Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19850122 ~ ..,..... .-<~-~_.~..,.--..,..- ~CORD OF PROCEEDINGS Requ1ar Meeting P1anni~ and Zonina Cnmmtssion January 22. 1985 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, David White, Roger Hunt, Mari Peyton, and alternate Ramona Markalunas (arrived at 6:30 p.m.) present. COHMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Larry Yaw, architect for Mr. Hemmeter, commented on the elevator tower. The purpose today is to poll the commissioners on the following plan: to put a steeple, a finial, on top of the tower to create a peak roof not a flat roof. He presented a quick sketch of the design. The overall height increases ten feet. The elevator equipment is lowered. Are there objections to the proposal? If none, he will approach the planning office and the Commission formally. The proposal will soften the top of the elevator. It is below the perceived height for the city. He will not trouble the planning office, the Commission, and his office if the Commission is disinclined to consider the proposal. Whi te asked how much new height will be added. Yaw replied ten feet. Hunt preferred peaks rather than flat tops. He is inclined to look at the proposal. Fallin opposed the plan. White questioned the necessity of increased height. He is willing to look at the plan. Peyton would look but is not ready to make a firm commitment to the plan. How does the design relate to the other buildings? Tygre favored seeing the plan. She agreed the apparent height in relation to the other buildings may not be that obtrusive. She is not particularly thrilled about the extra height, but the extra height may not have visual impacts. Harvey asked what Hemmeter is trying to accomplish with the elevator tower. Yaw explained the stated objective is to soften the tower. Harvey said the Durant Condominium adj acent to Hemmeter I s property is flat. Harvey needs to see details. To locate a steeple there is cutsey. ~otion: Pa t Fall in moved to table the minutes until February 5, 19851 seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor1 motion carried. ASPBN ~&TN pDRLTMrN&DY POD SUBDIVISION ANn VIEWPl.AIiI1t AIIn SDBDIVISIOR nCEP'l'IOlll RE~T.DTION Harvey opened the public hearing, a continued public hearing. Alan Richman, planning office, listed the following corrections to the resolution. First, there is an error in the title. Delete "and" after "viewplane approval." Add the following: "GRANTING PRELIMINARY PUDI SUBDIVISION AND VIEWPLANE APPROVALL RECOMMENDING SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDOMINIUMIZATION. AND RECOMMENDING THE VACATION OF VARIOUS RECORD OP PROCEEDINGS ~aular Meetina Plannio9 and zoninq Cnmmiasion Januarv 22. 19S5 RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR THE LODGE COMPONENT OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD. " On page two, item 2, the sixth line should read: "to the floor areL limitations..." In the ninth line pluralize "ramp." "chateaus and the parking ramp~ to the..." In item 3(c) delete the words "top end," replace with "new." "the community's ability to absorb 285 ~ lodge units into the market." In item 4, third to the last line, the word "or" should be "of." "for a total rebuild Qi a facility." On page three, section 2, item 3 (e), replace "trucks" with "service vehicles." On page four, item 5 should read: "to indicate an easement on Summit Street of twenty-five (25) feet..." There is no statement about amendment of the GMP application in the resolution. The applicant is required to submit a GMP amendment for the lodge. The Commission has not dealt with the GMP amendment on 700 South Galena and the eight units transferred to the lodge. The planning office has never discussed this item with the Commission, he is willing to postpone that discus- sion. Later, the Commission will deal with a new GMP application for 700 South Galena. The applicant is not willing to waive that amendment right at this time. There are various legal reasons to keep the amendment application under consideration. Richman has no interest in pursuing the amendment application. The planning office does not think the amendment can be proce s sed. The Commission is not dealing with this one aspect of the appli- cation. Fallin questioned item 9(e) on page four. There is a statement that a plan be developed, but there is no statement that the plan be approved by someone, for example, the city engineer. Richman explained the introductory statement states that generically the city engineer is authorized to work with the applicant and is authorized to approve the plans. Should someone in addition to the city engineer be involved? Fallin answered the police department. Jay Hammond, city engineer, explained he has to work with the police and fire departments. As the applicant develops these items, he will coordinate the police department, the emergency services, streets, etc. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reaular Mf!!f!!tina Plann1na and Zo0109 Cnmmi RR i on January. 22. 1985 Whi te recalled a dialogue about extra parking at 700 South Galena, does it exist. John Doremus, representative for the applicant, replied that parking no longer exists. Doremus requested an addition to the introductory statement for section two. "grant subdivision exception for the purpose of lodae and resin~ntial condominiumization and..." The Commission agreed to this addition. Peyton questioned the phrase "for occupancy" on page three, section two, item one. Could there be an enclosed space that is leased but not occupied? Hunt suggested the addition of "occupancy of anv form." Harvey agreed be more explicit. This section directs Council on the FAR and square footage. Peyton discouraged tour desks or raft booths. Why include the word "occupancy?" Harvey replied unless space is enclosed space cannot be used for a tour desk. Harvey questioned the clarity of condition twenty. The Commission discussed the condition and concluded the condition acceptable. White questioned condition seven on page four. He recalled a discussion about the inclusion of signage in the pedestrian design solution. Will the final PUD drawings be reviewed by the Commission? The condition is weak. Richman replied he and Council will check the drawings. Doremus noted there is a drawing on file. He does not recall the inclusion of signage in the pedestrian design solution. Richman suggested the rephrasing: "the design solutions Dresented t.o P&Z which insure that..." Hunt recalled the deletion of "285" in item three (c), on page two. The Commission disagreed. Motion: Roger Hunt moved to adopt Resolution #85-1 as amended and to authorize the chairman to sign a final copy after the amendments are made; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor; motion carried. NEW BDSINRSS ASPEN GROVE ADDITION SPECIAL REVIEW Richman said the applicant has requested the Aspen Grove application be tabled. This is not a public hearing, therefore, a date certain is unnecessary. ~t.ion:M Roger Hunt moved at the request of the applicant to table the ---_..~.._..,-.......---~---_...._--. -.--~- ~CORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~aular Meet:ina Plannina and ,Zooi09 Cnmmission Januarv 22. 1985 Aspen Grove addition special review; seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor; motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING 1984 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORING. SESSTON Harvey opened the public hearing. Markalunas joined the Commis- sion. Colette Penne, planning office, corrected the available quota. First, the building department's records did not include two constructed residential units. In addition, Ute City Place I s allocation has expired. There are eight additional units for the quota. The total available quota is 32 units. Annual quota is 39 units. The prior year off-set is minus 8. The expiration of Sunny Park and Ute City Place is plus II. 1984 construction is minus lOr The grand total is 32. penne explained the scoring process. She will present the J;J.anning office I s rationale for the reccr' ':1ded scores. The applicant will make a pre3 j ation limited to fifteen minutes. And, the applicant can only technically clarify his presentation. The applicant cannot bring forward new information. Each commis- sioner scores. She will then tally the scores. The competitors have to obtain at least 30% of available points in each category and 60% of the total overall points. Any applicant who falls below the percentages is disqualified from the competition. The applicants who meet the minimum threshold are prioritized by the ice skating method. The project at 700 South Galena has been revised. Eight units have been relocated to the lodge. There will be four units in a two duplex configuration on the site. The Gordon PUD competed last year. Gordon in conjunction with the Aspen Club is competing this year. The proposal is to move six lots on the Aspen Club to the Gordon site. 601 Aspen is located on the property above Lift One Condominiums. The request is 40 residential units with an off-site housing proposal. All three projects will have subsequent reviews. The Aspen Mountain project will be reviewed in the on-going PUD process for the entire project. Eight residen- tial uni ts are part of the hotel proj ect. The Gordon-Callahan project is subject to full subdivision, PUD, and GMP exemption for the employee units proposed on site. 601 Aspen is subject to full subdivision and a GMP exemption for the off-site employee units. The scores are summed up on page three of the planning office memo dated January 22, 1985. ASDen Mountain PUD: It is difficult to score the 700 South Galena site as an isolated project. She considered the entire PUD for the infrastructure service capabilities and architectural design questions. She did -- -_.'.-',.,. .-;.'-'''-- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Reaular fleet.IDa P1annlna andZonina Cnmmission Januarv 22.. 19as not isolate, for example, the architecture of 700 South Galena. Open space for the enti re PUD is 50%. On 700 South Galena the open space is 45%. She weighed the different elements. For something overwhelmingly good about the 700 South Galena site, she gave the applicant an extra point. Generally, she considered the entire PUD. The water service, sewer service, storm drainage, fire protection, parking design, and roads were considered in the context of the overall PUD. The effects of these solutions were considered for the both the hotel site and the 700 South Galena site. Remember eight units are located on the hotel site, four units on the 700 South Galena site. She addressed quality of design. This project has been through conceptual PUD. It will also be handled during preliminary residential discussion. The project must be an acceptable standard design or it would not be as far in the process as it is. 45% of the Galena site is open space. There is extensive landscaping. The two duplex units are low density alternatives for the site. Less on-grade parking is required and parking is proposed underground. The proposal is more residential in character. Utilities will be underground. The improvements of the lodge district are completed. The site design is excellent. Planning recommends a score of three. Energy is standard. Trails stop a block east of 700 South Galena. The trail improvements and systems are excellent. There are the mountain access and the continuation of the Durant pedestrian-bicycle trail. Easements will be given and trails will be built. The trail solution is excellent. The over all PUD has open space in excess of 50% of the site. Technical open space, excluding pool areas, exceeds 25%. The 700 South Galena site has 45% open space. The proposal includes little building density. There is considerable landscaping that will reduce the visibility of the duplexes to surrounding residents. The design is excellent. She presented a map with the proximity to support services. A block measures 250 linear feet. Planning scored three points for proximity to public transportation and three points for proximity to community commercial facilities. These items are not discre- tionary. The project is within two blocks of the Rubey Park Transit Center and within two blocks of the commercial core. For employee housing, the staff calculated the total residential population, both free market and employee, and then determined the percentage of employees. The applicant receives two points for each 5% of employees housed. The final tabulation is 16. 8 points. The conversion of existing units receives 4 points. The total employee housing program for the lodge and residential components of the PUD houses 198 employees in converted units: the Alpina Haus, the Copper Horse, and the old and new Aspen Business Center Apartments. Approximately 158 of 198 employees can be housed in converted units. The total score for categories - . ~."---~--,~._-_.~"'~_." ->....--~.-'......".,,--,~",,-.-. "-->---,.~-"..".-,..~..,...,-"."._-"~."_.,.~,,,,,~-_. RECllRD QPPRllrRRnTHGS Reaul ar Meetina Planninaand Zonin~ CnllUllli R.Rion Januarv 22. 1985 one, two, three, and four is 46.8 points. Category five received five points. The total score is SO.8. Threshold is 43.8. Joe Wells, representative for the applicant, commented the Commission is fairly familiar with the project. He posted drawings, elevations, and plans for 700 South Galena. The lodge drawings are in the submission. The eight residential units proposed for relocation to the lodge from the original 700 South Galena proposal are in the west wing, as indicated on the site plans. Following the award of the previous allocation the applicant had to tie down conceptual PUD approval. It became clear as the applicant became more entrenched with the 700 South Galena review that the applicant had to significantly modify the original proposal. The modifications negated the viability of the original proposal. Through no fault of the applicant, the applicant was caught in a "catch-22" and felt obliged to make substantial changes to the original proposal. There is no mechanism in the code for reviewing this proposal within the context of an amend- ment. The applicant has filed with the application a letter. It requests this application be processed as an amendment. The applicant acknowledges the changes made in the original proposal are substantial. The code prohibits substantial changes without another review. The planning office is uncomfortable that someone ties up an allotment and negatively redesigns a proposal so the final proposal bears no relationship to the original. The language in the code directs the commissioners to deal with a substantially changed GMP proposal through rescoring. The Commission subsequently submits a recommendation to Council. The applicant already has an allotment. An existing allotment is a less risky proposition than no allotment. The time for objections by other applicants has passed for this allocation. That guarantee does not exist with the competition for a new allotment. Harvey understood the planning office is treating this application as new. Wells explained just explore the application tonight. The city has not defined or determined the application as an amended or new application. Harvey asked if the Commission can make that determination. Wells understood the planning office is treating the application as a new application. The scoring process is the same for a new application and an amended application. Wells briefly described the Galena project. The original design involved a single multi family building with twelve units and three stories. The site was modified to accommodate the Galena Street alignment, a city request. The site is skinnier in width ana longer in length. The site is approximately 4,SOO square feet smaller. The height of the building complies with underlying zoning, a condition of the original approval for 700 South Galena. The height limit for flat roofs is 28 feet and no more than 33 feet to the mid point for sloped roofs. The building RECORD OF PRnrREDINGS Reonlar MeAt:i no P1annina and Zonin9 Cnllllllf s:uli on JanIJ8rv 22. 1995 complies with all the requirements of the underlying zone district. The present 700 South Galena project is two L-shaped buildings with two dwelling units in each building. These two buildings frame an internal courtyard, an entry for pedestrians. Each unit has its own private entry way. There is one elevator for each duplex. The elevators run to the parking level. The parking lot accommodates sixteen parking spaces with an option for four guest parking spaces. There is 45% open space even with the four spaces. The guest parking is a convenience. The applicant is amenable to maintaining the open space and deleting the parking spaces at a later stage in the review process. The two structures are two and three stories. The facade is compatible with the architectural vocabulary of the lodge without mimicking the lodge. The lower levels are treated with stone, the upper floors are treated with cedar shakes. The roof is shingled. There are generous balconies around the perimeter of the site. Harvey questioned the hotel and residential management. The proposal states the availability of limousines and vans. Are the residential units part of the rental management operation? Will the residential units be sold? Wells replied the units will be condominiumized in traditional fashion. He cannot answer whether or not the units will fall within the management of the lodge operator. The applicant commits to provide shuttle service as part of the auto disincentive program. That system will be avapable to the owners of the residential units. Harvey asked if the operator has the option to incorporate the residential units into the lodge operation. Wells replied the applicant has not finalized its decision for the operator because of problems with the bankruptcy. Management issues cannot be finalized until the bankruptcy is resolved. The units will be more luxurious than previously proposed. He doubts the units will be placed in a management pool because the units are approaching the million dollar range. Short term rental income is insignificant for million dollar units. The previous proposal anticipated incorpo- rating the units. Peyton asked if the residential units are separate from the lodge how will the residential residents be able to use the lodge's limo service system. Wells replied the applicant made a commitment to provide the limo service. If there is no way to work an agreement with the lodge, then the applicant will provide the service for the project. Harvey remarked parking may not be an issue. The Galena proposal provides one parking space per bedroom plus four guest parking spaces. Auto disincentive may not be an issue with this project. Harvey asked for public comment. There was no comment. Wells commented on the score. He is basically pleased. He did not intend to debate every category that failed to receive the RECORD ~, pRnrRRnTNGR Reanla.c Meetina Plannin9 and Zonina CnanniRaion .~Anl1Jl1rV 22. 1985 maximum points. He addressed the score on the conversion of existing units. Planning office evaluated the entire employee housing proposal. He does not object to this approach. The applicant made a representation to convert 100% of the units associated with the residential proposal. The planning office chose to compare the employees to be housed as part of this residential proposal with the entire employee housing program. On that premise, only 80% of the entire project is housed in converted housing. The applicant does not object. But the scoring system assigns five points for providing 67% and 100% converted housing. The planning office's recommended score is four points. Tygre made a comment on page 36 of the submission. There is a reference to an occupancy rate. How was that rate calculated? The peak occupancy rate appears low for sixteen bedrooms. Wells replied the factor has been established by the planning office. A four bedroom unit translates to five people. The source of the figure is the planning office. Harvey recalled studios translate to 1.75 people, four bedrooms translate to five people. The Commission scores the application. Peyton asked if the commissioners are scoring concurrently with the 700 South Galena units the eight residential units in the hotel. Harvey replied yes. The request is for twelve residential units, four at 700 South Galena and eight within the hotel. Host of the inf orma ti on on thi s pr oj ect was rev iewed dur i ng the preliminary lodge PUD review. Wells offered the drawings for the commissioners' perusal. Whether the two projects should be scored separately was discussed. The planning office felt that was not necessary because most utilities for the residential and lodge portion of the PUD are virtually the same. Bil Dunaway, publisher for the ASDen Times, remarked that Penne's memo does not describe the Aspen Mountain Project. Historically, the fir st page of the planning off ice's memo included a resume or cover page on the project. There is no cover page. There is no information on the units, the address, etc. penne agreed she did not include a project profile for any of the applicants. Dunaway argued this is a public hearing. The public could be unfamiliar with the projects. There is no information for the public. Penne agreed with the point. Chuck Brandt, counsel for the applicant, commented that memos are not usually distributed to the public and the application is on file in the planning office. Dunaway replied in the past there has always been a cover sheet attached to the planning office's score sheet. penne collected the scores. Gordon-Callahan PUD~ Harvey requested back up material on the proposal. RECORD OF PRClrRRDINGS Reaular, Meet.ina Plannina and Z.onina, CnmmiJlaion Januarv 22. 19B5 penne introduced Carol _____ from Stan Mathis' office. penne continued. The scores on public facilities and services are straightforward. She highlighted storm drainage. The applicant will retain all surface and run-off water on site. The applicant will pond and release the stored water into the Riverside irrigation ditch of the Roaring Fork River at historical rates. The staff had a problem evaluating fire protection and roads. The fire department did not provide any comments. She called Steve Crocket. Crocket submitted comments yesterday afternoon. She read the letter dated January IS, 1985: "On a broad and general note upon reviewing the Gordon- Callahan submission, I find that fire department considerations do not appear to have been a major concern of the developer. My specific concerns are as follows: I. Fire department access: a) All access roads, circulation drives, and driveways through parking lots appear to be too narrow. b) The turning radius from the new entry boulevard into the roadway accessing the buildings E,F,G, and H is too narrow. c) The cul-de-sac (formerly "dead end") radius at the end of the road way accessing buildings A,B,C, and D is too narrow. 2. Fire hydrant placement: a) Relocate the new fire hydrant currently located on the southwest side of the roadway accessing buildings A,B,C, and D to the northeast corner of the new entry boulevard and the roadway accessing buildings A,B,C, and D. b) Relocate the new fire hydrant currently located on the southwest side of the roadway accessing buildings E,F,G, and H to the northeast corner of the new entry boulevard and the roadway accessing buildings E,F,G, and H. With regard to addressing any other concerns, there appears to be insufficient data to make a response at this time." The fire departme~~ ~rE recently come out with a rather extens~ve checklist which grades the appJ lnt. The planning office has suggested Crocket distribute this checklist to developers. RECORD OF PRO~REDINGS Reaular M~at..ina Plannina anti 200ino, Cnmmi Asian JJi!IInnarv 22.. 1985 Make the checklist known and available. The insufficient data, in this case, the narrowness of the roads and insufficient turning radii, can easily be accommodated. Carol interjected she did not receive information from Crocket to appropriately respond. Her client will accommodate as much of that as he can. The applicant will provide two new fire hydrants on the site. In the scoring the staff gave the applicant two points because estimated response time is eight minutes. Two new hydrants are being installed. It is simple to accommodate the relocation request. A residence will not be more than 179 feet from a hydrant. The turn a-rounds and accesses are insufficient now. Crocket's request can be accommodated. Weigh all those factors. She encouraged applicants and the fire department to collaborate with the developer or project planner prior to submission. penne continued. The parking design provides forty parking spaces at one space per bedroom. Four additional spaces are provided for guest parking. This does exceed the requirement. Stan Mathis had argued for two points. practically, the solution of four guest parking spaces for forty units is small. Granted there is more open space without the guest parking; but, the solution is insufficient. There are more road and impervious service area in this plan than last year's proposal. Last year the applicant received two points, he then provided more than one space per bedroom. The staff adheres to the position that there is not enough guest parking. penne explained the applicant is moving five units from the previously subdivided lots along the Aspen Club access road down to this site. The applicant is competing for three units. These three units are an addition to the five units. The applicant is locating employee housing on site. The applicant is leaving one house on the upper portion of the access road. There are six lots along the access road, one remains as is. The applicant will move the other five with single family development rights to this project site. Harvey questioned the total number of free market units. Carol replied nine. Harvey asked if there are six, one-bedroom low income employee units. penne replied correct. The total number of bedrooms is forty. There are fifteen units with forty bedrooms. There are forty parking spaces. The parking solution does not improve service in the neighborhood. The applicant would be awarded two points if he were improving services. Four guest parking spaces are impracti- cal. penne continued. The staff awarded one point for roads. Crystal Lake Road is a shared access with the Aspen Club, that is not an ideal access f or the proj ect. The relocation of the five units to the lower site eliminates five driveway cuts along Crystal Lake Road. That is positive. Emergency access is a problem. Fallin asked if there is possible access from Riverside. penne answered no. Penne continued with neighborhood compatiblity. The density of RECORD, OF, PROCREnIHGS Reanlar M,.,.t:ina Plannina and Zon-l nnrn1lnllli Rsion Jannarv 22. ,.1985 the project is acceptable under allowable zoning. The neighborhood is mostly single family residences. The impact of duplexes and fifteen units is not excellent but acceptable. The project is sited on a lower bench. There is no real problem with the relationship between the single family houses and the duplexes. The solution is not excellent. Utilities will be underground. parking areas will be landscaped. The amount of open space is over 60%. Leaving unit nine on Crystal Lake Road dilutes the purpose of the cluster development. It is good to relocate the five units off Crystal Lake to a less visible site. The access area to the Aspen Club is pristine. She deducted points on the site design. Energy. The roof r-values and the walls will be higher than necessary. There are solar orientation devices, passive solar heating, and passive solar water. The trail design is excellent. A pedestrian bicycle trail will be dedicated as well as a fisherman's easement along the river. The most beneficial contribution is the construction of a bridge connecting to the Ute Avenue trail. This category received a three. The green space category also received a three. Common parcels and landscaped areas are positioned to shield the project from neighbors. Parcels along the river will be usable, attractive spaces. This bridge makes the parcels accessible. Considering the location, people might use the common parcels. Clustering the five houses in the lower portion of the site has a positive effect on the open space. This category received three points. The project is within six blocks of Highway 82 for a score of two points. six blocks from the commercial area for the city bus routes on The project is more than a score of one point. The six-one bedroom employee units will house 10.5 people. Two- three bedroom houses and one-fourbedroom house will house nine residents. 'l'he total project population is 19.5 people. 53.8% of the project is low income, deed restricted housing. The score is 21.5 points Units are not being converted. All units are newly constructed. There are no points possible in this category. The total score is 45.5. Threshold is 43.8. Carol emphasized that the planning office did recommend approval of the proj ect. She presented a prof ile of the proj ect. There are six-single family subdivided lots with building rights. There is al so the Gordon property. There are two properties, Callahan and Gordon. Seven separate structures can be built. The request is for three additional units for a total of nine structures. The units will be predominantly grouped on the water RRrnRDOF PRtlrRRnI.HGS Reau1ar, M&et.ina plannina .And z.nntn~ Cnmmisaion Janl1ArV 22.. 1985 front. Harvey asked for clarification of the location of unit nine. Carol replied the unit will be located on lot four. Harvey asked if lots five, six, and seven are open space. Carol replied correct, 3.5 lots are open space. Her client will be buying and incorporating the Callahan property into his property. Penne noted both properties are PUD's. Carol reminded the commissioners this project went through a similar process last year. The applicant is adhering to many of the same commitments: the fire hydrants, the cul-de-sac, accommo- dation of the fire department's request for the road, etc. There is a large amount of open space. The planning office is concerned that open space is not located for maximum use. But, the open space buffers some lots from the neighbors. The applicant has committed that space to open space and not for building development. It is more than just a picnic area. Carol concurred with the scores. There is one area Mathis disagreed: parking. Last year this project presented a similar parking scheme, one parking space per bedroom for two points. This year there are four additional guest parking spaces for a score of only one point. The project last year received two points for the roads, this year the project received only one point. Harvey noted there is conflict between the applicant's road design and the fire department's request. The applicant has stated he will work with the fire department. But, the question is if Crocket wants a four lane median will the applicant cooper- ate. Does Crocket specify in his letter road widths? penne replied a 24 foot right-of-way with a 20 foot paved surface. Crocket wants 22 to 24 foot paved surfaces. Carol remarked Crocket did specify the site could accommodate his road require- ments. Her applicant did not benefit from knowing what Crocket wanted. penne said factor this in with a better turning radius for the trucks, with a widened cul-de-sac, and with increased paved surfaces for the driveways. This will reduce the 60% open space. Crocket did mention if the other turn a-round were more than 150 feet then a cul-de-sac would be required. The turn a- round is at 150 feet. Technically, the applicant is in compliance. The applicant only has to widen the one cul-de-sac. Harvey questioned the location of the trails and the connections. Peyton requested the location of the trail easements on the river front. Penne demonstrated on a map the trails. There is continued discussion of the trail easements. Harvey asked for public comment. Dunaway requested clarification on the housing configuration. There appear nine residential units and six employee housing units. There appear six duplexes and three single family units. Carol concurred. Harvey said the duplexes consist of a one bedroom unit and a three or four bedroom unit. Carol repeated her client is continuing some of the commitments from last year: a commitment to a certain amount of landscaping to soften the RECORD OP PRnrRRnTNG~ Reaular M...t-ina plannina and 20nina CnmmiRJlion .'1ann~rv 22_ 1985 paved areas, a commitment to the bridge, etc. in the number of driveways with the current to the subdivision development. There is a reduction proposal as opposed Harvey asked if stream margin review is necessary. penne answered yes, when the applicant comes forward for a building permit. Hunt questioned the continuation of the road in the northeast corner of the Gordon property. what will the road service? Carol replied her client was required to make that access avail- able. She is not sure who made the request. Hunt asked if the road will support other property. penne explained the road was required for a fire turn a-round. Carol explained there is no continuing traffic in that area. penne did not recognize this in the scoring. Carol noted that lot one already accommodates one house. peyton asked if there is one employee housing per structure. Carol explained there are nine structures. Six of the structures will have one bedroom, deed restricted, employee housing units. Peyton asked if the employee units will be clustered. Will there be one employee housing unit per one of six free market units? Carol addressed the comment by the planning office on clustering. The proposal is as dense as possible. The zone is R-15. Fourplexes are not allowed. The density cannot be improved in the lower portion of the site. That is a reason the one unit remains in the upper portion of the lot with the open space in between the single unit and the clustered units. There is an area for future parking expansion for the Aspen Club. Harvey asked if there are conditions for maintenance of the open space. Carol understood there would be a homeowner's association to care for the open space. Markalunas asked if there is a written proposal for this project. Carol replied yes. She understood the commissioners already had the written information and drawings. Penne concurred these were distributed to the commissioners. The Commission scores the application. 601 Asnen: penne said the applicant is using existing infrastructure for water and sewer. That is adequate to service the project. The scores are one point. The applicant proposes to retain site runoff on site through the use of a system of drywells and retention areas. The engineering department concluded complete retention on site does not upgrade service capacity in the area, only for the project. The score is one. The project is seven blocks from the main fire station. The existing three fire hydrants in the area will be utilized. Rf<C.QB!L~._I'.RQ.C.~!::X>..INGp 1ill9.lll.ilL.Me.ill11Sl_-1'l9.nnj.ng.jmd~QlUng.-Cp.lll!ll.Ul,llj"QD ^__.ran.WlU..2l...-~ Willard Clapper submitted a letter for the application. The underground parking system includes sprinklers and the units include smoke detectors. The staff scored zero points. The Clapper letter indicated the need for an extra hydrant, which the applicant did not commit. The public would absorb the expense of another hydrant. There are underground parking for forty cars and on-grade parking for four cars. There is no parking mentioned for employee use. The employee housing solution is off site. There is no information on the proposed location of the employee housing. The staff cannot evnluate the employee parking solution. The staff gave this c2ltegory a score of one. Underground parking is positive. There is an adequate system of streets to serve the project. The applicant proposes to improve and open Dean Street. Thi s will primarily serve the forty unit project. New curbs and gutters are proposed. The engineering department contends upgrading in the area results. The two renderings attached to the packet are the most detailed architectural information submitted. The planning staff felt the dr<l\'lings are very sketchy. It was difficult to evaluate the architectural design. The design is not particularly innovative. The height and mass appear in keeping ~lith the neighboring properties. The architectural design is similar to other projects built by the applicant, for example, the Aspen Inn, a very linear design interrupted by some stone. The staff scored the design as acceptable. The level of detail is difficult to evaluate. There is no particular fla\'1 in the design. The staff gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt and scored two. The site plan is also difficult to evaluate. The placement of parking a~d utilities underground is a positive aspect. If Dean Street were reactivated, circulation to the project .Iould be upgraded. The site design indicates the porte cochere and the parking extend into the Dean Street right-of-way. The site design appears drawn not to scale. If the drawing is scaled accurately there is a problem. There appears an encroachment into the right-of-way. The staff scored one point. The submission indicates there will be a fireplace for every unit. That greatly exceeds current regulations. one fireplace per building. There are thirty-nine fireplaces too many. There will be upgraded r-values in the insulation components. The staff scored one point (a major design flaw). The applicant proposes a perpetual right-of-way for the provision of the Dean Street trail-pedestrian-bicycle lane. It is unclear if the commitment includes trail improvements. The site design indicates the use of the road right-of-way for a trail link. There are serious pedestrian and automobile conflicts. The staff's preference is for a separate trail easement and for actual physical improvements on site. The staff scored one (a major RECORD OF. PRnl'ERnINGS Reaular Mee.t.in9 Plannina ,and Znntn9,CnmmiARion . .:'a:!IInuarll 22.... 1985 design flaw). The number of surface parking spaces is not consistent between the text of the application and the site plan. The landscape is on the periphery of the site and masks the parking areas. There are some amenities for the residences. There is little relief of the building densi ty for surrounding developments. The staff scored one. The project is within two blocks of the bus routes along Durant. The score is three. The project is within three blocks of the commercial core for a score of two. The biggest problem with the application is evaluating the employee housing ?:r [osal. There appear three dorms on site. That shows up one time in the ; )lication. The applicatiull states there will be thirty-five dorm units, property will be purchased and those units will be converted from existing inventory in the city of Aspen. There is no location for those units. There is no way to evaluate the impacts on the proposed property or to evaluate the property's ability to accommodate employee units. The submission is inadequate for scoring in the GMP competition. Three units on site will house six employees. Six employees represent 8.5% of the total population of the project. The staff awarded two points. Two points are not 30% of the points available in the category. This score disqualifies the project from the GMP competition. Understand options and contracts are not necessary to purchase certain properties. But, understand it is necessary to know the qual i ty of the proj ect. The Aspen Mountain Lodge committed to the Copper Horse and the Alpina Haus. There may not be an option to purchase a proj ect by thi s applicant, but, there has to be some elective properties that adequately serve this project. If the applicant comes forward later with the options there may be problems. There has to be a more definitive employee solution proposed at the time of scoring. It is a dangerous precedent to allow someone to house employees without the ability to evaluate the proposal. The staff recommends a score of two points. There are no guarantees or suggestions on the conversion of units. Thirty-five units cannot be numerically verified. Are the units adequate? The staff proposes a score of zero. The staff is concerned with not being able to evaluate the location of the uni ts. The total points tabulated for categories one, two, three, and four are nineteen. No points were given to category five. The final total is nineteen points. George Bermant, counsel for Hans Cantrup, introduced himself. He recognized that Cantrup does not come before the Commission without some prior experience which was not always favorable. RECORD OF, PRt'V'RRnTHGS Reoul at: MARt:.i~ pIRnni DQ' AndZnni naCnmm.f RJd nn JRnnarv .22... ~85 He expects the Commission to give Cantrup the same treatment as other applicants. Cantrup is unfortunately a debtor in possession, is somewhat strapped for funds, and is unable to present large drawings. Bermant presented three drawings which cover different aspects of the submission. Bermant first addressed employee housing. Throughout the proposal the words "commitment" and "agreement" are used by the proponent, four, five, or six times. The applicant has agreed categorically to provide employee housing to the extent of 50%. The ordinance cites nothing more than the applicant has to. "are>~ t.o ormrid,;, employee housing. The applicant has done that. It is not fair at this stage of the proceedings to accept other people's agreements but not Cantrup's based on a matter of public policy. The Commission can direct Cantrup, once he receives his allocation, at a given time, perhaps before the thirty-three months is up, to develop definitive employee housing. His client is complying with the newest ordinance: converting existing free market units into employee housing. That eliminates new density. His client is committed to converting existing housing to deed restricted, long term, employee housing. That agreement is made in the application. His client has acted accordingly. It is too early to present the solution. This is only the conceptual phase of the GMP procedure. If his client fails to provide the employee solution by the time the building permit is issued his client may not go further. The Commission has the power to impose final conditions on this application. The Commission should. There is no reason his client should not live up to the agreement of this application. Harvey remarked the housing authority's memo to the planning office requested clarification and location of the cooperative employee units before it made its recommendations. The Commission is in a difficult position. The Commission defers to the housing authori ty for its professional opinion on the employee housing. The other projects tonight have specified location, size, and method of supplying employee housing. The Commission is concerned about the location and relationship to the project. The project appears to be a full service lodge (Bermant interjected an apartment hotel). It is intensive lodging. It requires commuting by employees who are promised to be housed throughout the city. There is insufficient information to make a judgment. In the past the Commission has favored projects that supply housing on site or in close proximity to the project and supply a transpor- tation system. Projects should answer how the project operates. Bermant responded that on-site design solutions and conversion design solutions are diametrically opposed. There is a conflict in public policy. Harvey disagreed. Conversion responds to limiting new density. The two solutions are not mutually exclu- sive. Bermant said before Cantrup filed under Chapter Eleven, he accumulated many lodges. Cantrup cannot accumulate anything until he knows he can build a lodge. Harvey suggested put something under contract pending approval to build the lodge. RRrnRD OF PRnrRRnTNGS RJIoanlarMeeti~ p1annina and ?nnin'iJ Cnmmiaainn ;Januarv 22. JJi85 Bermant noted under the Chapter Eleven proceedings that is not a feasible alternative. Bermant emphasized his client has complied with the language of the ordinance which states that he only aa.r:ee.s. He suggested condition the allocation approval with a shorter time frame, not with a thirty-three month time frame, for Cantrup to demonstrate compliance. His client will accept that. The solution does not tie up the units for thirty-three months. The solution gives the Commission some control. Harvey explained growth management is a competition for the best designed and conceived project submitted at a specific time. The intent is not to impose conditions that extend time limits for subsequent reviews. Bermant responded today there are three applications competing for a limited number of units. One of the three applications will be treated as an amendment in which case eight units will not be allocated; or, it will be treated as a new application in which case eight units from last year will be available. Which ever scenario unfolds, there will be eight more units available in competition. The other application requests three units. The issue is meeting the threshold requirements. The issue is not competition. Harvey said the point is meeting the minimum at this time, at this meeting, as part of this competition or submission. Bermant argued his client is only competing with himself and the planning department. White remarked in the past applicants have been asked to provide a proposal for employee housing. The Commission graded the application on the employee housing proposal. The 601 Aspen project does not provide a proposal. Why grade every other applicant on the employee proposal but not Cantrup? Why should the Commission give this project special consideration and treatment? Harvey quoted from the planning office's memo: "after the planning office reviewed it the city attorney recommended the project be scored rather than rejected..." Harvey asked why. Barry Edwards, city attorney, explained the city attorney's office felt that Cantrup should have the chance to have hi s appl ication scored. The attorney's position gives the applicant the benefit of the doubt. penne noted generally planning does not accept an application unless there is a title insurance commitment, unless there is a leased space, or unless a present owner of a space to be purchased by an applicant agrees to the application. This present application is inconsistent with this policy. The applicant has to find a willing seller of free market units for the conversion of employee units. The basic components of an application are missing here. The staff consulted the city attorney about rejecting the appli- cation. The city attorney preferred the application be heard and scored. In the conversion of the Nugget, the applicant proposed one dormitory unit off site. It was unclear if the owner of the Nugget had a right to apply for that off-site unit. The Commission .- .'.__.~., .__...."-...~ ~-,''"-- -..._,----""'~----- . RECORD OF 'PRnrRRnTNr.....~ RAaular M"'~fo:i~ pl Anni D9 And 20ni n9 rnmmi.:u:d on .TanlulW::V 2.2_ 1 g85 did not accept the one dorm unit off site. The off-site solution was not considered as good as the conversion of a unit on site for an employee. That was a condition that the applicant accepted. This is not an unusual method of handling an application. Bermant repeated the law states the Commission shall sign points to each applicant who aar~es.to .provine. Edwards commented the Commission has to decide what the applicant has agreed to. It is a simple decision. The Commission makes a decision based on the agreement and the precedent. The commi ssioners have the duty to deal with these questions fairly. Has the applicant agreed? If so, score the application. If the applicant has not agreed do not deal with the application. Mark Danielson, representative for the applicant, commented the code allows an applicant to provide employee housing off site. The code requires that any such housing be in accordance with the code. Housing must comply with all the code in terms of building, parking, etc. When an applicant comes forth and states he will provide employee housing, whether it is on site or off site, the housing is required to be in conformance with the code and its specs. Edwards argued the word "agree" is not the only factor in the provision. The provision states "which complies with the housing size, type, income, and occupancy guidelines." The city has asked for that information and has not received it. Bermant remarked he will continue this conversation with the city counsel. Anderson asked if the Commission accepts the interpretation tha t the applicant has agreed to prov ide the employee housing, is there a red light on location and type of employee housing during the full subdivision and GMP exemption process. When will the Commission know the status of the employee housing scheme and what conditions will make it likely to have a concrete employee housing scheme? Hans Cantrup, the applicant, replied when he knows this project is going forward, he commissions architects to execute working drawings for the free market units, he options the required housing, and proceeds to the housing authority with the units and the locations for their comments. The idea is to convert existing units. Those units cannot be graded. The typical employee units will be garden level units within existing condominium complexes. Bermant asked Cantrup at what stage does he believe he can come back to the Commission with a proposal for that employee housing. How long will it take? Cantrup replied a maximum of six months. He will actively pursue the housing proposal. The building department will not issue a building permit until Cantrup fulfills the employee housing requirements. Anderson asked if there are sufficient guarantees in the code to bring the employee proposal back to the Commission. Is it possible to attach a condition to the approval providing safeguards in the subdivision process to guarantee employee housing? penne replied a building permit will not be issued if the employee RR~nRD OP PR~RRnTNGS Rpoular .......t:ino Pll1nnino and ~nl"dnlJ Cnmmit::.a.1on .."IaftI1Ar" 22. 19as housing commitment is not completed. But, how can the Commission evaluate the employee housing scheme? The proposal is for thirty-five dorm units. Where are they? Are there problems with the sites? Anderson argued the Commission can evaluate the employee housing proposal during subdivision. If the project is not acceptable during subdivision, deny the project. Harvey said the Commission can only score the applicant's statement to provide employee housing within the city, to meet the housing authority's guidelines for size and type, and to house two people per dorm unit. For the record, Bermant committed to relinquish any GMP units granted to his client as a result of this competition at a reasonable time in the future defined by this Commission. His client would relinquish the units if he were not to provide adequate employee housing in a specified length of time. Harvey expressed concern for such a precedent. The precedent would deteriorate the quality of information from future applicants. Anderson concurred with Harvey but the code specifically states "agreement" or "guarantee." penne remarked the ramifications go beyond encouraging similar future applications on employee housing. What if an applicant states he cannot accommodate parking on site, but can buy another lot for parking garage. How does the Commission evaluate this scenario? Someone may decide a few days before a competition to compete. Set the precedent to let the applicant simply state he will do what the code requires him to do and there may not be enough information to evaluate the proposal. An applicant could commit to 40% open space without knowing how. Harvey said the Commission proceeds through a two-part process: first, scoring the threshold; and second, recommending to Council how to allocate units. The procedure involves a threshold and a competition. The Commission can score the employee housing scheme but there is no guarantee of unit allocation. Harvey asked to see the dormitory units on the project site. Cantrup presented a drawing and indicated the one space appropriate for the dormitory. It houses six to eight people. That is above the 50% requirement. Harvey asked if there are common living room and kitchen. Cantrup explained the proposal involves three to four units with a common bathroom. There is no kitchen f acil i ty. Harvey questioned square footage. Cantrup noted the requirement per dorm room is 150 square feet. He is familiar with the housing authority's requirements and his proposal meets those requirements. Harvey remarked a site plan that specifies the location of the employee housing has not been submitted as part of the submission. There is no text on the drawing. Cantrup replied the text is in the submission. He guarantees to provide the housing. It will have many configurations. Some units will be remodeled. Without the information there is no application. Harvey questioned if there is an application since information has not been sub- RECORD OF pRnt'RRnIlllGS Reau1a~ Mee~in9 P1snnin9_And ?nninq ~nmm;gRion ~ ~anua~v 22. 1985 mitted. Cantrup replied a new ordinance was approved less than six months ago addressing this. What is the problem? Harvey argued the problem is that employee housing information has not been submitted or delineated as part of this application. It is not the concern of the Commission to hold a consultation and to encourage call backs. It is the Commission's business to score applications and to recommend to Council. Bermant addressed category one, the public facilities. Storm Drainaa~.! He took issue with storm drainage. The application provides that surface water be collected on site. The lot, in certain circum- stances, is dangerous. The applicant is improving the situation. The surface runoff will be collected on site. The applicant deserves a score of two, not one. F:ire n.rotection.: 'i'he applicant actively SOU] ~ome statement from Crocket, the fire department. Bermant reported Crocket would only answer the Commission's queries not the applicant's. The applicant has no idea what Crocket wants. The applicant tried to find out but Crocket was not cooperative. The zero grade is unfair. The access to the property is more than adequate along Dean Street. The fire hydrants are not materially further than the fire hydrants in the previous application. Zero is an unjustified rating. The applicant is entitled to a score of two. Danielson interjected the applicant is willing to install a fire hydrant that upgrades the entire area. parkina desian:. Bermant explained Dean Street does not exist. The applicant proposes to convert that part of Dean Street which he owns into a road, a private road for public access. The applicant will maintain the private road. On each side of the road there will be five parking spaces with five curbed parking spaces under the porte cochere. There will be fifteen spaces above ground and forty spaces below ground. Harvey requested clarification of Dean Street. penne explained Dean Street is presently vacated, according to Jay Hammond, city engineer. It can be reopened at the discretion of Cantrup. Bermant explained Cantrup owns the south half of what used to be Dean Street. Markalunas asked how wide is the proposed Dean Street. Someone answered twenty-five feet. Bermant noted parking is allowed on Dean where it is wider than twenty-five (25) feet, under the porte cochere. Bermant continued. There will be a total of fifty-five (55) parking spaces. Forty (10) parking spaces for guests, ten (10) for employees, and five (5) for visitors. Harvey noted the application RRrnRn OF PRIV"RIm.I.HGS Reau1ar MAs~in9 Planninti' "nil.Zonina Cnmmiaa.ion .. aTA'''tarv 22.~ 19M states forty underground spaces and four short term spaces. Is this a technical correction? (The site plan and the text of the application are compared.) Cantrup remarked there are no discre- pancies. Harvey asked penne what she referred to in her scoring. penne understood there were underground parking for forty cars and on grade parking for four cars. She collected that information from the text. The site plan was delivered later. There was no specific parking mentioned for employees. She was confused. If the applicant wants to technically clarify the parking scheme, fine. But, there appears conflicting information. She chose the written text as correct. Harvey summar ized the parking spaces: forty spaces underground with thirty spaces designated for guests and ten spaces designated for employees; ten spaces on grade with five designated for guests and five for visitors. The total for guests is thirty- five, for employees ten, and for visitors five. Bermant interjected there are five spaces under the porte cochere. Harvey asked if cars will be parked in front the lodge 's entrance. Bermant explained those five spaces are available for emergency parking. Cantrup explained the spaces are limited to ten minutes. The discussion continues on the nature of the five spaces. Bermant explained the proposal is for fifty spaces and five under the porte cochere. Harvey asked if the Commission is to evaluate the application based on the information presented in the text (forty-four spaces), on the site plan (fifty-five spaces), or on Bermant's statement (fifty spaces). Bermant replied there are fifty-five spaces, five are short term. Harvey asked how does the Commission evaluate parking. Peyton said the five spaces under the porte cochere are loading spaces. Bermant stated the technical correction is fifty spaces for a forty unit development. FireDla~p.~ : Harvey questioned the fireplaces. Bermant replied this is a mistake carried over from the previous application. The applicant did not consider the change in the code. The fireplaces obviously will not be built. Trails.: Bermant addressed the trail, to be north of the road and above curb level. The application states Dean Street will be curbed and guttered. Harvey asked if the trail is in the road right-of- way. Bermant answered it is on Cantrup's property. The trail will not be located on the portion of the property intended for the new Dean Street. Peyton asked for a location of the trail on the map. Harvey asked if the proposal includes trail improve- ments. Bermant replied it does not say so but it does. Harvey stated the application specifies a perpetual right-of-way. penne asked if the ten foot right-of-way is part of the south side. RR~nRn,QPPRnrRRnTNGS Reaular M~~t..ina Plannina and .z.onfnn CnmmiaJZiOD January 22_ 19S5 Bermant emphasized old Dean Street does not exist. The north ten feet of old Dean Street which is owned by the estate will be a trail. There will be a twenty-five foot road, and then the lodge. Jay Hammond, city engineer, said the actual right-of-way should be twenty-five feet. The old right-of-way was fifty feet wide. penne reasoned if there were a twenty foot right-of-way for the road the applicant may not have another ten feet for the trail. Bermant explained start at the north border, subtract footage for the trail, twenty-five feet for the road, then there is the lodge. The applicant owns Dean south, thirty-five feet. Harvey questioned the language for trail improvements. Will the trail be road base and black top? will the trail be rough graded? This application is very incomplete. What are the trail connections? Hammond replied there are no existing trails on either side. There are trail connectors one block east associated with the proposed lodge project. There is no constructed trail, but the trail is proposed on the master plan. penne commented on the extent of technical clarification. The Baker duplex lost by one point in a residential competition because they had not sta ted in the application the addition of a drywell. They agreed to the drywell at the meeting. It was disallowed. Bermant asked if the Commission knows the kind of trail the hotel will be cons- tructing. Someone replied black top. Bermant agreed to install the same. Harvey asked how is he suppose to score this application with all the technical corrections from an attorney who claims to be repre- senting the applicant during the course of the meeting. What is the criteria for scoring? The attorney is making promises for every question. Why were these questions not handled in a pre- application conference? Cantrup noted there was a pre-application conference with Richman. Bermant commented the trail location on the property is ideal for direct ski access from the west side of the mountain. The applicant is entitled to a score of two for green space, there is 25% technical open space. Harvey requested information on landscaping. Is 25% the minimum threshold for open space? Does the figure include swimming pools and paved areas? penne noted the information makes it difficult to adequately calculate the percentage. She cannot validate the fact that the required open exists, she gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt. Anderson asked how to evaluate the employee housing. There are conflicting considerations. Hunt reasoned there is no agreement. The applicant did not include anything specific about employee housing. The commitment is beyond the words that the city wants an agreement from the applicant. The city wants an agreement that includes specifics. Tygre concurred with Hunt. It is the custom to pay attention to employee housing. All GMP applicants are required to go through rigorous scrutiny of employee housing. That is the Commission's standard practice. The applicant was advised by the planning office on the competition custom and -"-"'-~' ,~,,-,.....--.,--,_._>.....-- -----'-'..~".~ RRnnRn OF pvnrRRnrNGS R.eolllar. "~At:ina Pl Annina And ~nni nil Cft1ll1lllf IlAinn . ".1'"nnlllrv 22.1gas requirements. The application is inadequate in this respect. The applicant has not fulfilled an agreement to provide employee housing. She preferred the application not be before the Commission at all. There is inadequate information to make an adequate decision. (Ramona Markalunas leaves the chambers at 7:40 p.m.) Fallin shared the same thoughts. There are other points missing besides employee housing. White agreed. The arrow on the site plan is incorrect, north is in the wrong direction. Peyton said the letter to Alan Richman quotes the ordinance: "the Commission shall sign points to the applicants who guarantee to provide a portion..." There is no guarantee regardless if there is an agreement or not. Harvey supported the spirit of the Commission regarding the fact that the only technical correction is the fireplaces. There is no firm proposal for the trails. parking is not a technical cor- rection. The employee housing is not specified on any site plan. The application has not satisfied the requests of the housing authority. There is no information on size and location. The commissioners shall score this application based on this set of criteria at this time; and then make its recommendation to Council. The commissioners shall score the application with one technical correction, the fireplace. Harvey asked for public comment. There was no comment. The Commission scores the application. Harvey closed the public hearing. penne requested on the conversion of existing units to enter zero or some other number. White said parking is an issue. People think the ratio of one space per bedroom is acceptable. This figure does not include guests and is unacceptable. Harvey noted that is the code requirement. He believed the code is in error, one space per bedroom is an unrealistic number. He advised White to recommend to Council to hire a transportation expert. White noted the traffic committee just proposed major parking answers. Commercial space development has not provided parking. The city is losing parking spaces with more development. No one commits to off set the parking shortfall. Harvey remarked this will be discussed at next week's work session. penne read the scores. Asnpn Mountain ~UD: -The project received 30% in all categories. -The subtotal is 50.15 RENlRn, OF: pRnr"RRnIBGS Reaular .M.eet.ina P1Annina And ?nnin9 Cnmm-lARion .TAnl1arv ~?- _lqA5 -The bonus point average is -The total is .86 51.01 Gordon/Callahan PUD.: -The project received 30% in all categories. -The subtotal is -The bonus point average is -The total is 45.07 .29 45.36 6.01 A~np-n.:. -The project did not receive 30% in employee housing, only 7.43%. -The subtotal is -No bonus bonus points -The total is 25.86 0.00 25.86 This score is below the threshold of 43.8. ~ Harvey recalled 32 units are to be allocated. Fifteen units meet threshold. These scores can be forwarded to Council without recommendation. Brandt remarked Wells attached a letter. The letter requests this submission be treated as an amendment, not an application for a new allocation. How the Commission interprets this appli- cation might determine the type of resolution submitted to Council. Harvey asked if the commissioners received information on this issue. penne responded no. Harvey did not know what to do. The pI anning off ice usually instructs the Commission. He suggested Brandt talk to Richman. If those two agree to put this on an agenda, fine. Wells explained his client is now asking to press this issue. He will approach Richman. The other allocation is safe and his client prefers to work with that allocation. Harvey adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. ~ X~L~~~ ~"""..., .J. Barbara Norris, ~ ~ Deputy City Clerk