HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19850115
_........._-~--,-"--"..._.,......--;---_._,-,...--..._-~_.-._--~~.-.".-"~'---~-'-" -"~--~._..-
...-.._..,',._..,,-.....,.,..~.--_....,....
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Soecia1 Meetin9 P1annin9 and Zonina Commission Januarv 15~ 1985
Chairman Perry Harvey called the special meeting to order at 5:06
p.m. with commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson,
David White (arrived at 5:10 p.m.), Roger Hunt, Mari Peyton, and
alternate Ramona Markalunas present.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
Alan Richman, planning office, reported on the Sarah Pletts
case. He met with her today for an hour and solved all her
problems. A meeting with the Commission is unnecessary. He
presented her an application for a code amendment for her building.
Richman announced two work sessions: a meeting on January 29,
1985 on two planning items, the entrance to Aspen and open space,
trails, parks, etc.; and a joint meeting with City Council on
Monday, February 4, 1985, at 5:00 p.m., on Burnt Mountain. The
planning office will present review comments on Burnt Mountain to
the Commission in the next few weeks.
Fallin asked if the commissioners will be presented material the
open space and entrance to Aspen. Richman suspected there would
be information. Richman also warned the commissioners to expect
a prolonged work schedule in the next few weeks. Start expecting
a minimum of one or two planning work sessions per month.
(David White arrives in the chambers at 5:10 p.m.)
ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE pRRT.TMINARY PUlli'SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION
Harvey opened the public hearing.
The Commission read a letter from Chuck Brandt, dated January 14,
1985:
"This letter will put forth our client's position with
respect to the referenced issue (Re: Aspen Mountain Lodge-
1978 Aspen Inn Expansion Employee Housing Requirement). The
question is whether Commerce must provide 24 employee units
housing 35 employees as committed by Hans Cantrup in his
1978 Aspen Inn Expansion GMP application for the 36 free-
market lodge units; or, may Commerce provide housing for 100%
of the employees generated by the 36 lodge units, which
amounts to a commitment to house thirteen (13) employees.
First, let us recap what has happened to date.
On page 10 of the 1983 Lodge GMP Submission on The Aspen
Mountain Lodge, it is stated that this Submission includes
a request for three forms of approval for the 480 unit lodge
which relate to the Lodge GMP regulation in the following
manner; Number 2 states:
'Approval of an amendment to the 1978 Lodge GMP Submission
for an addition to the Aspen Inn which received an
allotment for 36 lodge units. It is our intention to
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Soecial Meetino
Plannino and Zoninq Cnmmission Januarv 15. 1985
demolish the building which is presently under con-
struction and rebuild the 36 units as a part of the 480
uni t propo sa!. '
In Resolution No. 84-11 (series of 1984) granting a multi-
year Lodge GMP allocation to the Aspen Mountain Lodge and
conceptual PUD/Subdivision approval the following recital
appears:
'Whereas, an additional forty-two (42) (including the
36 units of the Aspen Inn Extension) lodge units are
eligible for verification pending the settlement of
outstanding litigation between the Cantrup Estate and
the City of Aspen.'
Pursuant to this portion of Council's resolution, a formal
written agreement settling three Aspen Inn lawsuits has
been prepared by the City Attorney acknowledging that the 36
units awarded to Cantrup are fully valid and effective.
Such agreement is contingent, of course, upon approval of
the bankruptcy court and final Council approval of the Aspen
Mountain Lodge PUD.
In Resolution 84-27, City Council endorsed the revised
employee housing proposal of the Aspen Mountain PUD on
condition that the applicant submit additional documentation
with respect to the replacement of existing employee housing
as required by Sections 20-22 and 20-23.
Next, let's examine the Code requirements relating to so-
called 'displaced' employee housing. Section 20-22(c)
requires that the applicant shall demonstrate that approval
will not reduce the supply of low and moderate income
housing. The criteria includes evidence that there will be
minimal tenant displacement as a result of the conversion.
