Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19850312 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 12. 1985 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. Idth commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin (arrived at 5: 10 p. m.), Helton Anderson, David I'Thite, Roger Hunt, Hari Peyton (arrived at 5:11 p.m.), and alternate Ramona Harkalunas present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Harvey summarized the meeting with the Pitkin Planning and Zoning Commission on the Aspen r.jountain r'laster Plan. He had informed the county planning commission the city's concerns: parking and transportation. Both entities support the master plan. Both entities agree to notice the city to deal with the problems. The present master plan will reduce utilization of lift lA. Lift lA is proposed as a transportation lift and not an access lift. The master plan concentrates on the Little Nell base area. How are transportation systems Rubey Park, etc., handled to make the access point attractive and uncongested? The city members will continue to meet with the county again next Tuesday. The county plans then to draft a resolution with strong language directing the city to act. The master plan does not rectify the parking and transit problems. Hunt agreed with the majority of the county planning commissioners to retain the number four lift, the Little nell lift. The addition of a mid-way point on lift 4A defeats the purpose of transporting people up the mountain quickly. Even a two minute delay for the mid-point access point with state of the art equipment defeats the purpose of the lift. He preferred retaining the Little Nell lift or a similar facility. He had assumed the detachable chair lifts would be stored out of sight when the lift was not operating. The chairs ~lill be stored on the cable during the summer. The stored chairs will be visually intense. White said given Council's predisposition about the parking ballot question, language must be included in the resolution to encourage Council to address parking. He agreed Vlith Hunt's comments on Li ttl e Nell. The county and ci ty shared many of the same concerns. riarkalunas understood historically the ski corporation has passed over every opportunity to purchase parking areas or to participate in city parking programs. Is the approval of the master plan the last opportunity to enforce some parking restrictions on the ski company? Harvey replied the ski company had submitted a letter. The letter had stated the ski company would cooperate in any community-wide endeavor for parking: funding for studies, parti- cipation on committees, etc. The letter had implied parking VIas a community concern and not just the concern of the ski company. The ski company Vlill participate in a community parking 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 12. 1985 program. llarkalunas asked to what degree. Harvey reasoned the city has no parking plan. therefore, how can the city ask the ski company to participate in a program that does not exist. Alan Richman, planning office. noted criteria can be established. Criteria were established for the Hotel Jerome Vlithout a city parking plan. The Hotel Jerome did respond positively to those criteria. A parking standard should be set. The ski company should be required to provide a set number of spaces. Presently, the ski company is providing nothing. Cooperation is not enough. Commit the ski company to a standard. Harvey said commit the city to a standard. How can the private elements of the community be expected to comr,lit to parking standards without city leadership? l!arkalunas commented the Rio Grande was purchased for parking. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE ~MINARY PUD/SUBDIVISION/ EMPLOYEE HOUSING Harvey opened the public hearing. Richman referred to page three of the memo. This item follows the Council adopted resolution *84-27. The resolution establishes the conditions of conceptual approval for the employee housing for the lodge. The resolution encompassed five broad conditions. First, review the the employee generation figures on the basis of the changes to the lodge since conceptual. The second issue is deed restriction. The third issue is the improvements to the Alpina Haus and the Copper Horse. The fourth issue is parking and transportation for the off-site projects. The final issue is Ute City Place. Employee 1I0usin9 Generation. Jim Curtis has recalculated the generation figures based on the same methodology used for the original commitments for the residential, lodge, and commercial projects. Jim Adamski, housing authority, has supported the recalculations. The only significant change in employee generation is the reduced level of accessory retail space. The only generation issue is the replacement of any employees displaced by any construction for the lodge or the TOp of Mill. Hans Cantrup had originally committed to house 35 employees in 24 units as part of the Aspen Inn addition. During the lodge revieVl the Commission determined that commitment unrealistic. The present applicant has committed to house the thirteen employees required to serve the 36 lodge units. The Commission did accept that replacement. The applicant has met the condition of recalculation and has documented their employee housing commitment. Richman conf i rmed the metho- dology. developed by Jim Curtis and Gail Schwartz, is reasonable. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoninq Commission !'larch 12. 1985 Deed Restrictions. The requested deed restrictions are being processed. The city attorney is reviewing the appropriate language. The Commission does not need to respond. Aloina Haus and Copper Horse. The concern is that the applicant allocate sufficient money to insure the buildings are quality structures. The applicant did direct Curtis to examine the tVlO buildings. Curtis did talk to the managers of the two buildings on the history of maintenance, etc. Curtis did conclude the buildings were in satisfactory condition. The list of improvements (on page 161-162 of the Aspen Hountain Lodge application) is cosmetic. The improvements make the rooms more liveable for the employees. lIarvey said the considerations are health, life. and safety. Rich.'!\an noted the building department, a referral agency, has not submitted comments. He will contact Jim \'Tilson. Parking. Richman continued. The fi rst concern is retaining existing parking on site. The applicant has committed to retain the available on-site parking, a small quantity. There are two questions. HOVl can additional parking be provided at the resi- dences? l'ihere do employees park their car at the lodge site? The conceptual condition required one parking space for very two er~ployees at the housing units. The applicant is providing a total of 100 spaces for the 195 housed employees. 58 spaces are situated at the Airport Business Center and 42 spaces arc situated in town. 58 spaces are available for the 69 employees at the Airport Business Center; 012 SI'flC(,~3 iJre available for the 126 employees in town. The ratio is one space for every three employees housed. Technically, the applicant has met the conditions of approval. But, the applicant does not address parking for the in-tOlvn sites. Richman noted <16 people are housed at Alpin" Haus. <13 at the Copper Horse. (Doremus referred to page 163.) Harvey identified the problems. First, where does the employee park his car at work? Second, the Alpina Haus houses 46 employees with 11 parking spaces, and the Copper Horse houses 43 employees with 4 parking spaces. Even if the employees do not commute to work in their cars, long-term storage will be a problem for a square block around the residential complexes. That creates a serious problem for the city's street maintenance crew during the Vlinter. One solution is to expand off-street parking at the two locations. Another is to provide a certain number of long-term parking spaces at the hotel project. The most important issue is the location of the stored cars. The lesser issue is employees driving back and forth to work. 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special MeetingL Planning and zoning Commission "arch 12. 1985 Doremus recalled the conditions of approval imposed by City Council. The condition for one space per two employees VIas proposed by Blomquist. Doremus quoted the proposal: "The spaces should not necessarily be required to be on site." "Not necessary" VIas not incorporated in the resolution. Ten spaces were originally proposed at the hotel PUD site exclusively for employee parking. Those ten spaces were included in the count in Blomquist's proposal. The applicant folloVled Blomquist's instruc- tions of a two to one ratio. But, the applicant was not directed by the councilman to locate the spaces on site. Harvey asked realistically will the proposed parking at the business center benefit any employee residing in town. Doremus answered only for winter storage. Harvey did not understand Blomquist's position on parking. Doremus continued. The parking is necessary for the two conver- sions. 11 spaces are situated at the Alpina Haus, the requirement is 23. 27 spaces are situated at Ute City Place, the requirement for that complex is 18-1/2 spaces. The surplus. 8-1/2, is located a block from the Alpina Haus. Allocate that surplus to the Alpina Haus. \1ith the surplus, the Alpina Haus is short three spaces. The problem is the Copper Horse. The complex is short 17-1/2 spaces. This shortage is in a neighborhood in which there is ample parking within one block. The parking survey showed 39% of the employees working in the lodging district drive. Therefore, the real parking requirement is much less than stated in condition eight. The requi rement is 49 spaces, the proposal is 42 spaces on site or close to the site. The proposal is short 7 spaces. The appl icant has articul ated numerous times the mi tigation measures for alleviating the employee parking. The applicant has searched for on-site or relatively close on-site spaces for these two projects. The applicant has not found any available space. The present maldmum occupancy at the Coppe r Hor se is 53. The appl icant is reducing the occupancy rate to a maximur.l of 43. Thc present maximum practical occupancy of the Alpina Haus is 66. The applicant is reducing the occupancy to 46. Thc applicant is eliminating 30 people. HoVl that translates into cars he does not know? The reduction of occupants is significantly over 20%. Thc applicant is improving the existing situation, a condition for the conversion of an existing lodge. The growth impacts and the use arc reduced. Richman repcated the condition requires one parking space for two employees. The code's residential requirement is one per bedroom. The shortage is spaces to employees. That is a problem. 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS !)pecial Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission l-larch 12. 1985 Peyton reasoned the number of people may be reduced at the Copper Horse but the number of cars may not. The proposal changes the type of occupancy from short-term to long-term. Short-term occupants are less likely to have cars compared to permanent residents. Harvey asked what type of occupancy is expected at the Copper Horse and the Alpina Haus. Richie Cohen. consultant for the applicant, remarked the traditional occupant is a seasonal employee, a music student, for example. nost summer occupants arrive by car. Harvey said assuming a long-term employee resides in the employee complexes, there still Vlill be cars. Assuming the applicant provides an auto-disincentive program for the employees. there still Vlill be a storage problem. Discouraging or preventing the employee from driving to work will not prevent employees from parking in the street near the hotel. Doremus remarked he has little sympathy with the parking problem because the city has not taken responsibility for the parking problem. Harvey argued one part of the city's responsibility must include dealing with development applications. The parking is both a public and pr i vate concern. Harvey suggested the applicant provide parking within a usable distance from the employee housing. Parking on the street provides more of an incentive to move the car to avoid the threat of being snowed in or being towed. Unless the car can be stored in a safe place the owner Vlill drive the car to avoid those threats. Hunt commented one solution to long-term storage on the streets may be to have no parking on one side of the street for one day of the week. Cars are stored on the streets in the residential neighborhood. The Alpina Haus is located in a semi- residential neighborhood. Also, parking the car near the residence provides an incentive to the o~mer to use the car. Storing the car some distance from the residence in long-term storage is an inducement to use the car less. Peyton asked Vlhat was the rationale for reducing the employee parking requirement for this development. An employee is more apt to have a car than a guest. Richman answered the action was a positive-incentive provision for employee housing. Employee housing is a break-even or losing proposition for the applicant. In the past, the city has Vlaived the employee parking requirement for many small projects, especially for the downtown area. The Commission agreed there is a parking problem. Harvey said the solution is either parking on site at the hotel or parking on site at the residence. Another alternative is participation in a city long-term storage parking program. Richman said the Commission can direct the applicant to choose an alternative to meet the condition of one for two in-toVln sites. Harvey asked is 5 --""-- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning commission March 12, 1985 there a practical constraint to supply more parking on the site. Doremus replied the original solution was to provide the parking at the hotel site. But, that solution alone would cost $150,000. That figure pushes the total cost of employee housing over $5,000,000. A limit is necessary. Doremus continued. The applicant prefers to commit to find spaces in to~m. The applicant prefers to be allovled to search for a site, a property undergoing a change in use, etc. The applicant is confident that there are sufficient spaces on the PUD. It is unrealistic to think that the occupants of 700 South Galena will each have four cars. The occupants of 700 South Galena are guests and tourists. Harvey suggested using approxi- mately thirty spaces at the hotel for long-term storage. parking may need to be used to its maximum during World Cup week. Employee cars may have to be moved during those busy periods. But, incorporate in the transit program spaces at 700 South Galena for long-term storage. Doremus recalled the TDA expert had recommended valet and stack parking during the busy periods. This solution accommodates 20% more cars during those periods. The hotel will absorb the expense of employees retrieving the cars. White favored Harvey's suggestion of long-term storage wi thin the PUD site. Harvey asked how far aVlay is Ute City Place from the Alpina Haus. Richman answered a couple of blocks. Harvey asked Vlill employees at the Alpina Haus use the on-site ute City Place employee parking. Richman noted the 27 spaces just meet the demand for the 37 employees at the Ute City Place. The Ute City Place parking spaces cannot acco!clmodate the Alpina llaus. Each employee project is taking care of its own needs. Harvey repeated use 30 spaces at the lodge for long-term employee parking. Relocate employee cars during peak times. Obviously, parking is an expected amenity for a first class hotel. Storing a car long-term aVlay from the residence will encourage the employee to use the other transit systems. Richman clarified the solution designates 30 spaces at the PUD for the long-term employee parking. Doremus agreed to the solution. Doremus proposed monitoring parking and COllecting data. Hunt recommended assigning individuals to the thirty designated spaces at the PUD for long-term storage. Doremus requested the ability to locate the spaces where the least demand is. The Commission agreed. Harvey emphasized the goal is to park employees off the street and undercover. The Commission agreed to the language for assignment throughout the PUD. 6 ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 12. 1985 Rich.'Uan commented on the conditions attached to Ute City Place. at conceptual revieVl. Recall Ute City Place was processed fully through GriP in 1981. That revieVl process preceeded the Rl!F moratorium. Eventually, FAR and height limits were imposed on single family units and duplexes in the RIlF zone district. The project did receive final plat approval. Most of the project's issues have been addressed. Two issues deserve some discussion. First is the parking access. The proposal involved a curb cut on Cooper near the West End intersection. Hany traffic questions ~lere raised. The city engineer and the applicant have agreed to a neVl solution. That solution will help traffic flow. The solution may provide access to the alley behind the project which is currently not well served. The project site is not situated as far as Cleveland. Doremus noted the curb cut is located as far east as possible, the access will not extend off Cleveland. The access extends off Cooper. The alley is presently a dead end. The proposal opens up the alley and creates a loop system. Richman continued. The second issue is RBO. The appl icant originally asked to rezone the site RBO. Only, the project on the site, not the site itself, should have received the RBO. The adopted ordinance for this project should have stated when the proj ect expi res the RBO expi res. The site should not have been zoned RBO in perpetuity, only the project. But such language does not exist in the ordinance. Consequently, the site is zoned RBO. He advised the Commission not to rezone the site PBO again, that Vlould be redundant. Instead, the Commission needs to reconfirm that this project complies with the underlying RBO criteria and belongs on the site. The proj ect meets or exceeds every PBO criteria. The project without question provides employee housing. The city zoning map designates the site as an RBO zone. The open space proposed for the present submission is greater than the open space proposed in the previous application. But, the open space does not meet the 35% open space requirement imposed subsequent to the review of the project. There is no method to provide the employee housing and to meet the open space require- ment. Section 24-20.5 of the code allows the Commission to waive the open space requirement. It is appropriate to waive the open space requirement given the history and precedent of this project. The Board of Adjustment did waive the 25 foot height requirement. The Commission agreed to waive the open space requirement. The applicant has also asked to condominiumize the Ute City Place. Jim Adamski, housing authority, has raised one concern. At this time it is not known where the lower end of the employee 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission March 12. 1985 versus the permanent employee will reside. Condomini umization Vlorks well for the permanent employee but not for the seasonal employee. The overall mix of all the employee units must meet the mix of employees. Adamski did propose one condition to the resolution which allO\'ls the housing authority to revieVl the mix of the overall employee housing program before occupancy and to concur or not concur with conc1ominiumization. The Commission agreed to support the housing authority's conclusion. The mix of rentals and sales must be compatible Vlith the employee mix. Hunt said once a condominiumized employee unit is sold, the lodge loses an employee unit from its employee housing pool. There is no guarantee the employee who OI-ms the condominiumized unit will work at the hotel. Richman clarified the housing philosophy of the housing authority is not to requi re a proj ect to of f set its own employee. The goal is to provide housing. Harvey continued the public hearing to Barch 19, 1985. Harvey adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m. Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk 8