Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19850108 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reaular Meeting Plannina and Zonina Commission Januar:y 8. 1985 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. with commissioners Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, David white, Roger Hunt, f.lari Peyton, and alternate Ramona Harkalunas (arrived at 5:06 p.m.) present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Peyton asked what is the procedure for someone to tear down a brick wall which is part of a building and shields dumpsters downtown. The wall at HacDonald's building was torn down without approval. Alan Richman, planning office, responded this is an engineering concern. Contact Jay Hammond and Colette Penne. Richman introduced Sarah Pletts who wishes a work session with the Commission. Sarah Pletts apprised the commissioners that the Andrews-HcFarland building has been cooperatively purchased by five different parties. She has spoken to Penne. White, who has been helpful, did recommend a work session. She understood through Jay Hammond that the plan for the Rio Grande property will be dealt with this summer. Is her property included in that plan? She wants to do some long term planning around the building. She wants to meet with the commissioners on this building and discuss its relationship with the Rio Grande plan. Is it possible to plan a work session with the commissioners? Harvey replied yes. The question is when. Pletts did not know if she is interested in a rezoning. She has many long term concerns. She wants to meet as a group and express her ideas. She requested a meeting date in early February. The Commission discussed a meeting date. The only available date is January 29, 1985. Pletts explained she still cannot place windO\~s on the south side of her building. There are several concerns over the city's decisions near the property line, around the ten or twenty foot easement. Engineering does prefer to maintain an easement because of the already existing buried cables, drainage ditch, retaining wall, etc. The engineering department will not act until the Commission makes a determination about the Rio Grande property, which the Commission may address the Rio Grand plan in the summer. She wants to investigate "hat to do "ith the property and the building on a long term basis. Harvey asked if the planning office has met with Pletts. Richman ans~lered Penne has. Pletts emphasized a work session "i th the Commission is a good method for handling this issue. Richman noted that engineering, planning, and building representatives should be included in the discussions. He concluded this issue may be an administrative staffing problem, not the Commission 's problem. pletts reported that Penne suggested given the current rezoning of the Andrews-HcFarland building that Pletts be involved in the planning process. Penne intimated some changes would be occurring in the area. She may request a rezoning for a new type of zoning. Given the SPA designation "hich encompasses the lands surrounding her property and given the present deliberations on SPA, her property may be incorporated in a new plan of the area. "____,_,.,~....j......,.~~~,c""'.,...~_,~_....,~......._,_._~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reaular Meetina P1annin9 and Zonin9 Commission Januar:v 8. 1985 Penne did suggest a variation on an existing zone; incorporate what exists in her conditional permit in a zone designation. Harvey directed Richman to meet IVith P1etts and Penne. Determine IVhether a work session with the Commission is appropriate. If so, set the work session for January 29, 1985. SAT-TIME SATELLITE DISH SPECIAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING Richman has been informed that some of the applicant's represen- tatives are out of tOIVn and the applicant wishes to table the hearing. The applicant has been notified the case IVill be tabled to February 5th. Harvey opened the public hearing. Harvey submitted to the record the following letter from W.R. Walton dated January 7, 1985, to the planning office: "Out of tOIVn business prevents me from appearing in person, nevertheless, I desire that my thoughts on the above captioned proposal be on record. While I do encourage individual entrepreneurs, as I believe there is already too much governmental interference in our lives, I feel very strongly that this proposal to allow such a large (10 foot) obtrusive piece of electronic gear is just not in keeping with the nature of our community, especially if it is to be in full public view either at ground level or on top of a building. I am confident that tourists who visit, and residents who have chosen Aspen as their home, do not wish to be subjected to ugly, visually obtrusive objects, such as satellite dishes, even if it is mounted on a trailer. Surely, in your wisdom, you will reject this applicant 's request in its present form but perhaps will assist by offering guidance in the development of a hidden, remote location more suitable for this type of electronic gear. Harvey continued the meeting to February 5, 1985. Motion: Roger Hunt moved to table the Sat-Time satellite dish review to February 5, 1985; seconded by Pat Fallin. favor; motion carried. special All in ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE PRELIMINARY POD Harvey opened the public hearing. Richman summarized the previous discussion on condominiumization. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reau1ar: Meetina Plannina and Zonin9 Commission Januar:v 8. 1985 The Commission initially dealt with the lodge questions and not residential questions. There are two issues surrounding the lodge condominiumization that need additional discussion: the question of oIVnership and the question of a promissory note. There are two issues surrounding condominiumization of the residential units within the lodge: six month rental lease restriction and employee housing displacement. There is a double condominiumization procedure: the lodge as an operating entity and the residential units within the lodge. John Doremus, representative for the applicant, raised two issues: ownership of various commercial elements IVithin the lodge and separate oIVnership of tIVO separate hotels. The real question is IVhat is the difference in the impact on the community between one or two ownerships. The Commission, in particular, Anderson at an earlier meeting indicated there was no real difference. Doremus said in Appendix D is the condominium document. The first document is the declaration. The second document is the by-laws. On page sixteen of the by-laws there is a discussion about the major facilities in the hotel, to whom the facilities are available, and to whom fees will be charged. He made one correction with respect to the ice rink. The applicant will charge a fee for the use of the ice rink. The installation will cost about $150,000. The operational costs will be high. The applicant does commit to making the facilities available to the public. It is a mistake not to charge for the use of the health center; most hotels charge for use of health centers. Owners will be able to use the health center. The issue is not whether to charge fees or not. The issue is availability. On page sixteen is a list of major recreational facilities in the project. The list breaks down to whom the facilities will be available and what fees or charges will be imposed on the users. Harvey commented that the lodge condominiumization ordinance is concerned about the owners owning the common elements of the lodge. The ordinance really protects owners of smaller lodges. The ordinance preserves the ability of the owners to freely use the living rooms, the hot tubs, the pools, all the common areas. The language here addresses to whom available. He is concerned about the ownership division. Is the health center to be sold to a third party? Charles Brandt, counsel for the applicant, explained the drafted declaration states that the amenities (the pools, the spas, landscaped grounds) are all general common elements. Those elements will be owned in common by all the oIVners. If and IVhen phase two is completed, the owners in phase one IVill have a vested interest in the phase two general common elements; the phase one owners will have an interest in phase two. Whether the health center as such will be a general common element or IVill be an individually owned commercial business, he cannot ansIVer. Harvey is concerned about conforming with the intent of lodge condominiumization ordinance. Doremus said he failed to find the section in the condominiumization -'~~~'..,_.._-"."._"-_._~~-_.. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reau1ar: Meetin9 Plannina and Zonina Cnmmission Januar:y 8. 1985 ordinance that addresses Harvey's concerns. It is not clear which restaurants, health centers, etc., IVill be owned by IVhom. The people who have to sell the condominiumized project and the people who make the loans for the sales pretty much determine holV many of the common elements can be retained by the developer or sold to third parties. Those people are nervous IVhen certain elements are not oIVned in common by the residential unit owners. Whether individual commercial units will be individually owned cannot be answered at this time. The code does not addresses this. Richman quoted: "The common areas of the lodge shall remain common areas and be retained in a manner consistent with the previous charac- ter." It has been the Council's and the Commission's policy to consis- tently utilize that language of the code to suggest that common areas, specifically commercial common areas, be freely available to the members of the condominium association. The city has never considered shops or restaurants. Harvey was not concerned about the ownership of the retail spaces. His concern is that this operation be perceived as a quality hotel. Brandt explained the concept of this condominium declaration is identical to Aspen Square. Residential units are condominiumized. The Aspen Square oIVners own the general common elements, the parking garages, the swimming pool, the spa, and the meeting room. The commercial o\~ners mYn commercial spaces of the building; the spaces are divided into small units for retail usage. Doremus observed that in the operations of first class hotels guests pay extra for parking, for the health facilities, for everything. l'Ihether the facilities are free to owners is not terribly important. OIVners use the hotel in a limited capacity. Richman reiterated that the applicant has complied with the law. He does not have any problem \dth condominiumization. Harvey questioned the status of the parking. l'Iill parking be a general common element? Brandt replied yes. Richman asked for commissioners' opinions on the lodge facil i ties under two separate ownerships. supported the concept. concept of two The Commission Richman questioned the promissory note requirement. Section (a) (6) (c) of condominiumization requires a promissory note be submitted to the City of Aspen and be secured by deed of trust in the amount of the physical upgrading of the lodge facility. This note does not secure the water, seIVer, and utilities. The note insures the city a building it was promi sed. Lodge condomi- niumization was written for the upgrading of small lodges. The code specifically requires a promissory note or some alternative method acceptable to Council. At this point in the submission he has either. Harvey asked if the code requires a promissory note for a hotel that does not exit. Richman ansIVered the code does o~._....o.-_>_.~"~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reqular Meetina Plannin9 andZonina Commission Januarv 8. 1985 not differentiate between condominiumizing and upgrading an existing lodge and condominiumizing a neIV lodge. Harvey argued the purpose of the lodge condominiumization ordinance is to insure that condominiumization does not occur without a commitment of dollars. He reasoned condominiumization cannot occur to the new hotel without a commitment of dollars; there would be nothing to condominiumize if the dollars were not committed in the first place. Brandt referred to 20-23 of the condominiumization ordinance. There are specific references in the ordinance to upgrading existing structures as opposed to constructing a neIV facility. The implication is condominiumization of an existing facility. The code alludes to existing structures. If someone were to change an already existing facility the city should be insured of a higher quality, tourist-oriented facility. The ordinance addresses the concern that lodges be removed from the tourist lodge market and be condominiumized for long term use. The Aspen l10untain Lodge, a ne\~ facility, does not fit the parameter of the ordinance. The application tries to address all requirements of the condominium ordinance that are applicable. The applicant has a problem with the security. The code asks for a note secured by a deed of trust in the amount of construction. The estimated construction cost is $50,000,000. The code also states that the $50,000,000 note be subordinated to a construction loan, a $50,000,000 construction loan. There could be tIVO notes totaling $100,000,000 against the property. The code states that the two obligations shall not exceed the market value at the time the project is approved. That land is not IVorth $100,000,000 today. This code provision is not applicable to the Aspen i'.Iountain Lodge. Paul Taddune, ci ty attorney, commented that here is a precedent. He cited the Prospector. The city reviewed that situation from a practical point of vieIV. The city modified the language to require a security that practically suited the project. He shared the opinion that this section of the code was designed primarily for renovation and not completely new construction. Doremus cited the City Council minutes of February 28, 1983, and the "Edelweiss Chalet Reconstruction." Richman noted that the Coramission did impose the code condition. After explanation of the dilemma, Council eliminated the condition. The code does not allow the Commission to accept an alterative, it gives the Council the choice. Harvey advised the Commission to impose the condition IVith a comment that the Commission recommends waiving the condition. Taddune said the condition exists as a matter of law; but, the recommendation might be appropriate under the circumstances. Hunt expressed his philosophy on the condominiumization of the present project. The project has to be under one operation and one management and has to go through SCC approval. One entity has to operate the entire project. There cannot be multiple managements. ---._..,"'--------~-~..,.+. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reau1ar: Meetina Planning and Zonina Cnmmission Januar:v 8. 1985 Taddune understood the concern is not the separate forms of ownership, it is obtaining guarantees of performance of all conditions that the developer has agreed to. His anxiety increases IVhen there are different forms of ownership IVithout the guarantees upfront by either one or both or some type of escrow account. He does not see a problem with ownership as long as all the commitments made by the applicant are satisfied by successors. Hunt emphasized the operation of the hotel is his concern. The hotel has to be operated as a hotel. He does not care about the number of oIVners. The building management has to be one entity as IVell. Richman noted that the condominium documents state that intent. Hunt does not have problems with separate ownerships of the Continental and the new 285 room hotel. Taddune commented that Hunt's concern is implicit in lodge condominiumization, the hotel has to stay available for lodging. Hunt has heard several times the argument that the city cannot require the applicant to have one property manager, that requires SCC approval. He adamantly opposed multiple property managers, either renting or managing different pieces of property. He also includes the contained residential property. Renting the contained residential property on a short term basis should be managed through the operating management managing the hotel. Harvey quoted from the submission: "the association retaining professional manager or management company to perform its day to day functions under the supervision and control of the board of directors." Hunt wanted the developer and succeeding owner to comply with his demonstrations. Doremus said the only caveat to that is that the residential units not be sold as a security and not be restricted to a maximum tIVO weeks use by the owner. Hunt emphasized short terming the residential units has to be controlled through the hotel management. Brandt said the declaration states that. Doremus agreed. Brandt referred to an agency agreement in the declaration. The agency agreement is signed by each owner and it runs through the hotel management company; it appoints them, as the attorney, to refurbish units, to rent units, to collect rent, and to pay expenses. Peyton asked if there are condominium provlSlons to standardize the interior decor. Brandt replied yes. The hotel operator has all the authority to make sure the rooms meet the standard the operator deems necessary. Peyton asked if this prevents someone from letting their property deteriorate. Doremus replied that an owner will not even be allowed to hang a personal painting on the wall. This project is different from an apartment condominiumi- zation. Harvey remarked that an owner relinquishes the rights to decorate; instead they retain the tax benefits. Richman raised two issues in association with the residential component. The applicant is not interested in condominiumizing RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reau1ar: Meetina Planninq and Zonina Commission Januarv 8. 1985 residential units as lodge securities. The applicant is not interested in using the residential units in a transient manner. And those units will be managed by the hotel. One adjunct to the condominiumized residential units is perfunctorily a six month minimum lease restriction. A second adjunct is employee housing lost to residential condominiumization. Displacement needs to be mitigated. It is not practical to impose a six month lease restriction on the residential units. The units are in the heart of the lodge district. As policy, the Commission and the Council have not applied this. Harvey understood that condominiumized residential units in L-l and L-2 do not have this restriction. Richman repeated it has been the operating policy of the Commission and Council not to impose this restriction. Chuck Brandt has submitted a request specifically for exception from that provision of the subdivision regulations. Richman said normally subdivision exceptions are requests from procedures. This is a request from exception of a specific regulation. Taddune has reviewed Section 20-19, the exception provision. That section allows for exceptions from specific regulations within the subdivision code. There is nothing unusual about this request. The applicant requests the Commission exempt the residential units from the six month minimum lease restriction. Taddune and Richman think the request is reasonable. Taddune noted that if the Commission agrees with the request concept ually he then wants the opportuni ty to rev iew the legal aspects of the request. Doremus cited the Blitz (Lot 15, Hemmeter Acres) case. In 1980, this case was similarly handled. This subdivision exemption was granted with conditions in compliance with the engineering department. Harvey directed the planning office to evaluate why there is not the requirement in the condominiumization of L-l and L-2, districts designated as intense tourist use. The imposition of six month rental restrictions contradicts policy. Richman submitted to the record a signed copy of the application for subdivision exception from Chuck Brandt, dated January 11, 1985: "Request is hereby made on behalf of Commerce Savings Association of Angleton, Texas (hereinafter jointly referred to as "Applicant") under section 20-19(a) of the Hunicipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, for an exception from the six month minimum lease restriction contained in Section 20-22(b) with respect to the condominiumization of the 14 residential units confirmed in Aspen Mountain Lodge (see page 112, V.A. Lodge Condominium Request, Preliminary PUD and Subdivision, phase). Reauest for Exc~9tion Section 20-19(a) grants authority to the Planning Commission _._-.......-......"~..~_'._~'A' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reaular: Meetina Plannin9 and Z.onin9 Commission January 8. 1985 to grant exceptions from the strict application of the standards, requirements, and other provisions of Chapter 20 when in the judgement of the Planning Commission, undue hardship may result from strict compliance. The Applicant requests that the Planning Commission except the condominiumization of the 14 residential units to be contained in the Aspen Mountain Lodge, from the following subdivision requirements: Subsection 20-22(b) that all condominiumized units shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum lease with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year. Basis for Exception The Applicant submits the following in support of his application: The stated intention of the LOdge-Two (L-2) Zone District in IYhich the Aspen rlountain Lodge is situated is to encourage the construction of tourist-oriented multi-family units and other types of dwellings. Thus, the requirement contained in Section 20-22(b) conflicts with the intention of the L-2 zone district and the permitted uses therein. Therefore, it is necessary to grant an exception from Subsection 20- 22(b) and thereby recognize that the intention and permitted uses IYithin L-2 include unrestricted tourist-oriented condominiumized residential units within a lodge complex as the controlling code provision. Addressing the requirements of Subsection 20-19(a), the Applicant submits the following: (1) T ha t the confl i ct noted above is the spec i al circumstances affecting the subject property such that the strict application of the provisions of Subsection 20-22(b) would deprive the Applicant of the reasonable use of its property; (2) That the requested exception is necessary for the presentation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant enjoyed by others. The one precedent of which the Applicant is aware is the Blitz II subdivision exception in which the Planning Commission and Council granted through subdivision exception the condominiumization of a duplex on Lot 15, Anthony Acres Subdivision, without imposition of the restriction contained in Subsection 20-22 (b). The zoning of this property was L-2. (3) The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other -..,---.,.-,', -"~--_......_----~...........-.-..,.. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reau1ar Meetina P1annina and Zonin9 Commission Januar:y 8. 1985 property in the area for it will resolve a conflict IVithin the code and recognize a use widely existing in the area." The commission agreed to exempt the applicant from the six month lease restriction. Richman said the employee housing requirement mitigates displace- ment. A letter written by Jim Curtis, dated llovember 23, 1984, inventories all the employee housing that exists on the site. The letter articulates how the applicant proposes to address employee housing. In summary, the applicant as part of the residential and lodge application has been including the displace- ment of all der.101ished units, for example, the Ilelville II and the Black TOIVnplace. One employee housing project displaced by this development is the Aspen Inn. Hans Cantrup in the 1978 GMP application committed to constructing thirty-six lodge units and building tIVenty-four employee housing units to house thirty-five employees. At that time, the Commission did not score on the basis of housing percentages of the employees. The provision of employee housing itself scored the applicant points. The original commitment was twenty-four employee units. Richman under stood the present appl ication is amendi ng the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP application by either exceeding or meeting Cantrup's requirements. This is the first case that some aspect of Cantrup's application is not being met. Curtis' letter comments on the employee generation factor of the lodge: for example, thirty-six units generate thirteen employees and the applicant is committing to house 100% of those thirteen employees. Comparing thirteen employees (the generation of the current application) and thirty- five employees (the generation of the 1978 Cantrup application) is like comparing apples and oranges. The real question to ask is the present application an amendment to the 1978 Gnp commit- ment. Taddune explained the city has taken a position in unsettled litigation that Cantrup has forfeited the right to all thirty-six units. Cantrup did not build in compliance with the Gnp appli- cation. He is concerned about compliance IVith all representations and the ability to amend. This is all questionable. Doremus never believed the present application I~as IVri tten to amend the Cantrup application. This is a new application. The thirty-six unit Aspen Inn addition IVas included in the available count as a result of inherited litigation between Cantrup and the city. He has approached this application on that assumption. The present application also surpasses the Cantrup application. As the Commission reviewed the GflP application did it compare what Cantrup offered as opposed to IVhat the Aspen Mountain Lodge offers. Isolating one element does not read l'lell. The Aspen I-lountain Lodge application far outscores the original Cantrup ^ . .._""._'~,~'-'--'_""""-,---"'-'-"." RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reau1ar Meeting Planning and Zonina Commission Januar:v 8. 1985 application. What does it matter if the applicant does provide under the revised code a different housing solution than Cantrup's solution? Taddune supported Doremus' characterization. The city did counter claim but is dismissing the counter claim in recognition of the new project. Harvey questioned the dialogue. Is this a discussion about residential condominiumization or Cantrup Aspen Inn units? Richman explained there exists residential housing for the employees of the lodge on site. Harvey asked if the real question is residential condominiumization and its affect on the displacement of employee housing. Richman replied yes. Taddune commented that the city is also concerned about certain representations made in 1978, at which time thirty-six allotments were awarded. Harvey repeated on one hand there is a discussion about housing for lodge employees. On the other hand, there is a discussion about residential condominiumization and its affect on the displacement of existing employee housing. The tIVO are not related. The applicant has handled employee housing for their lodge employees; the Commission has agreed to a certain number of employee housing for lodge employees. Now, before the Commission is an ordinance that states when residential property is condo- miniumized that the applicant has to provide employee housing for employes:: rjisplaced through the condominiumization. Is this not correct? Richman explained the applicant is receiving credits for the demolition of residences. Credits for demolition of residences in some cases rcsult in employees abandoning existing residential units for the construction of new frec market units. The applicant has addressed those displaced cmployecs. Thc case in which a residence has bcen given a credit, to build at Top of Mill or to build Vii thin the lodge, has been accounted in the amount of employee housing to bc constructed, for example, at the Airport Business Center. Part of the PUD project is a rcsidential condominiumization. Even though the twenty-four units of the Aspen Inn have not been built, the applicant is theoretically displacing the Aspen Inn units. It is unreasonable to requirc the applicant to replace those units at the Cantrup level (tIVenty- four units). Cantrup's units bore no relationship to the need to service thirty-five employees. The applicant will replace those units to the extent to service the employees. Peyton commented this raises a larger question. How can the applicant be aIVarded an allocation for units that are illegal? Wells corrected that the units are not illegal. Peyton noted that the allocation granted to Cantrup for construction of employee housing was never used. Does this not raise the question whether the unconstructed units should be part of the present employee housing allocation? Wells explained there was a series of foggy issues. In the course of city's negotiations it was decided to grant the thirty-six units. A decision was made not to belabor the several foggy issues. This is one of the issues. Bil DunaIVay. publisher of thc Aspen Times, questioned how the '" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reau1ar Meetina P1annin9 and Zonina Commission January 8. 1985 city can grant thirty-six units that ,.,ere approved in the GNP without meeting all the requirements of the GtlP. No one has the authority to grant those units for settling litigation or not for settling litigation. He took exception to Hells' statement. Hells argued that this applicant has so far exceeded certain aspects of Cantrup's proposal, the comparison is betIVeen apples and apples. Hunt asked if those twenty-four employee units buil t by Cantrup are included in an inventory. Richman repeated those units were never built. Jim Curtis, representative from the housing authority, explained those employees were never housed. Hunt said then in effect tIVenty-four units were never built although they should have been. By definition those tIVenty-four units should be included in the employee housing plan for this present application. Richman clarified that only thirteen employees are being addressed in the current plan to satisfy that twenty-four employee housing requirement. The applicant has to meet the commercial commitment, the residential commitment, lodge commitment, and the displacement commitment. The applicant calculated the figure; that figure is not twenty-four units. # Doremus reminded the commissioners if they construe the proposal as a revised application for the thirty-six units that changes are allowed up or down. Doremus emphasized according to Curtis' letter the applicant is meeting 100% of the impact of those thirty-six units. Harvey continued the public meeting to January 15, 1985. NEW BUSINESS PERRY DUPLEX EXEMPTION FROM MANDATORY POD/cONDOMINIUMIZATION Richman apprised the commissioners of the application. The Commission is revieIVing exemption from mandatory PUD. The condominiumization does have attached an employee housing question. The lot is located in the Castle Creek Subdivision, 740 Castle Creek Drive. There is an existing residence. The applicant is proposing to create a duplex by some internal reorganizing of the current configuration. He distributed a site plan to the commis- sioners. The duplex is exempt from growth management since the lot was subdivided before November 14, 1977. The unit is next to the Roush unit, a unit the commissioners granted a similar exemption to last year. Slope reduction analysis concludes that the lot can handle tIVO uni ts in the R-30 PUD zone. The exemption is appropria te ,~i thout the four step PUD process if the Commission finds that the proposed development meets the objectives of PUD. It is unnecessary to take the proposed development through the full four st(;P PUD process. PUD involves clustering. It is hard to cluster any more than two units within the same house. Nothing is accomplished with the four step PUD process. ~-~'~~"".''-.~'''_'______''_'~ _ ___~'"~~___..""'_.__,.'."C.""M RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reau1ar: Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Januar:y 8. 1985 There are no site impacts. The construction is internal. One question is the availability of parking. The applicant has committed to make parking available at a ratio of one space per bedroom. One technical problem surrounds an existing caretaker's residence over the garage. A caretaker's unit has allVays been considered a unit of density just like any other residential unit. The caretaker's unit was built in 1974. There was an agreement at that time stating that the caretaker's unit be an accessory use to the residence and that the construction of that unit not constitute duplexing. Richman does not know under IVhat regulation this action was taken. Perhaps Ordinance 19 influenced such an agreement. Today, it would be difficult to enter such an arrange- ment. Richman with the assistance of the city attorney advised the Commission not to make the caretaker's unit a third unit in the complex. With the change from a single family unit to a duplex, the caretaker's unit cannot contain a kitchen. wi thout an addi tional kitchen it does not meet the definition of an additional unit. And secondly, the caretaker's unit has to be used in conjunction with the principal residence. Its occupants should be employees of the OImer of uni tone. Unit one can be condomini umized, but 4 the condomini umization cannot resul t in three uni ts. Only two units will be allowed. The caretaker's unit will have to be condomini umized as part of uni tone. John LaSall e, counsel for the applicant, has informed Richman that he has no problems with the conditions (listed on page two of the planning office memo da ted January 8, 1985). The assurance that the caretaker's uni t be employee housing prevents displacement. The application meets the criteria of condominiumization and the criteria for e,:emption from mandatory PUD. The Commission should require a trail easement along the west side of Castle Creek (the 10IVer bench of the property). The applicant does not have a problem with that condi tion. There are five condi ti on s that should be attached to the Commission's recommendation for subdivision exception for condominiumization and approval of exemption from mandatory PUD, a final action by the Commission. John LaSalle, counsel for the applicant, added that the requirement concerning the caretaker's unit is already a covenant filed against the property in 1974. The covenant states that the unit shall "only be used as a residence for service employees "_"__.... necessary to live on and maintain the premises and shall not be utilized as a rental unit." That agreement was a trade off in 1974. Harvey noted that the covenant does not include the stipulation about the ki tchen. Secondly, the covenant is not signed by the ci ty. Motion: Roger Hunt moved to grant approval of an exemption from mandatory PUD for the duplexing of the Perry residence on Lot 7, Castle IU:CQRD OF PROCEEDINGS Reau1ar: Meetina Planning and Zoning Commission Januar:v 8. 1985 Creek Subdivision; and further move to recommend subdivision exception for the purposes of condominiumization of the two units subject to: 1. Dedication of a trail easement (15 feet in Iddth) through the property as shown on the Aspen/Pitkin County Trails Haster Plan (along the west side of Castle Creek). 2. The accessory caretaker's residence shall not contain a kitchen. It must be occupied in conjunction with the principal residence. Occupancy shall be restricted only to the employees of the owner of Unit One. The unit cannot be used as a rental unit, nor can it be sold separately as a condominiumized unit. 3. The two units shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases, with no more than tl~O (2) shorter tenancies per year. 4. The applicant shall file a statement of exception from sUbdivision, which document shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney. 5. The applicant shall file a plat, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, illustrating the final confi- guration of the condominiumized units. Seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor1 motion carried. Harvey adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m. _J;,rIMYA~~_,_________________ ___ _'___ Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk