where we see the management concept. Roger: I will amend my motion--I will add, and this would end up being Condition G in that section, that if the project be condo- miniumized the applicant would be expected to identify management plan for the complex in the condominium documents. Mari amended her second. Everyone voted in favor except David. Welton then entertained a motion to continue the agenda of tonight's meeting to date of I, 26, 1988 at 4:00 pm. Mari so moved. David seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. The time was 7:30 pm. ___I 1-,/?~_)11 Jan~ carney'1~itY 33