Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19791211 ~,~-~.-..,-~_. ~""._-,.,.-.-...,,-..__..--_.-.~--' ....-.... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIlIIIO C.F.HOECKna.a.l:I-l.CO. Special Meeting A$pen Planning and Zoning commi$$ion December 11, 1979 The A$pen Planning and zoning Corami$$ion held a $pecial meeting on December 11, 1979, at 5:00 P.M., in the City counCil~hamber$' Member$ pre$ent were Olof Hed$trom, Lee Pardee, Welton Ander$on, ger Hunt, Nancy UcDonnell. Al$o pre- $ent were Ron Stock, City Attorney and aren smith of the Planning Office. Commi$$ionmember Comment$ Olof Hed$trom a$ked for con~ent$ and pre$entation$. Zoning Enforcement Re$olution Karen Smith of the Planning Office $tated $he wa$ a$ked for a draft of the Re$olution on zoning Enforcement and pre$ented it for your con$ideration. TDR Di$cu$$ion Karen Smith pre$ented the fact$ that thi$ i$ a continued di$cu$$ion on TDR and a recommendation from the Lodge A$$ociation to be repre$ented by a member or two of the Lodge A$$ociation and pre$ent thi$ at thi$ time. Al$o, P & Z wanted a count of number$ of unit$ that would be involved in what Cantrup i$ propo$ing concerning the var- iance tran$fer$ of lodge unit$ when and where they would occur. It would be appropriate to open the public hearing at thi$ time with the$e item$. Bill Dunaway que$tioned that $ome of language in the pro- pO$ed TDR i$ the $ame a$ in the Hou$ing Overlay and what happen$ in two ordinance$ like that, do they drop tho$e out when it i$ found? Ron Stock, City Attorney commented the rea$on there i$ the $ame language i$ there are into two $eperate $ection$ and the only clear way to write tho$e amendment$ i$ to $how that the language $ to be a$ meant. In the fir$t $ection with the FAR change, we tack- ed on an additional $entence $0 there i$ a duplication of the beginning of the amendment in that $entence. Then in the $econd $ection there i$ an additional $entence at the end of paragraph (al, and at the end of the final docu- ment that $tate$ that tho$e lodge$ con$tructed a$ part of the 30% bonu$ would be $ubtracted from the lodge alloca- tion$ in following year$, $0 that portion wa$ changed and there wa$ no other clear way to $how that detailed amend- ment if in fact the TDR'$ were not pa$ted, would have no effect on the exi$ting language. Al Bloomque$t pre$ented hi$ $ummary report concerning the count of number$ of unit$ involved in the variance tran$- fer of lodge unit$ but $ince information i$ coming in every day the$e will be refined further. The lodge$ handled by Management Companie$ and location$ i$ $till not final. The information from the A$pen Central Re$ervation$ rating $urvey data and the City Finance Department will do a compari$on by volume of receipt$ and city $ale$ tax $hould $how the information needed. At thi$ time it look$ like about half of the lodging i$ non-conforming. Ander$on a$ked A$hley what nlliuber of unit$ time$ two are on line equaling pillow$, are we talking about a$ the immediate impact to the TDR'$? A$hley an$wered, the total number of unit$ from our impact to the TDR'$ i$ approx- imately 96 unit$. There ha$ been $ome concern expre$$ed about re$triction$ and what i$ the incentive to do any- thing to maintain the exi$ting lodge$. We propo$e the following; 1. We have to come before the P & z and the City Council to be tran$ferred and approve what we are ......... -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORII!O C.F.HOECKEla.B.&l.CO. Special Meeting A$pen Planning and Zoning Commi$$ion December 11, 1979 wanting to do with the propertie$ in que$tion. 2. ~e are then willing to $ubject to periodical in$pection$ by the City Hou$ing Director for continued upkeep and con- cern of employee hou$ing. 3. Then we $hould have ten (10) daY$ to fix or appeal any problem$ found and if not taken care within the ten (10) daY$, the city can fix it and do an a$$e$$ment of any CO$t to U$ and era$e any fear$ to doing anything other than $tated. 4. The object of all thi$ to what is happening on the hill, ba$ically the area i$ around the continental Inn and A$pen Inn and i$ to be a beautiful fir$t cla$$ conference center, a full 1/3 of the $pace will be devoted to public conference area$, with 500 to 600 unit$ in the enter project including the GMP allocation$ and the TDR program. To ma$ter plan will be key to TDR program to create conference area$ and employee hou$ing to compen$ate all need$. Lee Pardee que$tioned Karen Smith to having a review pro- cedure $imilar to the one in the Housing Overlay in the TDR procedure. Karen Smith $tated thi$ would be a good idea to be put in the TDR a$ in the Overlay criteria. Welton Ander$on commented that point and the other point$ A$hley brought $hould be incorporated into the Ordinance with a Zoning Enforcement Officer to enforce the condi- tion$ of an approval, to maintain continued fundimental condition$. Al$o, the rea$on for wanting the figure$ from A$hley in the developement of thi$ ordinance was from the concern of the lodge owner$ and now we $ee the impact of tran$ferring 180 unit$ i$ not near the extent we thought and I can't $ee that there will be $uch an impact. McDonnell felt it $eem$ by the comment$ made by the $mall lodge owner$, i$ feeling very threatened becau$e they can not upgrade more than 10% and then with the TDR'$ they would be able to be offered huge amount$ of money to $ell out and pO$$ibly the $mall lodge would become extinct. Maybe what we $hould be looking at i$ to whether these $hould be a non-conforming U$e and can we give them $ome alternative$ to become upgraded and a$ threatened by the big money. Olof Hed$trom felt it i$ important that the TDR'$ and an ordinance e$tabli$hing them need$ con$idered in relation to the total problem of the lodging industry in A$pen and in relation to the total community and re$ort area$ need$. Al$o, it i$ obviou$ the lodging community want$ a work $e$$ion to work out the que$tion$ and difference$. Parry Harvey commented he ha$ been working with the Lodging A$$ociation and feel$ the major concern i$ of inability to rai$e money to improve the $mall lodge$ to make them competitive and maintain them a$ lodges. The bank$ do not like non-conforming U$e$, limited to % that can be remod- eled and they are looking for method$ for rai$ing the needed money. The TDR could be an$wer to $mall lodge$ converting to employee hou$ing by $elling and giving fund$ for partial solution. Bill Dunaway a$ked if it i$ pO$$ible under thi$ ordinance to $ell off three or four TDR'$ or would it be the whole lodge? Ron Stock an$wered if you re$trict the property by ordinance$, you mU$t be very clear and $pecific to do $0 and make certain the TDR ha$ the value and can not be """"' -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORII50 C.F.HOECKEl&.B.&l.CO. Special l1eeting A$pen Planninq and Zoninq Commi$$ion December 11, 1979 $old to $omeone without $tating $uch, but if you are going to do $0, you have to have a ba$e$. Klar felt the TDR i$ a good method to $olving many pro- blems and concern$ by both the lodge community and the need$ of the overall community, but there $hould be a re- view involved to protect everyone concerned a$ be$t PO$- $ible with $ome guideline$. Pardee agreed and felt we have to deal with each ca$e $eperately and reviewing will help with parking problem$. Roger Hunt commented he i$ potentially favorable to the Cantrupe Project, but concerned about writing an ordinance that put$ the $mall lodge owner$ in a pO$ition to be bought up by large concern$ and see no safety factor in thi$ ordinance a$ yet and will we be able to take care of $uch problem$ in a review proce$$ and que$tion the writing a law that i$ $0 general and might loo$e the community of $mall lodge$ by writing this law to accommodate one pro- ject. There need$ to be a better way to finding a channel for thi$ project to go to and do we need to write an ordi- nance $uch a$ thi$ to accommodate thi$ project. Ron Stock $tated that our code already allow$ den$ity transfer and the argument i$ for an ordinance that would have youe give a bonu$ with FAR a$ well a$ being able to build 30% more lodge in return for deed re$tricted employee hou$ing. Do you want to allow them the right to keep the property and recon$truct a$ employee hou$ing and grant the bonu$? The que$tion i$ to whether you are going to allow that incentive bonu$ to make certain a$ to employee hou$ing rather than $omething el$e. Hunt que$tioned if thi$ i$ de$irable to non-conforming U$e$ then how doe$ it apply and $hould we get a lodge preservation clau$ along with this ordinance? Stock an$wered the problem the lodge community ha$ need$ three or four change$ to be made in city code$ and ye$ we $hould. Maybe the Growth Manage- ment Plan i$ a way to give the $mall lodges allocation$ to continue exi$ting. Helton Ander$on felt the impact of the figure$ provided $eem to be pO$itive to the effect$ of employee hou$ing and a method to provide that hou$ing quickly. We need to $olve the employee hou$ing problem now and review later the problem$ becau$e the fact$ remain the $ame. Harvey felt it i$ important to have a$ many $pecific$ of the TDR outlined in the ordinance for $omeone who i$ con- $idering doing thi$ can evaluate what hi$ $tati$ might be before approval i$ given. Shouldn't there be a time table between the time of creation of lodge room$ and the creation of employee hou$ing. Thi$ should be included in the ordinance with defined $pecific$ to in$ure time lag$ from happening for all concerned. Hunt felt we need to $pecify the bonu$ accuring according to retention by unit$ or bedroom$, to figure ratio and redefine unit $0 to balance concept. Lee Pardee felt once a TDR application ha$ been made, they need to make a$ many employee unit$ a$ can be done within the outline and everyone $hould get the $ame bonu$. .,..L., -4- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORII 50 C. F. HOECK~l B. B. 1\ l. co. Special Heeting A$pen Planning and Zoninq Commi$$ion December 11, 1979 and if they don't comply with what we $ee i$ needed then they don't get the bonus. McDonnell agreed becau$e if we make it a % of employee unit$ they retain then it $hould be on the $pace that is being converted to employee hou$ing and then we can review. Olof Hed$trom a$ked for$traw vote on Lee'$ recommenda- tion. Joan Klar agreed and felt there need$ to be the guideline$ and we can $ee what need$ to be changed at the time$ nece$$ary. Parry Harvey agreed and to jU$tify the purcha$e of the lodge and the renovation to employee housing, you have to give the economic incentive of that bonu$. Olof Hed$trom al$o agreed and felt the $implicity and directne$$ of thi$ is good. Welton Ander$on commented there i$ already a TDR in exi$tence in our code $tating if you have 14 lodge unit$ over here you can build 14 lodge unit$ over there and the review criteria procedure will help but, legally now exi$t unit to unit transfer. Roger Hunt agreed but, argued a$ to the employee hou$ing unit$ being rental unit$ then the city $hould retain the right not to allow condominiumization. Olof Hed$trom que$tioned the i$$ue of condominiumization and a$ked for $traw vot~concerning thi$ i$$ue. Parry Harvey agreed the condo i$$ue and employee hou$ing with TDR's and $upport the principal of condominiumization for the owner and in$ure the upkeep. Lee Pardee felt the $ug- ge$tion of having the ability of retaining the condominium approval privilege in the ordinance in the future. Harvey agreed he ha$ no problem with that concept. Ron Stock commented that ParrY'$ propo$al$ might be already included in the documentation but the requirement i$ that newly created dwelling unit$, the deed re$tricted one$, mU$t be in compliance with all current adopted building code$. There i$ a problem however, with taking the lodge unit$ off the market and under thi$ proce$$ thi$ ordi- nance wa$ drafted with the idea of recon$tructing the lodge unit$ into re$idential dwelling unit$ then deed re- $trict them then after all i$ done and the CO i$ i$$ued then would have to write the building permit on the lodge. Olof Hed$trom que$tioned the concern of $ub$equent condo- miniumization of the employee hou$ing and wi$h to make $ure thi$ comes before U$ at time of origin. Stock com- mented, what you really want i$ the property owner to give you a covenant that run$ with the land for the benefit of the city that $aY$ they can't condominiumize without city approval and that approval plu$~re$t in the $ound di$cre- tion of the city. A court would probably uphold that agreement with a contract of $pecial developement to give a balancing effect. We can a$$ume that in one of the next two $e$$ion$ of the General A$$embly, that they will adopt a $tate gtatutethat will include any city of deny- ing any condominiumization or controlling it in any manor, much le$$ having anyone $ubmit an application to you. Thi$ ha$ come before and will again, it'$ called the Uniform Condominium Act, and it will be pa$$ed eventually. Lee Pardee commented that even if that $tatute pas$e$, thi$ is a contract $tating we will give the TDR'$ if agreed not to condominiumize, that $hould remove it from the relm of the $tatute. Ron stock $tated that actually it may $tart the concept of a$king for $eperate contract$ -5- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!O C.F.HOECKEle.e.lll.CO. Special !1eeting A$pen Planning and Zoning Commi$$ion December 11, 1979 on every developement right. Welton Ander$on commented he felt we need $omething like a contract for the rea$on to deny condominiumization and maybe jU$t the Inclu$ion of the word in the title of thi$ Ordinance, deed re$tricted rental hou$ing, may give U$ the $afeguard including the contract. Olof Hed$trom a$ked for a poll on whether we will require a preference for a whole project in the total lodge or not and find that we do not want to $tate a preference of that kind in the ordinance. Karen Smith $tated there i$ the item of the draft of the TDR provide$ a FAR increa$e, which i$ greater than that which you are con$idering for the Hou$ing Overlay. It $aY$ under the Housing Overlay you can go up to a 1.25 to 1 FAR and with u$ing the tran$ferable developement right$, thi$ provision $aY$ you may go up to 1.50 to 1. by $pecial review. Thi$ i$ a bigger FAR in the lodge di$trict and we added thi$ language and that i$ by $pecial review perhaps matters could be con$idered ca$e by ca$e ba$e$. What i$ important is that you are offering three incentive$ through thi$ provi$ion; 1.) 1.3 to 1 bonu$ lodge unit$, 2.) 1.25 to 1 through the employee hou$ing overlay in term$ of an FAR incentive, 3.) 1.5 to 1 i$ the ceiling with and may approve a$ to limit. Olof Hed$trom a$ked to $tate in the ordinance a$ to 1.5 a$ the limit and may approve a$ to limit and all agreed. Lee Pardee asked for a $tatement $aying the parking i$ of great concern and the review criteria will con$ider the neighborhood of the to be converted unit, and that criteria requirement$ maybe part of what run$ with the land. To add to the concern$ of the commis$ion, Olof Hed$trom $tated the immediate and continued impact on the neighbor- hood ri$ing from the condition and upkeep, the mainte- nance and appearance of the employee hou$ing. Olof Hed$trom commented that thi$ ordinance open$ the door for the ab$orbtion of all the $mall lodge$ and to find a $olution to the $mall lodge, it will only work by ending them, thi$ di$courage$ it and we don't want to do thi$. The only off$et would be $trong and affir- mative action of a LOdging Pre$ervation and I will vote for thi$ a$ amended and revi$ed with $ome in$urance that rapid and pO$itive action toward$ the pre$ervation of the $mall lodge$ be pU$hed. All agreed with thi$ matter. Roger Hunt moved to table action have a complete and correct copy Nancy McDonnell $econded, all in to Tue$day, and until we of the TDR to approve. favor. Motion approved. Lee Pardee moved to adjourn the All in favor, motion approved. 7:25 P.M. meeting, Hunt $econded. Meeting adjourned at , ~~~~ Sandi Meredith, Deputy City Clerk