Section 20-23 (A) (2) requires a minimum of 'two (2) pillOWS
of employee housing or that amount of employee housing that
has been provided for three (3) years previous to the time
of condominiumization, whichever is greater.' Clearly the
foregoing criteria does not apply since there has been no
employee housing provided or associated with the 36 unit
Aspen Inn Extension. We believe the criteria which should
apply is .36 employees per unit which is the figure approved
by the Housing Authority in its review of the Aspen Mountain
Lodge GMP and PUD submission. It equates to housing 100% of
the employees generated by the development of the ~ units
in the Aspen /Iountain LOdge. Commerce proposes to utilize
this as the standard and to provide housing for 13 employees
in connection with the redevelopment of the 36 unit Aspen
Inn Extension. This amounts to a commitment to house 100%
of the employees generated by the 36 lodge units.
As part of the Lodge Preliminary PUD and Subdivision Submis-
sion, and as one of the amendments proposed by the applicant
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Soectal Meetino
Plannin9 and Zonino Cnmmission JanuarY 15~ 1985
to the 1978 GMP application as set forth in Jim Curtis'
letter dated November 23, 1984, Commerce has committed to
house 100% of the employees generated by the 36 lodge units
of the 1978 Aspen Inn expansion application, or 13 employees.
We trust that given the fact that Commerce is housing 100%
of the employees generated by the units resulting in no
impacts to the community, that Mr. Cantrup's employee units
associated with the Aspen Inn Expansion were never constructed,
and that Commerce's employee housing will be of superior
quality than that historically provided by Mr. Cantrup, you
will recommend approval of this amendment to the 1978 GMP
application to the Planning Commission."
Harvey raised the issue of the Cantrup employee housing. The
question is: can the Commission allow the thirty-six lodge units
to be incorporated in the reconstructed units if the twenty-four
employee housing units for thirty-five employees are not built.
Those thirty-six lodge units cannot exist if the conditions of
the original Cantrup approval were not met. Richman agreed.
Harvey argued the condition of the Cantrup approval was the
construction of the twenty-four employee uni ts to house thi rty-
five employees. Since those employee units were never constructed,
in theory the approval for those units is nonexistent. In theory
if a developer were to attempt to build the thirty-six lodge
uni ts and not the twenty-four employee housing units, he would
not receive a CO. In the present Aspen Mountain Lodge application,
the thirty-six lodge units are included in the computations of
reconstructed or replaced units.
Hunt asked if the construction of the twenty-four employee
uni ts changes anything. Richman repl ied the commi tment is as
important as the construction and vacancy of the units. John
Doremus, representative for the applicant, remarked that the
employee housing commitment is one of a dozen commitments made in
the application. All the commitments have been revised, not just
hous ing. His cl ient reappl ied under a new and different code.
There have been many code changes since 1978. His client did not
submit a revised application. The inclusion of the thirty-six
units is the result of a condition from a legal settlement. If
the Commission interpreted the present application as part of a
revised Cantrup application, then every element of the original
application has been revised and adjusted. The present application
provides more public amenities, less employee housing, more open
space, etc. Ivhy focus on employee hous ing as an item tha t
cannot change?
Harvey expressed concern about the technical question: the
present applicant did not go through growth management approval
for an already allocated thirty-six units. Granted the applicant
is replacing those units. Should the city attorney be dealing
with this? Can the Commission approve the construction of the 36
lodge units for the present applicant and concurrently support
the interpretation that the applicant not meet the obligations
--'-"""""-'~-"-----~-'--~_.~._..........,...--.__.....~_.- .~..--,._~ .-......---~~'-~........~
RErnRn OF PROCEEDYNGS
Soecial Meetino
Planning and Zoning Cnmmission January 15. 1985
defined in the 1978 GMP approval? Does this action set precedent?
Richman responded that the applicant has presented an alternative,
the applicant does meet the employee housing commitment by
housing 100% of the employees. But the applicant's computation
of 100% of employees is a significantly different number than the
figure generated by Cantrup's application. This is the only
option available to the Commission. Do not completely ignore
the housing commitment.
Peyton preferred the solution that the number of lodge units be
reduced by 36, not the solution to provide employee housing.
Those 36 units do not exist by right. The 36 units exist in
fact but there is no CO for the 36 units. Harvey asked if the 36
units, which do not have a CO, are verifiable. Richman answered
yes. The 36 units are verified as part of the 275 count. Once
the litigation is settled the units are verified. Peyton reasoned
then anyone who wins a GMP allocation based on various approvals
can be absorbed by another project that is not obligated to meet
those specific approvals. Harvey remarked that any applicant can
request amendments to the approved appl ica tion. Does the Commission
prefer the scenario of thirty-six lodge units generating and
housing thirteen employees or the scenario of twenty-four employee
units housing thirty-five employees.
Peyton asked at the time the thirty-six units were verified
were the conditions of the approval known. Richman replied the
city was not aware of the conditions. peyton argued the conditions
were not considered during the verification of the units. That
bothers her. Joe Wells, representative for the applicant,
explained the city could have taken the position not to grant the
right to replace the units in the legal settlement. The city
could have directed the applicant to request an amendment to
the original GMP and to proceed through the GMP scoring process
again for those 36 units. Comparing the scores of this application
and the scores of the Cantrup application is difficult. The
scoring criteria between 1978 and 1984 have changed completely,
a consideration in this litigation settlement.
Harvey reasoned that someone cannot receive additional GMP points
for providing more than 100% of employee housing. If thirteen
is the figure determined to be 100% of the employees then the
appl icant cannot be expected to receive extra points by housing
more than the 100% employee figure. Richman reiterated the
scoring in 1978 was not based on the number of employees generated.
Points were based on the proposal of housing employees. In 1978
there were no objective criteria. That has changed over the last
couple of years.
Harvey asked for commissioners' comments on the proposal to
house thirteen employees with the redevelopment of the 36 units.
Tygre agreed the situation is very confusing. Verification is
not necessarily relevant. She is uncomfortable with the reduction
of employees housed from 35 to 13. Markalunas made no comments.
Hunt asked if the 24 housing units incorporated housing required
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Scecial Meeting
Plannin~ and Zonina Commission Januarv IS. 1985
from other locations. Richman answered no. The twenty-four
employee housing count is specifically for the the Aspen Inn
proposal. The Aspen Inn was to be a free standing, independent
lodge composed of 36 units. The Cantrup proposal required more
personnel than the applicant's proposal for the Aspen to be part
of a larger 440 plus unit project. Thirteen people may only be
necessary to run the present proposal, not thirty-five people.
The employee ratio of the two proposals is not comparable.
Hunt advised the commissioners to look at the Aspen Inn as a new
project. Numbers have been determined on the past application.
Determine the support of the numbers on the basis of a new
project. Should those 36 units be included in the count since
the 36 units are not legal units? The 36 units cannot be occupied
without the 24 employee units. Harvey noted that the 36 units
are built into the growth program for the community. Hunt argued
even though the numbers have been determined, evaluate the
project as a new project and a project subject to the current
regulations.
Wells said if the city had decided to return the 36 units into
the quota rather than grant the units to the applicant, the 36
units would have been available for competition and the affect on
future years quota would have been the same. Brandt commented
the proposal for employee housing is based on the units being new.
Fallin, although confused, agreed with Hunt. The Commission has
to review Aspen Inn as a new project, not as the 1978 project.
Anderson did not share Tygre' s or Peyton's concerns. He agreed
with Hunt. The Commission must review the project as part of a
larger project, not as an isolated, independent project. He
agreed the 36 rooms today require a lower employee count as
part of a larger, overall project. White agreed the issue is
conf us ing. Somehow employee housing uni ts are lost. The ci ty
does not know how many employee units Cantrup provided for
the Continental originally. The loss of employee units is not
necessarily the fault of the present applicant. Harvey argued the
city is not losing the units, only the city is not receiving the
units. The question is are employees not being housed. He
reasoned the applicant is providing housing for the employees
generated by the hotel project.
Peyton said the present solution white washes the fact that 36
units were certified in error. Harvey disagreed. The 36 units,
although never built, were allocated. The growth management plan
did consider those units. Peyton replied those units were
allocated with conditions. Harvey argued the present applicant
can formally amend the growth management plan application
using the argument that the Aspen Inn is no longer an independent
lodge requiring 35 employees to service the inn. Currently, the
36 units are part of a larger lodging project. The Commission
could conclude that thirteen employees are necessary for the
present Aspen Inn proposal and the applicant has to house 100% of
the employees generated by the 36 units.
- _._~..----_..~-"._._--- ---.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Soecial Meetino
Planning and Zonina Cnmmission Januarv 15. 1985
Paul Taddune, city attorney, said the application before the
Commission is not an amended application for the GMP plan. In
the legal settlement there is a recognition that the larger project
(the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD) addresses some concerns of 1978.
If the larger project were not to address concerns of 1978, then
any amendment submitted would have to address all the concerns of
the 1978 representations. The settlement agreement is structured
as such. Peyton asked if the legal settlement takes precedent
over the amendment process. Taddune explained the legal settlement
precisely did not involve itself with an amendment. One of the
subsections of the settlement addresses this particular applica-
tion. The larger application envelopes all of the Aspen Inn
project and all of the problems encompassed by the Aspen Inn.
Another problem was the ownership of the Blue Spruce which has
been resolved. If this larger project is not approved then, as
stated in the settlement agreement, the 36 units can only be
awarded through a submission of an amendment application that
addresses all of the concerns of the 1978 application.
Harvey requested adequate steps be taken to insure that a precedent
not be set. Discourage the argument by a future applicant that
the present applicant did not meet the conditions of the 36 unit
allocation and yet received the allocation. Taddune explained he
has always been concerned about the representations made in
1978. /1uch time was spent addressing the larger project that
enveloped the Aspen Inn. Many of the original perceived problems
were solved. The conditions of the original application be
amended or addressed in the context of an amendment. Peyton
asked if there should be an amendment at some point. Harvey
answered no, unless there is not an approval or settlement agree-
ment. Without the approval or settlement agreement a CO approval
could not be issued unless the 24 employee units are built or if
an amendment is submitted. He is concerned about bringing
this problem through the public process for resolution as a
land planning problem rather than as a court settlement. The
settlement is structured to solve this issue within the context
of the Aspen Mountain Lodge project or within the context of
an acceptable amendment to the 1978 GMP application.
Richman understood the Commission does not find substantial
deviation from the 1978 Aspen Inn commitment and does find it
part of a larger project. The commitment to the Aspen Inn is the
same as 1978, the employee number is different. Taddune advised
the Commission to avoid the concept of an amendment. This
application is not an amendment application.
Fallin, Anderson, Hunt, and Harvey supported the figure thirteen.
Tygre and Peyton did not see thirteen as adequate. White was
ambivalent.
Bil Dunaway, publisher for the As Den Times, noted that Richman
stated that the applicant is providing employee housing for 100%
of the employees generated by the project. Richman clarified
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Scecial Meetino
Plannina and ZnninqCnmmission January 15. 1985
that the the applicant is providing housing for 100% of the
employees generated by the Aspen Inn, the applicant is providing
housing for 100% of the thirteen employees. The overall project
commitment to house 60% of the employees generated. The multiplier
for the employee generation factor is .36 employee per unit. The
36 units associated with the Aspen Inn are added on top of the
overall number of the larger project.
RESOLUTION
Title:
Doremus complemented Richman on the draft. However, the title is
inadequate. He proposed the following change to the title:
"RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GRANTING PRELIMINARY PUD/SUBDIVISION. CONDOMINIUMIZATION AND
VIEWPLANE. . ."
Richman argued that subdivision exception is for the purpose of
condominiumization. Subdivision exception is the broader term.
Harvey suggested:
"RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GRANTING PRELIMINARY PUDI SUBDIVISION AND VIEWPLANE APPROVAL
AND RECOMHENDING SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONDOMINIUMIZATION AND THE VACATION OF VARIOUS RIGHTS-OF-WAY
FOR THE LODGE COHPONENT OF THE ASPEN HOUNTAIN PUD."
Doremus agreed to Harvey's paraphrasing.
Whereas.:
Do remus commented that the "whereas's" are beautiful. Anderson
commented that "whereas's" lack substance. Richman explained the
substance of the "whereas's" is located in the findings of the
resolution.
Section One:
-Item One:
Fallin questioned "the Continental Inn in place for a period of
at least five years." Will the applicant have to leave the
Continental in place for five years? Harvey interpreted "at
least" to mean five years. Allan Novak, applicant, commented
that is not the intention. Harvey noted that the Commission has
never identified a time period for the approval. Richman explained
the code establishes the parameters for the growth management
allocation. The building permit must be granted two years after
the submission of the growth management application. Without the
allocation there is no PUD.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Scecial Meetino
Plannino.and Zonin9 Cnmmission January 15. ~985
Brandt suggested:
"...the Continental Inn in place" The Applicants have also
provided..."
Harvey suggested:
".. . the Continental Inn in place for a period of time. The
Applicants have also provided..."
White suggested:
"...by deciding to leave the refurbished Continental..."
Anderson reminded the Commission this item is explanatory not
regulatory.
Richman read the final draft:
"...and by deciding to leave the refurbished Continental Inn
in place for a period of time. The Applicants have also
provided..."
-Item Two (floor area ratio):
Doremus rephrased line five:
". . . with the prov isions of Condi tions 2 of Council's Resolution
84-11, the Planning Commission internrets these areas as not
arwlicable to. the flClor area limitations expressed. in
Condi tion 2. The areas in question..."
Doremus also suggested replace "leasable space" with "internal
space: "
"as compared to the over 30,000 square of internal space..."
Hunt asked if the space which is not internal is leasable.
Do r em u s answered no. Well s expl ai ned the appl i cant cannot
breakdown leasable space and non-leasable space. Harvey said the
Commission does not want that covered space to become usable,
leasable space. By not counting the external space for porte
cocheres, for example, in the FAR, the space cannot be converted
in the future for usable space.
Harvey questioned "and that they should therefore be retained..."
."hat is meant by "retained?" Richman clarified that it should
read "retained as part of the design."
Tygre suggested another change:
"the Commission intends, that not counting these areas w.ill.
insure that they will not be converted at some future date..."
",.~.___<_.~'or~~...__ ~...~_~j',__"~__"~_"~,___,,_,,,,,,,~"
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
S-pecial Meetino
P1annin9 and Zonina Commission aanuarv 15. 1985
Anderson suggested:
"the Commission feels that these external areas help to
serve the guests of the hotel and nublic in a better quality
manner...1I
Hunt added:
"the guests of the hotel and public in a better. safer
manner, they add no impacts..."
Anderson suggested replacing "could" with "might" in the second
line. "Could" implies should.
The final draft read:
"Although there are certain covered areas around the perimeter
of the lodge which miaht technically be counted in the
external FAR of the lodge, rendering its design inconsistent
with the provisions of Condition 2 of Council's Resolution
84-11, the Planning Commission internrets these areas as not
annlicable to the. floor area limitations exnressed in
Condition 2. The areas in question...The Commission intends
that not counting these areas ~ insure that they will not
be converted at some future date...the Commission feels that
these external areas help to serve the guests of the hotel
and nubIle in a better. safer manner...and that they should
therefore be retained as part of the desian."
-Item three:
Doremus said item three is acceptable.
Harvey questioned subsection "c." Is the Commission really
concerned about this? Doremus said the impact on the community
is a concern. Harvey has problems stating that the Continental
Inn might be better than its replacement. In "c" the city
appears to be involving itself with the applicant's economics.
Richman explained the city's concern is with the market's shares.
What are the market's share of the units? Tygre clarif ied the
concept. If there were not a continued demand for the higher
priced units then the improved or rebuilt Continental would
possibly serve a different market segment. "c" does not convey
that idea. l"hite agreed with Tygre. The city can be involved
with the economics of the market's share. Novak suggested the
follo~ling addition: "then the additional luxurll units should
never have been built..."
Harvey asked if the timetable for the Continental presented by
the applicant should be discussed in the phasing section. The
intent of the approval is an upgraded Continental Inn. Incl ude
something that ties the Continental to the first phase of the
overall project. Richman suggested language that "in the subdi-
vision agreement the applicant will provide a timetable for the
..........-----~~--"
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Scecial Meetin9
Planninq and Zonino Cnmmission January 15. 1985
reconstruction of the Continental consistent with their represen-
tations." This gives the applicant the ability to build the
Continental on the following timetable unless there are major
interference to the timetable. He will make this an additional
condition under Section Two.
Richman asked the Commission if it wants "c" deleted. Hunt
suggested the deletion of the final sentence.
Harvey suggested a revision in the first sentence of item three:
"for the lodge is an acceDtable alternative to the community,
for the following reasons..."
Novak supported Harvey's suggestion and also supported the
deletion of "c." "c" adds nothing. "D" encompasses "c." Harvey
supported the deletion of "c." White concurred. Peyton supported
"c." She suggested retain the first sentence. That sentence is
important for the city. 11arkalunas and Fallin concurred with
Peyton. The majority of the commissioners supported the retention
of the first sentence to stand on its own as item "c." Hunt argued
the statement does not does not allow the applicant to re-evaluate
the project within the needs of the market. 11ake the statement
more generic, do not identify the units as "285 top end." He
suggested:
"the phasing allows the applicants to evaluate the chanQin<;l
market conditions. and th~ < n~eds of t.he communi t.v at a la.ter
~...n
Richman suggested:
"to absorb ~ lodge units into the market."
The Commission agreed to leave the first sentence as recon-
structed. The sentence beginning with "If demand.. .of the
market" delete.
-Item 4:
Brandt expressed concern over the parenthetical reference to
Condition 12. Condition 12 gives the city the promissory note
with the upgrade, item four says the city does not need the
promissory note with the upgrade. Richman explained the Commission
has no ability to ignore the law, it requires the promissory note.
Council is given the authority to waive the promissory note, not
the Commission. The promissory note has to be a condition of the
Commission's approval.
Harvey requested additional language on why the condominiu-
mization of residential units should not be subject to the sixth
month minimum rental lease. Cite the fact that the intent of the
zone, L-l and L-2 zones, is for short term occupancy.
~.,......~<,.~.","".,,__.~_~,.'_M_'~"~'
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Sce.cial Meetino
Pl~nnin9 and Zonina Commission Januarv 15. 1985
-Item Five:
Harvey requested the statement be more specific. Refer to Dean
and lower Monarch. Include in the light of the skier's parking
lot on Dean, adequate access and egress is necessary for delivery
trucks to the project as well as the neighboring businesses.
White recalled a commitment to maintain a certain portion of
Summit available to emergency vehicles. Harvey reminded from
that is addressed in the residential component. Richman noted
that condition five of this resolution deals with White's concern.
Fallin noted that the skier's parking lot is not a legal parking
lot. Through the years, the area has evolved into a parking lot.
Hunt noted Dean Street is an alley.
-Item six:
Harvey said the following statement is confusing: "the project
does not fall within the intent of viewplane (although it is
technically subject of such review) ..." Rephrase the statement.
Section Two:
Harvey asked if the inclusion of "grant subdivision exception f.Q.t.
the puroose of condominiumization and vacate" in the introductory
statement is acceptable.
Hunt commented there is a condition missing. There needs to be a
condition that states that as a result of the condominiumization
that two separate operations (the west wing and the continental
Inn) are acceptable but within each of those operations all
aspects of the operation must be under one management. Harvey
emphasized the rental management and the operational management
be one entity. Hunt repeated the language:
"The Commission has found that two separate operations
or ownerships between the existing Continental and the new
~lest wing or a single operation or ownership of the Continental
and the new west wing is satisfactory provided that the
character of the operation shall be management of everything
under one enti ty, incl uding rental management, operation
management, maintenance management, etc."
Harvey discouraged fifteen units signed up with Coates Reid, ten
signed up Stirling Homes, etc.
Richman read his draft:
"The applicant shall be permitted to have two separate
operations or owners of the east and west wing but the
management of each operation shall be as a single entity."
The Commission concurred with the phrasing except that Hunt
emphasized spell out rental management and operational management.
--^"'-,...--._---,,~.-'"'..>.-,.
RECORD OF PROCRRnlNGS
Soecial Meeting
Plannina and. Zonina Commission J;:tInnarv 1.5.. 1985
Harvey asked if the Commission stated that the approval of the
street design for the residential portion of the project is a
condi tion for preliminary lodge approval. Someone repl ied no.
Richman recollected the only street issue is listed in Condition
Eight: the paving program internal to the lodge component.
-Condition One:
Hunt commented the phrase "leasable areas for occupancy" is
ambiguous. Hunt suggested replace "leasable" with "internal"
areas. Anderson said the code provides definitions of "internal"
and "external" that are different from the Commission's defini-
tions. Internal FAR's refer to room area, external FAR's refer
to hallways, lobbies. He proposed the "interior" rather than
"internal." Harvey suggested "enclosed." Hunt asked if the
covered open areas can be occupied by a desk. Are the spaces
leasable? Harvey said this item states covered areas are prohibited
from being converted into commercial or lodging or other enclosed
areas for occupancy.
The general consensus is the replacement of "leasable" with
"enclosed." The final draft read:
"shall be prohibited from being converted into commercial or
lodging or other enclosed areas for occupancy."
-Condition Two:
This item was acceptable to everyone.
-Condition Three:
Doremus remarked the figures are consistent with all previous
representations. Hunt suggested change "trucks" to "service" on
subsection "e." Fallin questioned the usability of the Continental
garage. Doremus replied that the architects have stated that the
underground parking at the Continental can be reasonably designed
for parking use.
Anderson informed the applicant that there used to be a parking lot
adjacent to the ramp entry to the underground parking. That lot
is currently covered by a terrace or patio. The applicant might
fit a few extra parking spaces there. He warned that the terrace
will probably collapse within the next few years. On top of the
original asphalt is two by four studs and concrete.
-Condition Four:
Doremus suggested deletion of "to" after the "and" in the third
line. Hunt requested the inclusion of the phrase:
"and vehicle circulation during occasional and unusual
obstruction of nearby streets."
RECORD .OF PROCEEDINGS
Soecial Meetino
Plannino and Zoning Cnmmission January 15. 1985
-Condition Five:
Hunt suggested the addition:
"Summit Street (Q,y at least ten feet in width)..."
Doremus suggested the following paraphrase (final draft):
"The Applicants will revise the preliminary PUD drawings for
the residential component to indicate an easement on Summit
Street of twenty-five (25) feet in width, and a buffer
between the building facades of at least forty (40) feet in
order to satisfy the concerns of the City Engineer."
-Condition Six:
Doremus commented that this condition is acceptable.
Harvey questioned the phrase "receiving area study" and its
incorporation into the design of the loading docks. Harvey asked
if there is someway to refer to the drawings mentioned in Condition
6 and 7. Does the planning office have.the final PUD drawings on
file? Is there a reference number for the drawings? Should this
reference number be included in the resolution?
-Condition Seven:
This condition is acceptable.
-Condition Eight:
Doremus requested replacing "sign off" with "approve." He
suggested:
"The City Attorney shall halu:. final authority to apDrove the
paving program for the perimeter..."
Hunt suggested:
"to insure that the city can adequately and easily maintain
the streets in the future."
Harvey agreed it is important that the streets not only be
adequately maintained but be relatively easy to maintain.
The final draft read:
"The Ci ty Engineer shall have final authority to aDurove the
paving program for the perimeter and interior streets in
the project to insure that the City can adequately ~
easilv maintain the streets in the future."
-Condition Nine:
--
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Soecial Meetino
Plannin9 and Zoninq Cnmmission Januarv 15. 1985
Doremus opposed the phrase "some elements." Harvey argued the
city cannot be sure that the city engineer will not create an
alternative plans. The legal words are "including but not limited
to." It is important to make it clear if the city engineer comes
up with an alternative plan that the city will support it. Doremus
withdrew his objection.
Peyton questioned the location of the condition on dust control.
Richman explained dust control is covered under the requirements
by Tom Dunlop, environmental health, Condition 17.
Hunt noted there is no commitment to protect access to property
not incl uded in the proj ect. There is potential property whose
access will be obstructed by construction. Richman replied the
applicant did not make a specific commitment to this issue. Hunt
requested the following language for the commitment:
"the applicant will maintain adequate access for properties
potentially cut off by the project."
Doremus requested under subsection "b" the addition:
"steel which is outside of the City, if reauired, by the
City Engineer."
Anderson was impressed by the credentials of the contractor,
Ansel Phelps. He encouraged the applicant and the contractor to
use local help as much as possible. Wells remarked the contractor
will use local excavators, for example. It is more reasonable to
use local help. Doremus inserted local plumbers will also be
used. Novak stated he has instructed the contractor to use local
labor wherever possible. It is too difficult to house outside
labor.
Harvey requested an additional comment on an "organized worker
parking plan." Workers should be discouraged from parking
randomly. Richman agreed to add this phrase to subsection "c."
Peyton asked if there is a reference to the allowed hours of
construction. Richman answered subsection "d" references the
code's noise ordinance.
Harvey questioned the relocation of the ski club and the potential
obstruction of access. Doremus explained the ski club relocation
agreement is included in the residential component.
-Condi tion Ten:
Doremus addressed subsection "b." Be more specific about the
amenities associated with the east wing and the phase two construc-
tion, for example, list restaurant.s. Markalunas requested
the deletion of "so as" in the first line of subsection "b."
RECORD OF PROC..EEDINGS
Scecial Meetina
Plannin9 and Zonino Cnmmission January 15. 1985
Harvey questioned the phrase "full block park." The Commission
discussed its meaning. The phrase is retained.
-Condition Eleven:
Doremus suggested paraphrasing the last sentence:
"a detailed description of the renovation program, includina
material sel ection and plans where aoorooriate..."
Hunt requested clarification of the parenthetical notes "proposed
at from 145 to 162 units" and "proposed at from 285 to 302
units." Richman explained those figures do not refer to 700
South Galena. The figures represent a range of reconstructed
lodge units with an allowed maximum of 447 units. The sum of the
extremes is 447 units. Add the smaller number of the east wing
and the larger number of the west wing, the sum of 145 and 302 is
447 and the sum of 162 and 285 is 447. The planning office does
not recommend the approval of the 700 South Galena amendment.
-Condition Twelve:
Richman explained the reference to Section 20-23(A) (6) (cl refers
to the promissory note requirement.
-Condition Thirteen:
Harvey questioned the combination of employee housing and on-and
off-site drainage under one condition. Richman explained these
are the only two issues that have been deferred to preliminary
residential submission. Harvey requested further explanation of
the two subjects for Council. Richman explained the Commission
will have already acted on the residential submission by the time
Council acts on the final submission. He assured the Commission
that Council will concurrently review the residential and lodge
submissions. Harvey requested the condition be clarified.
Doremus suggested the deletion of "submit solutions to the
problems of."
"The Applicants will submit conditions of aDoroval for
employee housing and the on-and-off site drainage..."
Harvey suggested:
"The Appl icants will submit solutions to employee housing
and on-and-off site drainage..."
Doremus asked if a reference to the problem of the 36 units of
the Aspen Inn unit is necessary. Harvey is satisfied that the
legal ramifications are covered in the settlement agreement.
Precedent is the concern and that concern has been mitigated.
-Condition Fourteen and Condition Fifteen:
~-~-_.<.""._---. ~--'~'----'~~~
~CORD OF PROCEEDINGS
~oecialMeetinqPlannino and Zonino Commission January 15. 1985
These conditions are acceptable.
-Condition Sixteen:
Doremus commented on Conditions 16, 17, and 18. He challenged
the last sentence in each condition: a timing element. The
applicant cannot commit to complying with all of Jay Hammond's
requests listed in a memo dated November 6, 1984, by the submission
date of final plat. The applicant will not have a permit by then
and many requirements are associated with construction.
Harvey suggested the fOllowing change:
"the applicant commits to meeting the requirements at the
time of final plat submission and that makes that a condition
of the building permit."
Apply this to Condition Eighteen also.
There is also the addition of Condition Nineteen (addresses
timing of the reconstruction and replacing of the Continental
Inn) and Twenty (addresses the hotel operational management be a
single management) .
Whi te asked if the appl icant has selected the hotel operator.
Also is there no comment on CCLC in the resolution. Richman
explained the applicant has already committed to his pro rata
share of the improvement district.
Richman committed to return with the final draft at the next
regularly scheduled meeting.
Harvey continued the public hearing to January 22, 1985. Harvey
adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
. /f{fYh4~ ~rr./? _____..~_>_".___
Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk