Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890711 r [ ~ -.>, -"~, I ~ i\ )(c:) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11. 1989 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call Herron, Jim Colombo, Welton Anderson. were Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr, Michael Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Jasmine: I see by the paper that the County, who had previously told us that we could not possibly conceive of using the Community Center for employee housing, is now willing to sell the building. They are willing to sell it for $400,000 to the Housing Authority if the Housing Authority wants to put employee housing up there. That seems to me to be a very desirable location for employee housing. Alan: I don't have any further information except that the building will be torn down. Graeme: Could we have the Planning Staff give us some kind of an idea of what happens to the things that we pass on to Council. Jim: I agree. It is a great idea. We have asked for this over the past 10 to 12 years. Alan: The only time we have done it is when we have something special going on--a large project that you have spent a lot of time on where things have changed noticeably at Council review. Jim: Could it be done in a minute form. A written summary of action taken beyond P&Z level at the Council level. Alan: I will ask Tom if he has the ability to turn that thing around. It is much easier to do it verbally. possible he can do it. kind of It is STAFF COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. HOLIDAY HOUSE EXPANSION REZONING. SUBDIVISION. GMOS EXEMPTION. SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING REDUCTION PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. PZM7. 11. 89 Francis Krizmanich made presentation as per Planning Office memo of 7/11/89. (Attached in records) We find that this application basically complies with the condition to change the zoning designation. One of the concerns I had reading through the application was that it talked about 100% affordable housing. And if you provide 100% affordable housing that allows you a greater floor area, parking by special review, those sort of things. One thing I wasn't clear by the application was what are they talking about? These 9 units being affordable housing or the entire Holiday House. The staff opinion is that the code requires the entire site including the existing Holiday House to be deed restricted as affordable housing. My understand at this point is that some portion is deed restricted at the Holiday House but-- Jasmine: Maybe the applicant can clear that up for us. Fred smith, Aspen Ski Co.: It is the intent is that the 9 units that we are adding we deed restrict 100% affordable housing. The Aspen Skiing Company over the course of a couple of different projects have deed restricted the majority of the additional units of the Holiday House. About 6 of the 26 units that are there right now have not previously been identified with a specific project although they are being operated exactly the same way as the balance of the units in the project. I don't have a particular problem in suggesting I will take another 6 and deed restrict those at this point in time if P&Z would like to make a recommendation to the Council that I be given credit for those in some future type of project that I bring forward. I am not asking for that in these 9 but since the Planning staff has brought the question up I would be more than willing to discuss it in that kind of a context. Jasmine: So ultimately the idea is that the entire project will be affordable housing. Fred: Today it is being operated as 100% affordable housing. It is just that 6 of the 26 units have not been previously identified as deed restrictions because of projects that were of a commercial nature. 17 of the units came on board because of Little Nell. 3 units came on because the Masterplan. 4 units 2 PZM7. 11. 89 came on because of the Masterplan amendment. things. Those kind of Roger: I believe we should forward this zone amendment with the specific intention that when the affordable housing overlay comes on it is anticipated that it will be applied on this property. And we get that up front. And that, in effect, will identify the unit no doubt as 100% employee housing. Additionally I have no problems with allowing them credit for their 6 units. Francis: I additional 6. don't know what the code allows as If they get future credit for it or-- far as the Welton: We are not unfamiliar with the concept of banking units toward a future application. Francis: The reasoning behind this is if it is not 100% affordable housing they don't have enough square footage on the property. Because that reduces your floor area requirements, your open space requirements. I would recommend against this project configuration unless they are willing to commit. Roger: They are willing to commit. The only thing is the inventory of the numbers for them. And that is an accounting affair. Francis: If they can bank those--we will research that. That was the big thing raised is they are in requirements for this Commission decision. with this zone. The other issue that I effect asking you to waive any parking 9 unit addition. That is a Planning The staff problem is we feel the goals to provide parking and the need to provide employee housing. I guess my analysis would come down in favor of the employee housing and suggest mitigation for impacts in the way of fees in lieu or additionally perhaps storage of spaces at Buttermilk. Jim: Would they consider providing employee parking someplace at one of their other facilities for all of their employee housing projects? Fred: The Holiday House currently houses 57 people. We have 12 parking spaces. One of the values of having an employer/employee relationship in terms of housing is our ability to put employees in those units that are living close to their work place. We also have the opportunity to create rules and regulations and 3 PZM7 .11. 89 understandings before an employee is hired as to what kind of circumstances we both anticipate. One of those situations that we have had a great deal of success in is recognizing that Aspen does not have a great deal of parking and that the people before they go into the Holiday House. We have not had a problem. We have been able to satisfy the employee resident's needs for parking in other locations and/or they are prepared to come to town without a car which we strongly suggest. I think that it would be unfortunate for the City to want desperately and need desperately employee housing but also to impose some sort of cash-in-lieu payments that are respective to commercial kinds of ventures. The cash-in-lieu per parking space is $15,000 per space. If you were to approve what is being suggested that I provide 9 more spaces or cash-in-lieu for those spaces, I would add to the monthly rent of each one of those units $155. Now I envision charging $400 a month for the employees under the existing housing guidelines so that the people who work for the Aspen Skiing Company can afford that. In order to amortize the cash-in-lieu payment on parking I have to add $155 a month to the rents for every person who is in there. So my suggestion is that (1) I can control. I think we have a track record for being able to control the parking situation. with 57 people living in the facility today with 12 parking spaces and that we can add another 9 people in those spaces and still control the situation by providing other parking opportunities. But I am hesitant to at this session restrict some other space or put some other commitment on some other parking area. Welton: It looks like on your site double stack all along behind the some topographic reason why that is plan there is enough existing building. not possible. space to Is there Fred: We are prepared to look at some management techniques for that. Again I would rather have the fact that I have got 12 spaces there and be able to tell the people that that is what I have got and control the number of cars that come into the downtown core area. Graeme: I tend to agree with the applicant. I think I would be willing to waive the parking without even the fee. Maybe there are some ways we could urge them to really get people without cars and one thing I would like to see even if it took a parking place--in the memo it said there are a lot of people who use bikes there and people are starting to use them in the winter more and more and if there were a covered area that could park 30 4 PZM7. 11. 89 bikes I think it would be a lot better than one parking space. I would like to see a covered area for a lot of bikes. Fred: We as well recognize the validity of that suggestion and I would commit to providing bike rack kind of parking. We could probably put it between the 2 buildings and we may not totally cover it Jasmine: I agree with the stack parking and the reason I bring it up is because the North star Lodge has been used for employee housing for the Hotel Jerome and some of the other projects. And although they never officially made any kind of stack parking arrangement because the employees there seem to have worked out just enough square footage between the street and the front of the building where there is gravel where the employees on their own have worked out a kind of stack parking arrangement and it works out really well. I think if you had something like that that could tend to mitigate the effects on the neighborhood in case you get into a situation where sometimes people just need to have cars. It can work. Fred: We have a 5ft setback. Welton: You can park in the 5ft setback. It looks like you can get 14 cars in that space. Fred: There is a topographic--that drops off in the back that drops down and allows for natural light on that lower level. Francis: We feel that public facilities can basically handle the expansion. Our primary concern is the loss of the pool on site which was expected to be retained as an amenity for the employees for Little Nell SPA. We feel again that there should be some impact mitigation in the sense that employees should still have some kind of recreational opportunity on site. We are recommending that the application be amended to include some kind of spa or sauna, hot tubs, jacuzzi or something like that to give people on site some sort of recreational activity to cut down on their use of public facilities. We feel it would be a good idea to continue the Cottonwood trees in that area. The staff does not think we need another code amendment at this time. What we recommend that the applicant do is we apply PUD designation and grant a variation to the open space requirements. In total the site open space they meet the code requirement. However they do not meet the requirement as far as that space be 5 PZM7 .11. 89 visible from the public street. Approximately 1/3 of the open space is in the alley and between the buildings and can't be seen because the grade rises from the public street. We feel that there is adequate open space on site and that the variation is minimal and we are recommending PUD designation be applied. Jim: If they are going for 100% employee housing aren't they allowed by code now to ask for open space exemption? Welton: Only if it is the AH Zone. Francis: I think once we work out AH it may be appropriate in the future to designate this site. Basically it is a multi-family project. It is required to have subdivision approval. Our opinion is that the applicant is complying with the subdivision requirements and there will be a final plat. It will have to meet the land use Code requirements. Fred Smith: This is a it is a building that Holiday House which affordable housing for very straight forward proposal. Basically sits immediately adjacent to the existing is currently being operated as 100% the Aspen Skiing Company. Last winter we had 57 employees in there. The new project will be 9 1-bedroom units. We hope to utilize this particular project in a more permanent resident housing situation. As far as the GMP quota situation--the rental rates and the questions that have been raised concerning the actual operation of the housing. We have no problem in discussing the issue with the Housing Authority and we will bring that report back to Council. As far as the Affordable housing overlay is concerned clearly our interest is to construct this project this year. If we are not able to progress beyond the P&Z Commission tonight that becomes more difficult. As far as the pool is concerned we believe that the pool has been an amenity in the past, there is a necessity today to be able to provide employee housing. The suggestion that we have a sauna or spa in the limited space that we have I believe is not something we can live with as well as park dedication fees. Again park dedication fees are $1,300 per unit. Again this would add $13 to $15 per month per unit and each one of those kinds of 6 PZM7 . 11 . 89 costs are going to more further remove these kinds of units out of the affordability range for our employees. Mari: If you are going to be deed restricting the rentals to the guidelines of low income, how can you change the rent? Welton: Or to put it another way I think what Mari is saying is nobody ever said employee units were going to be on a break-even basis. And there is going to be some loss in order to offset your need to supply housing for your employees. And where the community bears that price by exempting the parking in lieu fees or whether they charge you it is going to be one of your costs for doing business. And if you committed to a certain guideline then no matter what the fees or whether they are waived or not cannot be added to those rental prices. Fred: It comes to a point at which economically we can proceed with this project and which we don't intend to proceed with the project. I am suggesting to you that I agree that there are certain that are costs of doing business. I would suggest that this piece of property for this purpose we are prepared to make that as a cost of doing business. But the money that we do put in we want to have at least some realm of reality attached to the rents that we will charge and our ability in the future to maintain affordability levels for the people who are housed there. If I have to maintain a pool, if I have to maintain a spa, if I have to pay $15,000 per parking space for 9 parking spaces I will assure you that over a period of time we are going to be at the upper limit of affordability. We maintain the ability to charge rents which are well below the ranges currently established by the Housing Authority. I would like to continue to do that. I agree 100% on the Cottonwood trees. We have got 75ft of street frontage that currently don't ;have Cottonwood trees on them. with a reasonable spread planning a 2 and 1/2 inch caliber tree when it reaches maturity, I would be more than happy to plant 3 of those trees across the frontage of that. Bruce: I am wondering whether this extra $155 a month is for the tenants of the 9 new units or whether there is a way that could amortized over the other 57 people that you have already got in there. Fred: The concept of applying cash-in-lieu payments for 100% affordable housing is just not appropriate. You have got a parking in downtown Aspen. We have the mechanism because of our abilities to set rules and control it. We have got a track record of being able to control it with the employees we have got 7 PZM7. 11. 89 there. I suggest that we can control it in the future. Whether I amortize it over every ski lift pass, it still is not appropriate. Fred: I would suggest that the Aspen Ski Co. has provided employee housing in this community probably longer than any other single entity. We were with the Housing Authority last week and discussed with them some other possibilities including some partnerships that might be established. There was a suggestion that the Housing Authority had never in its experience ever heard of situations arising with Ski Co Housing that would lead them to believe that we were not good landlords and not good employers. The whole concept behind providing employer guaranteed financing for employee units has to carry the ability in some way that the people who are in there are also in the employ of that employer. Welton then asked for public comment. Mary Dean, 205 West Hopkins: The parking has been very bad. And I noticed that most of this summer and part of this winter, they don't just park there. They stay there. I called the pol ice about cars this winter that have been there a month and it took a long time to get a car removed. And they will go down, plow around it and I can't even get out my front door sometimes. Fred: I would be more than happy to give you a phone number and make them call them. They will take care of them. The manager of the Holiday House will take care of these kinds of things. Mary: And then in the back where you do have the parking, part of that--about 4 spaces is just used for storage for things that are just sitting there. And then no one can park there. Julie Wykoff, 134 West Hopkins across the street: The first issue is the parking. As Mary said behind the Holiday House right now in the west bank is a trailer. Then there is a boat. Then there is a mobile home. Then there is another trailer. And often times there is a dump truck. All these things belong to one person living at the Holiday House. Fred: In the summer time. Julie: No. In the winter time also. So that seems like right now the parking isn't being used in it's most efficient way. Also you said that you can't use any off property parking space. You don't want to do that. But because you have such an ~w 8 PZM7. 11. 89 efficient bus service for all of your employees it would seem to me a good idea that they could put their cars, rather than parking these snow-bound boats allover the neighborhood that they don't need to use to go to work because of the Ski Company buses. If you could provide Buttermilk or someplace where they could put these cars as easy access to the buses, that would really help the neighborhood. Then you said something about a 6 month lease. Well last summer it seemed like the people who have lived in the Holiday House for a long time were asked to leave. And that was families--Iong term employees of the Ski Company. And then you used that housing for your more temporary workers. Well the impact of the temporary workers on the neighborhood has been that they are here for 6 months. They are here to have a great time and it goes on and on all night long over there. I would like to see the parking situation come to a compromise. Also if you are talking about leases and stuff that you honor some long term employees in that neighborhood and not use it just for your seasonal employees. Les Ray, Manager of the Molly Gibson Lodge: We would like to see any new units that might be constructed have adequate off-street parking so that we don't add to the congestion that we already have. There is vacant land there. I think anybody else who would go to build some kind of dwelling today would be required to provide adequate parking. There is land that I can see to be acquired to provide that off-street parking there. Margaret Day, owner of the Roaring Fork Apartments: I have always been and always will be for people with low incomes. But not State controlled. I am questioning--I don't know if you are aware of what they are now getting. For the 7 one-bedrooms--they have 3 beds in each. So for 1 room at $200 a bed--its all by the bed. It is $600 a unit. Is that low income housing? My places--and I make a good income on mine--$325 to $400 with the best view in Aspen--great big beautiful apartments. I have 60 people waiting in line. Then 17 of their studios with 2 beds in each are $200 each. That makes $400. They are getting horrible prices. That is not low income. (To Fred) You are getting Aspen prices! That is not low income. I also have an ax to grind. I have a residence there where I used to live and plan to live again. And I think now that is decreasing it's value. I live on First and Hopkins in that little house there. Kay Reed came to me 3 years ago with an 9 PZM7 .11. 89 offer of $450,000 for that property. I said I wouldn't dream of it. I said it is zoned for 10 apartments. And some day I may want to do it. Last year I went into somebody who is in charge of housing. He was as tall as you and as good looking with dark hair with fashion glasses. Maybe you know who he is. I said "I want to talk to you about maybe putting low income housing there". He said "That is strictly residential property". I said "Residential! It has always been for 10 units". He said "You were notified". I said "I was never notified. When was it?" He said "It's been a long time ago". He turned and picked the phone up. I said "I have got some money. I am thinking maybe it would be nice to put in 10 units for people with families, low income and I mean low income. I have talked with an architect. They have got parking underneath and a beautiful place. I am not ashamed of my places. They are beautiful. But I said what do you think?" He said "I am busy". So I said "OK. That is fine with me", and out I went. And I invested the money in Florida. But I want to know are you going to charge by the bed or by the unit? Fred: As I suggested and as those units are--they are controlled by a formula set forth by the Housing Authority. I am more than prepared to sit down and talk about it with the Housing Authority. Welton asked if there was any further public comment. There was none and he closed the public hearing. Francis: If you do recommend approval of this you need to also approve the consolidated PUD process for the zoning--you need to consent to the consolidated process. You are handling the conceptual review. Council will be doing the final. Jim: staff has a problem with not providing andy amenities beings you are taking out the pool. There seems to be quite a bi t of property between the buildings and perhaps in front. Could you do some sort of pocket park there--a barbecue setup there or something like that? Fred: I think we could do something that would not require a constant high-cost of maintenance like a pool or spa. That should be something we could do. The amenity for 240 units is a 25ft park playground. Jim: Could we get a commitment for something like that? 10 PZM7. 11. 89 Fred: Sure. Welton: The barbecue. How do barbecues work at Hunter Creek? Francis: They are used. They are maintained by on-site staff who take out the coals and that kind of thing and clean the areas. If they are not maintained by on-site personnel the coals get dumped into dumpsters and start a fire. Welton: Something to offset the loss of that pool that will make it a more liveable year-around living environment. c.,,,...- I see 3 options for the parking question. One is complete waiver of the $15,000 per parking space payment in lieu. The second option is requirement of the $15,000 payment-in-lieu for each parking space. The third option is that we should require a more vigorous enforcement of the manager's roll as parking enforcer for this property with parking provided on another of Ski Company's property such as Buttermilk or Tiehack. Graeme: I thought that the management of the parking sounded a Ii ttle shaky. We need the parking spaces and (to Fred) you seemed reluctant to dedicate any other parking spaces. I would think that would be a really good idea because then with your buses or bikes or something somebody wouldn't even need to bring their car into town. They could keep it at Buttermilk and that would discourage them from using it in town. If they wanted to go down valley they would get out on the bus and use it. My preference would be to require them to come up with some other parking. Mari: According to my figures when the 9 units are built you have the potential to house 75 people. Fred: I don't think we will house 75 people. We agree with Ms. Day that that situation last year was not a good situation. And it is something we are moving away from. Mari: But you have the potential to house 57 which is what you had last year. Plus 18 in the 9 studios that makes 75. And only provide 12 parking spaces. I just don't buy the argument that because they are your employees and they work in the Ski Company, that they are not going to have cars. They may not need to drive to work but they will hopefully have other places to go besides work. And they are going to have cars. I think that if parking impacts are not mitigated then what you are asking the community to do is to absorb those impacts. The community has set a price of $15,000 to park a car. That is a cost that has to be paid by somebody. It is either going to be paid by the public or it is 11 PZM7 . 11. 89 going to be paid by employees and take employees. Now I guess the question that we as the Commission have to decide is is that a cost that the public is willing to pick to subsidize a private company. That is basically what it is. Someone has to pay that cost. Who is it going to be? the Ski Company who needs to have their care of the impacts of housing their Roger: I agree with Graeme and Mari's points here. That is if potentially we are going to end up with 75 people there and probably unrelated people we are going to have almost 75 cars to deal with. So the deficit of parking is something that has to be addressed. I would certainly be a proponent of long term storage type parking somewhere. Particularly summer time where Buttermilk lot is underutilized. There is no reason why that cannot be done out there. I can understand the problem in the wintertime. I don't know how we can deal with that. What opens up the Pandora's box for me is this Little Nell SPA. It has to do with how much reliance I can put on the Ski Company for future deeds on the basis of past deeds. As an example the Ski Company in the past has done an excellent job in supporting the transportation system in transporting its employees and its customers. However, the last negotiations with RFTA I got a distinct atti tude from the Ski Company that they no longer want to deal with moving their customers. So I have a real problem in feeling that I can put any reliance into what you say when it comes to parking customers and employees as it relates to transportation. The Little Nell SPA approval got along very well with me because the Ski Company had used the argument that it transports its customers and employees. They have been very active in doing that in the past. So, Fred, that is something Ski Company is going to have to address. There has been a change of management. And there is a problem. But I am going to have to rely on presentation by the Ski Company and I am not sure if I can rely on it. This will have to be addressed in a way that we are going to be comfortable with the statements of the Ski Company. Maybe it should get down in black and white because of this game the Ski Company played with RFTA. My pitch basically is we have to get some storage parking for this facility somewhere. And the Ski Company does have some 12 PZM7.11.89 obvious places at least for some parts of the season. around season I am talking about. The year Jasmine: I agree completely with Mari about the impacts of the parking and the question of who gets to pay for it. I would certainly be willing to leave it up to the applicant to decide whether it makes more sense for them to pay cash-in-lieu parking or to use existing parking on other available sites. It seems to me that a lot of the problem could be mitigated by proper parking management. The idea of storage parking that Roger brought up where you take the boats, the canoes, the yachts whatever it is that is taking up parking spaces and put them in another location. Perhaps try to figure out if you can squeeze a different configuration into the parking spaces is yet another option. I agree that you must address the parking situation. I think maybe if in time the existing Holiday House becomes converted to more permanent residence with a lower occupancy rate. That might help as well. But in my judgment you must either pay the cash-in-lieu for the parking spaces or provide storage parking somewhere else. -.. Jim: I tend to agree with Jasmine which seems to be the consensus on the Board here. There is a philosophical problem involved here. One is that you are talking of private enterprise taking the handle and providing employee housing. If there is not incentive enough for private enterprise to do that the burden shifts directly upon the community as a whole. There must be some incentive for private enterprise to do that. So I would like to stay away from these $15,000 per space charges in order to give more motivation to private enterprise to do that. But in this particular case especially I think requiring a minimum 9 spaces off site and given the opportunity that the Ski Corp has to provide those 9 spaces I don't think is unreasonable considering the congestion in that area. It sounds as though they have had some management problems in the past. 9 spaces off site could be a good compromise to the community and solve your problem without cash-in-lieu. Michael: I have a tendency to agree with what Jim said. Welton: I will make it not quite unanimous. 1 or 2 people were in favor of charging the fees. I think if you want to provide off-site in the--by paying for parking spaces in the parking structure or by providing parking spaces on the property that you have control over, either one of those options is worthwhile. When coupled with a more effective policing roll by the property management along with actually providing those telephone numbers you offered to pass out so that people in the neighborhood can go 13 PZM7 .11. 89 to the top rather than being--I have gotten lost in trying to get through the bureaucracy at the Skiing Company to try to find out an answer too. So I think making good on that promise is certainly in everybody's best PR interest. The other item that the Planning Office brought up was the payment of park dedication fees. Like the parking fees I am hesitant to require park dedication fees which are usually charged to free market housing, free market single family housing in order to offset their park needs of people generated by this new development. I think you can do some of that on site. In replacing amenities like the swimming pool with something like a barbecue, bicycle racks and perhaps a little more landscaping than 3 Cottonwood trees at 2 and 1/2 inches in diameter. I would like to have someone propose a motion that consolidates the consensus of the Commission. Nobody has really had a big conflict with the Planning Office's recommendation for the PUD and the open space. And the applicant doesn't seem to have a problem with the Planning Office's approach either. So unless somebody has a real problem with that I think we don't need to hammer that one to death too. MOTION Roger: I think the motion should go to a resolution form in this case because with this applicant I want to make sure everything is in black and white so we know what we are doing. I move for the Planning Office to draft a resolution approving the applicant's proposal to construct an additional 9 employee units on the Holiday House property. Welton: We want it to say all the different things which are being applied for which are expansion rezoning, SUbdivision, GMQS exemption, Special review for Parking reduction. Roger: My motion is for the Planning Department to come back with a resolution that will include all those items. The GMQS approval, The rezoning to RMF PUD and the reason within that and the anticipation that this site will come under the AH zoning in the future. with respect to parking--9 off-site storage type parking spots or if that doesn't work, cash-in-lieu. Plus additional management. Basically the conditions being along these guidelines as we have amended. 14 PZM7 .11. 89 Fred: Part of your parking requirement suggests that I need to go establish a use at some area outside the city limits which would be County jurisdiction on land at Buttermilk which is zoned AFSKI which will require amendment to the masterplan because of a specific parking plan. Francis: I think we can handle it. There is provision in the AFSKI for substantial changes. I could discuss it with County Commissioners. I don't really think there would be a problem with designating 9 spaces out there. Welton: I wouldn't have a problem signing a resolution that was sufficiently vague in the wording as to say "9 parking spaces to be established at a certain date in the future" leaving the whole thing open. Roger: I would not concur with changing my motion at this point. Only because I know what happens in some cases. Another good example is Little Nell where we have these hound dog's ears out in the street far in excess of what P&Z recommended and far in excess of what the Engineering Department recommended. Michael: The only problem with this is we are gong to tie their hands and if we are more concerned with employee units than we are with parking then somewhere along the line somebody has got to make that decision. Mari: I don't think their hands are tied. to pay the money. Michael: That stops them from doing the project. They have an option Fred: That is $135,000. I could do 5 more units with that. Jasmine seconded the motion. Jim: If we approve Roger's motion we could quite likely end up wi thout this employee housing on the proj ect. It seems to me unreasonable to put them in that position and ourselves in that position when it would be very easy for us to let it go to council with a recommendation for parking. They are not going to skirt it. Francis is going to watchdog this. And let Council decide. I don't see how that is going to harm the community and it would assure that we are gong to have a project built this year. Francis: Procedurally, the code provides it is your decision and I don't think Council can do it. If you want to let them slide, let them slide now because inaction is worse in this case I think. -,-.,~ 15 PZM7. 11. 89 Jim: If that is the case then I would agree with Welton's about keeping it openly vague so that that decision can be make at a later time. Roger: I don't have a problem with deal ing with this parking situation later on when we know what their problems are. Jim: Fine. Then let's instead of voting yes on this particular motion then let's kill this motion and put it in Welton's words in which we keep it openly vague. Welton: There is a motion on the floor and there is a second. I am not sure that I remember the wording you had that applied to condition #6 which is in reference to payment in lieu. Roger: There would be either payment in lieu or 9 off site parking spaces for storage plus increased enforcement. Welton: Roger's motion was that cash-in-lieu be imposed. But that that could be satisfied with 9 spaces somewhere else-- anywhere else. Roll call vote: Bruce, no, Michael, yes, Jim, yes, Mari, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes, Welton, yes. Motion passes. ASPEN MEADOWS CONCEPl'UAL SPA CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Welton re-opened the public hearing. Alan: The consortium did submit an application to us back in the Spring. P&Z spent 2 meetings reviewing it back in April and at the end of that 2 meeting process they made findings on 12 threshold issues. (attached in record) We have scheduled a joint P&Z/Council work session for August 7 which we all felt, the staff and the applicant, was tremendously important at this point in time. None of us have the time to waste going in the wrong direction which is the reason for that August 7th meeting. Bill Kane: To refresh your memory about the regional plan submission and the number of issues that were raised by the Planning Commission and numerous surrounding neighbors, property 16 PZM7.11.89 owners and friends of the Meadows and Institute that have had an interest in the property. (Attached in record) The plan that was presented in April was the target of some criticism and review was the notion of trying to build the single family form of housing. The plan was to try to organize as much of that housing as possible down below the elevation of the Meadows Campus down along the riparian zone of the Roaring Fork River and Castle Creek. And while that scheme maybe had some benefit in the form of putting residential development out of site it also raised a lot of anxiety about wetlands, flood plain and the change of a very attractive physical form of environment along both of those ranges. The second major point that was raised had to do with the nature of the housing and really what roll single family housing might play in providing a housing base for Aspen Meadows functions for the Institute and music programs. I think what the charge was to go away, take a number of comments made by P&Z and by surrounding property owners and go back and revisit this plan and try to find a way to address basically 8 principle concerns in this plan. 1. Access. Should Meadows Road and 8th street be the proper access. Or should we develop a new roadway along 7th street. 2. Use of Conservation Lands. The original plan anticipated a change of zone to use that land for residential development. 3. Overall unit count. It was too many units. 4. Historic Preservation of Herbert Bayer buildings. Preservation of the trustee houses. 5. Treatment and operation of the service parking for Music Festival events along Gillespie and 3rd Street. Try to manage parking so that it is not a scorched-earth kind of environment on Sunday afternoons with dust and cars arriving and parking in a very short period of time. 6. Housing. There was a general concern about how will single families be managed. What roll can they play in terms of providing housing base for guest artists, lecturers, people who are actually participating in campus events. 7. Integration of housing with the campus. housing programmatically be tied in with the How will this campus to ensure 17 PZM7.11.89 that when people come to attend the Aspen Institute that there is an opportunity for them to stay on the campus. 8. Concern about what mechanisms will there be to insure that this is a long term fix. What form of covenant or restriction can be put into place to insure that whatever is agreed to in the plan to insure that this is a long term fix. What I am presenting here is a physical format that we have gone through as 5 separate organizations. To begin with is to develop a new access to the property on 7th Street. This is to swing away specifically from the Physics Center because of the concern about the traffic and early on in the process they have established some objectives about maintaining their peace and quiet for their programs. The physicists were not too keen about the idea of a 7th street access but with this curving of it there is a way the circle of serenity can be recognized in the plan. There is an interest in trying to make 8th street a less active residential street. This plan has been presented to the neighbors and one comment is that it looks like everybody is satisfied. The Conservation Lands: Essentially there would be deed restrictions for open space of all the Conservation Lands on Castle Creek. On the Castle Creek side there is no development shown. The Overall development program: What is proposed here--before there were 25 single family houses. Now what we have proposed are 7 single family residences below the elevation of the campus and 2 along Meadows Road. So there are 9 single family houses. Those would be confined to that sage terrace. There is no wetland and certainly no flood plain encroachment in the residences. Trustee houses: The plan now is to keep the trustee houses in place--keep the 8 as is and then add a 9th. There is an opportunity to remodel those by adding a bedroom below the patio leveL There would be no intention to extensively change the exterior character of those buildings. So from an historic preservation plan there would be very strict guidelines on the modification of those buildings. The next feature of the plan is for a total of 18 townhouses. That attitude is that these are special and are very much an extension in character of the trustee houses. They are buildings that are 24ft in width. The materials would be restrained-- sympathetic to the materials you would see at the campus--very straight forward, simple but very elegant very much in the 18 PZM7. 11. 89 tradition and attitude of Herbert Bayer and the Aspen Institute Campus. There is an agreement that there will be a rental restriction applied to those units during the summer months to make sure that they are available as a housing base for Music attendies, physicists and others who are attending functions of the non- profits. That will be achieved in terms of design by having rooms that can be 3 bedroom townhouses, with a lock off feature so that rooms can be made available on a short term basis. And they can be managed out of a central property kind of service. The site for these is the existing health club. The idea is to build these buildings along this edge and then have them all within walking distance of all the campus activities and integrated with the trail system. That is the residential development program. 9 single family and 18 new townhouses. There are 3 very prominent public buildings that are in this plan. One is institute housing. As a result of this plan there will be a need to replace the housing for the Institute. What is proposed is 8 3-bedroom units to basically replace those 8 trustee houses. These will be managed in a different way. The second building is MAA housing which is geared towards artists and faculty in residence programs in the summer. these buildings will house the relocated health club ground floor or basement level. guest One of on the Number one on the part of the MAA is to identify student needs. They range from housing to rehearsal and performing spaces. #1 on the list right up there with housing was to try to find a place for large ensembles to perform. That is on the top of the wish list. We have shown an 11,000sqft building that would have 500 seats. It would be built for the purpose of having the opportunity for people to rehearse. The only rehearsal space we have now is also the performing space. There will be cooperation in terms of providing a long term fix. Land will be deeded to the individual non-profits. with those conveyances, there will be an agreement to participate in long term covenants or restrictions for future use of the land. Jasmine: Are the trustee houses going to be preserved physically but not to be used as trustee houses anymore? 19 PZM7 . 11 . 89 Bill: That is right. They would be remodeled. bedrooms. There would be a lock-off feature. would be managed--during the summer there would make sure that they are available for-- Jasmine: Are those trustee units included in the 18 units? There would be 3 All these units be a covenant to Bill: No. That is 18 new ones and then it is actually 8 trustee houses. A 9th would be added on this end then 18 new townhouses. Roger: I have some problems we will have to address with the 7th street alignment. It is not a good access as it stands now with our existing highway alignment. As the highway stands now 7th street is not a good street to utilize. Tom: 8th street isn't very good either. Graeme: In this lock-off concept in the trustee houses--what is the status on that. Bill: I think the agreement is that we have all said that we can build these things and you can go to the marketplace and sell those units and sell them with a 3 month rental restriction and don't worry about it, people will buy them. I think that response from Perry's side of the table was suppose that doesn't happen and people don't buy them. That 3 month restriction creates such a cloud on the market, what is our recourse. Can we go back and sell them anyway. Perry: The Institute and MAA are going to take the Campus for the summer months. So then they are responsible for who they put in there so that the purchaser of the unit if they buy a 3 bedroom and 2 of the bedrooms are lock-off for that purpose they are guaranteed some rental income for that entire period. So they are locking them off and they are not being used. For the marketing on this we are going to come up with an agreement among the consortium on how this is going to be marketed. Gideon: Right now the Institute, Music and physics all have to go out into the community to house people. It is getting more and more difficult to find housing available for these people. So there is a tremendous need for additional housing. Graeme: I agree. There is a need for them and that is why I think that this needs to have some teeth in it to make sure that it is used that way. The way it is written it doesn't seem to. Wel ton: Did you do any investigation in retaining the Health Club in the location where it is and perhaps locating those 20 PZM7. 11. 89 townhouses that are shown in this plan on that site to maybe of the new Institute housing building to the right of that? is so that the Health Club doesn't have to be demolished. east That Bill: It would have a very negative effect on that park. There really is a focus here of trying to preserve the character of the place as it is right now. In the balance of the thing the thing is antiquated. Bruce: land. Is the Apparently the MAA housing is located on the Institute's Is there going to be some kind of long term ground lease. MAA going to actually build the housing and own it? Bill: The land where the MAA housing would be would be deeded to the MAA with adequate parking. So that would be a separate parcel for the MAA. In the event these townhouses are sold with rental restrictions and the MAA has a long term lease or long term arrangement for the perpetuity to use the townhouses during the summer time. It might be possible not to build the MAA housing. In other words the mAA would be going to townhouses instead of building their own there. Roger: At this point it looks like the plan is fairly auto intensive in design. Have you looked at public transit servicing this facility? Bill: When we come forward wi th precise plans we will be addressing those issues. A couple of major things can be done. One is with this kind of building program under one central property management, there starts to be a viable kind of plan for some kind of shuttle service. Welton asked for comment from the pUblic. Bill Dunaway: Are you going to retain the existing chalets? Bill: The plan is now that they would stay. They would have to have major renovation. Andy Hecht, representing West Side improvement Association, Black Birch Homeowners, Pitkin Green Homeowners, Meadows Road Home- owners: We are very pleased with the efforts of the consortium. We have areas or issues that we still would like to study and address and would like to reserve that until your next meeting. The areas of concern are still how the single family layout will work with the road design and impacts on the Conservation Lands. The rehearsal facility still seems to have found a home because nobody wanted it and we are concerned that maybe it is going to impinge on the necessary parking. We are not sure that the 21 PZM7. 11. 89 parking as designed is adequate to handle the current impacts and certainly not the increased impacts. Bill Martin: Regarding the parking for the townhouses. How would that be handled? Bill: They would be built in the style of the trustee houses and designed as carports. Don Swales, I live on the west side: I think your concern over 7th Avenue is a little overstated. 7th is deeded with a 75ft width. It is the only street out there that has that width. 7th Avenue is, without a doubt, the street to use and if the city Council is dumb enough to keep that double turn going out on 82 then they will have to go with a wider street or something like that. I hope city Council will have the wisdom to straighten that out and there will really be a proper entrance to Aspen. Roger: I don't disagree with you 7th being adequate physically to handle it. The problem is its interface with the highway. Floyd Mann: I am interested if the person who represented 4 or 5 groups on the west side felt that anything that they have yet with concern would in any way raise questions about the basic concept that we are looking here today. Andy: I think if you are saying that the concept of 7 houses could be 5 houses with perhaps 2 houses put in another location, conceptually we think that the plan has a great deal of potential. We think that many impacts have been addressed. We think the rehearsal facility is not in the proper location. A better location is still in a direct line between the auditorium and physics close to the auditorium. It creates a natural park area between the tent and the institute buildings and the rehearsal facility. We think that leaves much more room for a proper solution for parking. The houses we can't tell. They are just conceptual and we don't know whether 7 houses work in that location and what those impacts will be. We are willing to absorb some of those impacts of houses in other locations but we don't know whether the institutions feel the same way. Maybe a house or 2 can be located on Meadows road on the east side of the Cottonwood trees. Christopher Bickley: I think there is a statement from the west side association that on one hand there is still needed to be an agreement by the different institutions that are there. I think there is already an agreement. I think there is tremendous 22 PZM7 .11. 89 ( amount of forethought, concern and architectural planning that has gone into that entire piece that has brought the MAA and the Physics entity together. So I think that conceptually the plan is very sound because it has represented more than one constituent group. Welton asked if There was none. Commission. there was any further comment from the public. And there were no further comments from the Welton adjourned the meeting. Time was 6:45. - 23