Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19820817 '""' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKEL8.B.lI:L.C? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 1982 The Planning and Zoning Commission had a regular meeting on August 17,'82 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers of City Hall. Perry Harvey called the meeting to order with members Welton Anderson, Al Blomquist, Roger Hunt, Lee Pardee, Jasmine Tygre and Pat F~in present. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS - Roger Hunt comments on the Ski Corp. excellent job of reconturing around their extension by Lift 1. Perry Harvey comments on the development schedule of the Jerome Hotel. Pat Fallin asks for a tenative schedule of what the P&Z may be discussing during a months period. PUBLIC HEARING - HOTEL JEROME - REZONING/CONDITIONAL USE Perry Harvey opens the public hearing. Alan Richman goes through the major comments of his memorandum of August 11, 1982. The first thing he mentioned in his memo are the seven conditions under which Council approved this project. They deal with: 60 spaces of parking on site, four deed restricted employee units within the hotel, 15 employee bedrooms off site, applicants store and construc- tion materials on site, applicant installing a compaction facility for trash purposes, providing sidewalks on Monarch and Bleeker and taking care of trees on Main St., providing the Board with information on height, mass and bulk of the building and providing a detailed solution to circulation problems on Main and Mill. Richman gives a summary of these major comments. The memorandum of Aug. 11, 1982 is entered into the public record for review. Lee Pardee said that they have been presented with 8 conditions recommende( by the Planning office. It seems to Pardee that if they give the applicant and annual review it is not up to the P&Z to solve the applicants problems but that the applicant has agreed to certain things and he will be held to that. Richman said that the responsibility to that will have to be in the P&Z agreement that will be drafted and worded very carefully. Tom Wells, project architect, gives a general description of the renovatioI and addition to the Hotel Jerome. Herb Kline is concerned about the impact on Bleeker St. regarding the loading area. He is wondering if there is another alternative way that truck loading can be accomplished perhaps on Monarch through the alley way to avoid the slope problem. Perry Harvey continues the public hearing on the rezoning and the expansioI until the next meeting Sept. 7, 1982. Harvey said that the Commission members will go through the parking issue and then the employee housing etc. to give input to the Planning office and to give an idea to the appli- cant of what the P&Z wants. Harvey said that the concern of the P&Z with the parking situation is that it won't "dove tail" and that those spaces will be available. Harvey said that the City doesn't allow any over night parking down there because of snow removal. Harvey asked if it would be conceivable that a lease arrangement could be worked out for spaces with a maintenance agreement on their part. Al Blomquist thinks that there should be some agreement with the City for both situations. This alternative should be included in an agreement so that the P&Z knows that the parking has been solved. Pat Fallin agrees with Blomquist in part, but she prefers not to leave it open ended so that the City has to create a parking structure. Alan Richman said that the City Manager would be able to attend the next meeting to explain where the City is going with the parking structure. Lee Pardee suggests that the wording on this condition shoud indicate that the applicant agrees to share the cost of the parking stucture. Perry Harvey comments on the employee housing aspect talking about an equitable arrangement, Harvey asked if the Planning office has any state- ment on a surplus or vacancy factor on emplyee housing lease arrangement by the Hotel, deed restricted employee housing. - 2 - Alan Richman said no, that W!\e! not tbe i.nterttion.heJ:e~,but that the intention was creation for the conversion of units. It is Richman's understanding that the applicant has gone forward and purchased and leaning in that direction a number of bedrooms. Perry Harvey asked if the Commission is comfortable with the height, FAR and the fact that the 25% open space is not specifically "green space" but is open space. Jasmine Tygre is concerned with the excess FAR. Jasmine said one of the clauses that was put into the draft is that under no circumstances will these expansions exceed the underlying FAR. Lee Pardee said that he concurs, however; after giving conceptual approval for 106 units and City Conncil having done the same, Pardee doesn't think that now the P&Z can say,well subsequent to the approvals we have re-looked at our FAR's Pardee said because of the Historical nature of the building, the P&Z can jnstify the FAR. Roger Hunt moves to table action on the Hotel Jerome proceedings and that includes preliminary PUD and public hearing and rezoning, conditional use and exemption of GMP allocations, the later of the public hearings starting on Sept. 7, 1982. Pat Fallin seconds. All in favor. GMP EXCEPTIONS CODE AMENDMENT Alan Richman of the Planning Office presents data, from in the City and in the unincorporated portion area of the metro area, what the growth has been and what commitments there are right now. Richman said that the Historic growth trend; free market has been about 34 a year for the last five years, employee unit about 26 a year, this is a total of 60 units a year. Richman said that these are the number of building permits. Richman said that a quota of 24,000 in the City and 15, 000 in the County or 39,000 in total metro area would result in somewhere in the range of about 125 to 135 employees generated 'each year. Richman gives a list of projects or commitments which are approved but have not yet been built. Richman continues to discuss four more major points that are clearly listed in his memorandum of August 9, 1982. Richman said that the P&Z is going to be making a decision as to whether the availability of a substantial free market competition is sacrosant to the commission or if the growth management community causes the P&Z to say" I've got to give somewhere because these other things either have been important or commitments have been made without necessarily recognizing just how much was commit ed, to along the way. Sunny Vann said that could be phrased or looked at a different way too, . that is not necessarily sacrosant but that in the short run we can't afford a growth rate more than this, applications for residential for what the understanding is about "short run" and the fact that there will probably have to have a quota allocation quota in all the commercial that there is in the declining previous subdivided lot consideration that will tend to indicate the appropriate decision to make at this time. Vann said that as it turns out that things don't work the way they think they will then obviously we will want to reconsider and come back into the process but simply look at what is happening and then make a decision. Perry Harvey said that they alII want to account for all of this growth, Harvey's concern is that the same thing happens that has happened in the lodge competition in the past; which was, we had no production in lodging and it deteriorated because there was no competition. Sunny Vann said that you have to look at the reasons why that happened why there was no lodge competition, in Vann's opinion they are different considerations. Vann said that a consideration was made at the time of the adoption quoting expansion of lodge employeesinappropriate at that' time. Alan Richman said that if you do see the build out of all these units which are back logged, then the concer about, well we are not getting any free market development, a large portion of that backlog is associated GMP. Richman said that the P&Z has awarded a substantial number of free market units, they just haven't been built. Perry Harvey said that they may never be built. AlaR Richman said they may never be built in which case they come back into the quota. Roger Hunt came up with an idea that he would like some comments on. We Hunt said that they have a potential of 581 in the backlog of single family lots and duplexes, what would happen if the determination of the quota, you took off right now those 'Rl units at the top, assuming that they are built tomorrow and ~icated your quota on that '-' , I ,~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKHS.a.l\o L. co. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17,'82 - 3 - basis, what ever that number is. Hunt said to assume that they are built for quota purposes then eliminate those from the quota because they are exempt from the quota even though we want to add them to the quota. Hunt said to add them to the quota now and then the ones that are left are the ones we have to deal with on an individual basis. Sunny Vann said that you would be pre-disposing that a certain number is actually going to come in each year in fact that lot doesn't come in then that availabilty goes to the free market developer. Alan Richman said that if you are trying to phase the number of units which are occuring in anyone year then you need to be accounting for that and not pushing it aside and leaving the rest of the free market. Roger Hunt said that what in effect it does is reduce the annual quota. Hunt said that you would have a lesser number to divide over the year. Perry Harvey asked Sunny how the P&Z can look at a wording in units in a competition if wev'e got this kind of backlog. Harvey said that what he thinks Vann is saying is talking about the future and the past is, we ought to just suspend growth management competition on the assumption that this is going to be... ~. Sunny Vann said that the P&Z is at a point now where they can still turn this around "your not so far out of the barn that you've got to stop all of your allocations. What we are saying is that given the constraints you can still sustain the basic growth rate, you've improved the growth management plan but P&Z has to do the following things: It means X amount of growth, you make certain priorities already, whats left over, whats available, free market residential, the county and free market commercial. All the Planning office is saying is that when they put that in place they think they can get P&Z through the crunch in the short run based on the decisions that you make here. Vann said that a question they need to look at now is what is the contin- ual implication of the growth rate that P&Z has adopted, what does that build out look like, if the P&Z thinks that is fine in fact there ought to be more then you could re-evaluate the quotas, if you think it ought to be less, all the Planning office is trying to do now is get you through the remainder of the decade with the fiscal constraints that you have in place and still try to meet the major priorities and provide for competi-i tions in all the areas. Then you come up with a scenario that does that. It may not be as great as it has been in the past but then if you continue on the road that you had in the past you're not going to make it through the end of the decade. Roger Hunt said that maybe what the P&Z should know then is the number of quote units available and the different utilities. Sunny Vann said that the Planning Office could come up with an absolute number and then the the P&Z could make a decision to work on it to deplete it faster or slower. Roger Hunt said that in other words we come up to a spot early and stop, until we reach that point or what? Sunny Vann said well what we have essentially done, and what we have said is; in talking with the sanitation district for example, what can you physically do, what are your plans? They have given to us mid-decade expansion, which hopefully gets us through the end of the decade. The planning office has come up with a series of quotas which essentially will attract that time thing. Perry Harvey asked if thereare any more comments from the commission. Welton Anderson said there are 581 units out there that could be built on duplex lots. Anderson asked if the basis for this document that we take the total available build-out of the entire town instead of 15 years. Anderson said that 581 units is 58 units for the next ten years. Sunny Vann said but that is not the total buildout, that is just single family duplexes exempted from growth management. Welton Anderson said I know and that is still 58 units over the next ten years though. - 4 - Sunny Vann said that the point he is making is that we are walking away from remaining builtouts spread over time. Alan Richman said that the P&Z is saying that my 581 is higher than what was indicated. Welton Anderson said that the 581 is accurate. Richman said yes it is and he believes that the number that is in the Growth Management Plan reflects total freeze subdivided by the County as opposed to City owned. Richman said that 581 is City and is condition- ed by County. Richman said that he has given the P&Z what metro is, which is now 191. Welton Anderson said that given the current rate of 60 units a year when are we going to run out of sewage capability given our growth rate? Alan Richman said well I think that is what Sunny is saying that if you keep going with the trend line which you are at; the anitation district has to make the expansion which they are in the process of making now that will get them mid-decade, i.e. about 1985, at which point about four million gallons a day, which is really the effective capacity of the ABC plan. At that point they are stuck and will have to make major decisions; to make a decision to reopen the plant on Mill St. and to make a decision to go some where else. That decison based on the trend line will happen sometime in the early 1990's. If we are growing faster or if the units which have already been approved come in then it will hap- pen sooner. Sunny Vann said that the point we have been making for elected bodies is that you can use that up faster than you choose to, we are not saying that you shouldn't we are saying that you should be aware of the implications i if you decide to build-out quicker. Vann said that the line they have been getting is; given what we know about the fiscal const~aints of the community other competition, given what we know about the Federal money at this particular time, we figure it would be foolish to plan for a build- out. Alan Richman said, just one last thing; we keep using the sewage con- straint, it is real easy to measure and it is an operative one right now there is a capacity constraint that we know of, but it is real symptomatic of the other constraints which Richman finds are alot harder to pinpoint. Lee Pardee said his question is; if the 3.5% growth rate did not contend in the first place is to take into account those previously subdivided units. Pardee said that the Planning office is adding in "apples and oranges". Alan Richman said that it did intend to account for and the system did at all times did expect to account for growth on previously subdivided lots, but you are making an allowance that it would occur and it would have to occur through the competition process because... you have never had 39 available on January 1, you have always deducted that which has occured outside our previous accepted. Sunny Vann said that the argument that the 20% rule probably approximate that which is unavaiable then you kick back in and carryover and so-forth you probably will have a reasonable quota. Welton Anderson said that the 39 figure was a low shot and they didn't obviously add up all the available build-out on lots as well as of the exempts. Alan Richman said that Sunny just said that it was only supposed to be 80% of total. It didn't account for 100% build-out. Welton Anderson said that what 39 is like over 15 years is close to 12% or 13% of the 581 that are still available to be built-out, exempt from GMP. Sunny Vann said that you have to remember how the quota evolved; a policy decision, if you remember correctly the lodge is actually less than 18 when it first came out it was 11, it got bit up in process but the concept never changed. All the Planning office is saying is that the original plan not with standing, you are going to maintain the growth rate over there, well it seems to be about all you can and you want to make commitments with respect to certain services, then you need to bring a whole other Growth Management, both the City and the County and you need to establish new quotas which have a realistic chance of getting you there. Welton Anderson said that he was looking at 39 and 21, which were the figures that 21 is what the planning office says will be generated by the new GMP for commercial. Sunny Vann said yes for Maximum build-out. Vann said the planning office thinks they can accomodate what basicly is in the trend line. Vann said that he will have to remeber the trend ,- , I' ,-. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM I' c. F. HOECKEL a. 8.ft L. CO. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 1982 - 5 - line too. The City Council has adopted a 24,000sq. ft. commercial growth rate which has been experiencing 46,000, even so that is below the trend line. The County is talking about l5,000sq. ft. quotas and the trend line has been approximately 2,000 so you are making some internal modifications to accomodate your priorities but still stay within the adopted growth plan. Perry Harvey asked Alan Richman to give a brief run-down on the the draft resolution. Alan Richman said on the second page of the Resolution as in the first three lines, the first sentence is the existing language of the recon- struction,everything below it is new. The Planning office has removed anything from there about changing the use, they are simply talking about why there is now expansion of commercial floor area. Richman said that b) is the historic section and the first line and a half there are the existing language. After that they have added the review by view and the mitigation by the applicant. Richman said that c, d, and e are unchanged from the existing section of the Code. F~ is essentially the new employee housing section which incorporates several existing sections but doesn't really have a change in what is allowed for employee housing to be exempt from the quota from the competition with the exception that the 85:15 is not there. The 70:30 is still there. H) is the commercial and it is not changed.I) is also unchanged. The proviso for below I) is the metho- dology the P&Z asked for. It specifically talks about the Building Inspector gives the Planning office the monthly report, which the plan- ning office compiles into an annual report which includes demolition and constructions, and demolitions get deducted, added into the quota, and construction gets deducted from the quota. In section 2, J is new, which is the ability to exempt a unit from the quota if you determine that the quotas could not accomodate. Lee Pardee asked if that was for all employee units, meaning that has to be 100% employee. Alan Richman said no, it doesn't say that at all. Sunny Vann said that it basicly says that if a project is a definite magnitude to impact the quotas, but if you still want to approve it and you would grant approval contingent upon (something Council)? Alan Richman said that all section three does is removes two sectioas of the Code which were entirely redundant. Richnan said that employee housing was a section where the Planning office reinterated that employee housing is exempt from the quota. Roger Hunt has a few comments regarding paragraph A, Hunt thinks that it should be included in there because the so-called redevelopment fee redefined as new development under the GMP, in other words let them know what the consequences are. Then on H, what concerns Hunt are the two staging of the Ski Corp Lift One and Hunt thinks that somehow it should be stated that for some reason they did a two staging process that everything that was approved for there original 250 feet, sq. ft. comes under review for the total of 500 sq. ft. Perry Harvey said that he believes that there is language in there that specifically stated that it was a one time deal. Welton Anderson said that that wasn't the intent, the intent was that there be no more than 500 sq. ft. total per perpetuity exempted. Anderson said that the way this has been interpreted by the 3uilding Dept. is if you come in for twenty five square feet once then you blow your whole chance to go for the other footage. Anderson said his other question about this is how it is listed in other parts of the Code that you cannot increse the non-conformity of a building that is already in the FAR. Anderson said that there should be something in there saying that it is not, that the addition is not in conflict with under- lying areas. Alan Richman said that he think~ Vann is right about the general provisior - 6 - of GMP oversees all of these, it says that you have to get the plans from zoning. Sunny Vann said that it says growth management not withstanding. This just gives the right to build but everything else has to be quiet area and bulk, parking. Richman said that bulk kiils us when we cross reference everything in the Code because as the we change sections of the Code, the cross reference doesn't get changed and the Code becomes more difficult to read. Perry Harvey said that he has a problem with section A remodel and res- toration, it is stated that this language takes care of the situation where an existing residence is converted into a commercial use or vice-versa. The actual language states that you can remodel, recon- struct as long as there is no expansion of commercial floor area nor creation of additional dwelling units. Harvey doesn't understand that if someone has a residence that they want to convert to commercial, that certainly doesn't add and additional dwelling unit but it does add commercial floor area. Sunny Vann said let us say this is a 2,000 sq. ft. resi~ence, in terms ot our land use code it is a 2,000 sq. ft. residence. If he was to con- vert that to a 2,000 sq. ft. commercial space he has incresed com- mercial space he has not increased the size of the structure but he has converted to commercial space, and this says provided there is no expansion of commercial floor area. Vann said so if there wasn't floor area to start with in terms of our Code and now it is 2,000sq. ft. thenwe certainly have increased the amount, vice versa applies as well ~lan Richman said that you cannot change the use to create a dwelling unit or to create commercial floor. Perry Harvey said that they discussed this before, if a guy takes a commercial building and he is turning it into a residence. He is doing two things as Harvey sees it under growth management; He is reducing the commercial square footage, which therefore reduces employee generation and he is creating residential which therefore is a benefit to the residential pool and yet you are saying that the commercial square footage, the 2,000 sq. ft. he gives out goes in to the allocation system that everyone can compete for and he has to go in and compete for the residential unit and there was a lot of discussion at that time for some form of credit or impact review being done so that that type of change is equitable, otherwise we have alot of residences in the office zone and alot of different... Welton Anderson said that there was a lodge that never went back into the lodge pool. Perry Harvey said that there is an impact related to the change and that impact should be evaluated and there should be some kind of system of review where persons doing something like this.. Sunny Vann said let's say you are a house in the down town area, obviously there is an impact...right now it is precluded, in other words you don't have 1500 sq. ft. of credit for commercial; you can tear it down and get credit for a single family but if you want to convert it to commercial you must compete for it. Perry Harvey said that if you go the other way there is a positive impact. Sunny Vann said that right now you are saying that there is a house there to tear down and if you want to build commercial you must compete with square footage which you're building. Vann asked if what Harvey is saying is that perhaps that is not appropriate and there ought to be someway to convert that single family house credit into so much commercial space based on evaluation of the impacts, is that what you are suggesting? Perry Harvey said yes something like that only the example Harvey is using is going the other way around. Sunny Vann said that he is willing to take a look at it but that he doesn't have an answer. Perry Harvey asked if there were any comments_ from the public. Spence Schiffer said that first of all on sec. A is the reconstruction. Schiffer said that last week they were discussing whether or not they could reconstruct a building on the same site or adjacent site or anywhere in the zone district. That hasn't been addressed. Schiffer said that Richman mentioned that the preface of his remarks that there was going to be some public comment on that. Sunny Vann said that he talked to Schiffer about this and once again ann will tell you the Planning office position on it; "We have always construed this provision that, based on what we understood, if you '--/ , , - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM <, C. F. HOECKEL 8. B. 8< L. ~O, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 1982 - 7 - tear something down on a lot say, you receive a credit for the building We are also taking the position that if an outfit owns two adjacent lots and you tear down on one lot and rebuild it on the adjacent lot, thats O.K. We have never dealt with the issue of tearing down on a lot and rebuilding it across town on another lot, which is essentially a transfer of development rights concept. Vann is not necessarily opposed to the concept but what he told Spencer sort of ranks up there with the kitchen issue and parking. It is a further new arm to this whole business which we have not had a chance to fully address. We had a City Attorney that put a letter out to an applicant that it could be done, but Vann does not believe that is the current belief of the existing attonney, rather than force the issue, what we can simply do is the first disposition until we get this resolved and then Vann will be glad to take a look at it rather than further complicating this concept Vann thinks Schiffer essentially agrees. Alan Richman agrees that if the P&Z and Planning office want it to be an on site only we should clarify that at this point in time. Perry Harvey asked the planning office if they want to clarilfy it as an on site only at this time? Alan Richman said that what the planning is that the TDR issuse isn't necessarily this isn't the appropriate place to deal deal with it at a TDR planning period. office is not dealing with TDR here and reconstruction of on-site. Sunny Vann said that they would have to put this on the back burner for a couple of weeks while thye try to figure out the other side issue. Spencer Schiffer said that what he understands Sunny to say is that we can deal with some of this now and that there is no problem with reconstructing on a lot or adjacent lot owned by the same property owner Sunny Vann said that iswhat the Planning office is recommending. ,Spencer Schiffer asked if they could do that right now? Sunny Vann said that he doesn't have a conceptual problem but what he is saying is that the TDR is extremely involved, 1:1 TDR such as tearing down a residence and rebuilding across the town, which involves other TDR,the Planning offcie is just not ready to get into it. Spencer Schiffer said that he would like to give an example that points out that some of this becomes absurd; say I have two pieces of property, adjacent or one down the block from the other and they both would allow say four units and I have two units on one parcel and one unit on the other parcel. Schiffer said that he could under the presence of the Code take one, move one of the units over to the other lot, assuming he went through subdivision, he could move it over there then tear it down and rebuild it, so what he is saying is why can't he tear it down over there and rebuild it without having to go through that. Sunny Vann said that to simply deal with that one aspect of a mess opens a whole door of TDR. Perry Harvey asked for the Commissions feelings in terms of whether they should put some language in there about same site/adjacent site. Harvey asked if it is the City's position right now to give them this language assuming this were passed that someone could not tear down and build on an adjacent site? Sunny Vann said that it is there position that there is no TDR ordinance on the books. Vann said so what we have said is you buy a lot that has a house on it you buy an adjacent parcel, or for example there are lodges up there, five parcels which constitute the site, which there are a number of units on it, if you tear them down and reconstruct them on the site, you can't tear them down and move them beyond an immediately adjacent site. ~erry Harvey said that this language allows him to reconstruct on an adjacent site? Sunny Vann said at this point, Yes, under our interpretation of what it means. If you want to make it more explicit , we can do so. office is saying essentially a growth management issue and with it. Richman said lets Richman said that the Planning that they are only dealing with - 8 - Spence Schiffer just record, that you can Sunny Vann said that clar at this point. ~ark Danielson said that if you deduct employee housing in a certain quota you will effectively eliminate any residential quota in the future. If a person starts out with 39 residential units in the quota then from the historical basis you have 26 emloyee residential build-out for employee housing, now project 21 units in the commercial area and then you have some 5, 7 units which is probably low ended for the lodge quota, now that is 39 units total to start with and then you deduct all of the build out for that year for the previously subdivided lots which is some 15 to 20 units on the historical basis and then you end up first of all with some 21 units left over for a residential GMP quota, Now if you then deduct the commercial quota of 21 units and the lodge emplyee quota of five, seven units for a total of approximately 28 units 21 minus 28 is a negative 7 so the first thing is that we will effectively eliminate any residential quota and eliminate what we have been trying to develope over the years in terms of the residential growth manage- ment plan. Danielson said that another off shoot of that because there won't be any residential quota is that you won't get any employee housing buildout that normally comes from that residential quota which is about 26 units a year. So the second part is that you will also eliminate the employee housing goals that have been set for this community; and in addition to that,by eliminating the employee housing goals and eliminating the quota you will also negate the RBO. Danielson does not think that it is the intention or the purpose of the public policy goals at this point in time to eliminate the residential quota to eliminate the housing goals in the community and to eliminatw the RBO zone which is then talked about for years. Perry Harvey said that what they are talking about here is eliminating competition, what the presentation is is that they have enough already approved units that they will meet their construction goals, we won't have a competition in Aspen necessarily. Alan Richman said that there is no way that this would eliminate the RBO, the RBO doesn't come in necessarily under the competition purposes. Richman said that there is nothing about the availability of the quota, the applicants are well aware that they apply forwhatever their project requires and the quota determination is secondary, and what ever is avaiable is secondary to the scoring procedures. Richman doesn't think that anything about the availability... (everyone talks at once) Perry Harvey said, had that quota been eliminated through construction of previously approved units would we have had a competion.? ~lan Richman said of course you would have. Perry Harvey asked if Richman thinks they would have allocated? Richman said probably depending on the disposition of this BoarQ, Perry Harvey said that we are going through this argument over and over again and we're agreed we have to account for these units somehow and the problem is what does it do to avaiability, quota, competion, ? Sunnv Vann said that if you don't have a residential quota for a couple of years first thing that is going to happen is someone will say"go back to the books". The Planning office is telling you that you've got a problem and that you can resolve it by taking the actions we are recommending, if it doesn't work out we are going to change it, we are not trying to eliminate a residential quota. Vann said that if we don't have residential free market we don't get employee housing and all the sudden we are getting behind. The residential employee is earmarked to offset the additional interstructural needs caused as a result to the residential free market, if it does not occur implicit in that is you don't need the additional people, simply to argue that we've got have free market growth so that we can get a residential growth is a little bit misleading. Alan Richman said that particularly because we have all of five units produced through the residential GMP. Richman does not think that this has been a major contributer it has been an insignificant con- tributer to getting emplyee housing in this community. Gideon said that he would like to put a few facts on the record. Gideon said that all along we have been told that we are not reducing the residential 39 units, that was a statement that was made before P&Z and the City Council when we were examining the other things. Gideon thinks that the reality is that in effect we are producing the 39, the reality is that the reason the residential is getting hit is cause it was last, it is not because we did a calculated attempt to eliminate the wants this clarified and build on the same lot or is a good point and that to be sure it is in the an adjacent lot. the interpretation is - " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~l C. F. H OEn EL B. 8. 8< L. ~ o. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 1982 - 9 - he growth here but because it was the last thing left and we are getting to it now. Gideon's analysis is,is that what we are going to end up with is a situation where some years, and he doesn't think that it is legally defensible, you could end up with a residential quota of 1. because if all that is left is one the bonus doesn't kick in and you don't get your 8. The most you would end up with is 8 but now including employee housing it is 4:4. Gideon thinks that the problem here is not including the, the question including employee housing within the residential quota, Gideon is not contesting that, he thinks the issue is examining the 39 and coming up with a reality as far as growth within the residential community and he thinks that we want to do is not because residential is coming last and because we said we are look- ing at it eliminate the effect of residential development when Gideon thinks it is one of the lowest impacts. Gideon thinks that we need a quota that projects work on and he does not think that a quota for free market, when sum is one is realistic. The other point that he wants to make is the use situation. The growth management plan says that all other provisions of the zoning code not withstanding that should be constructed within the City of Aspen each year no more than following .constructed. Gideon thinks a very strong argument can be made____ of use was not by the Growth management plan. The concern that he has is this; if we take away the total flexibility, so if there was someone that wanted to rent 1400 sq. ft. in the hard economic times annd wants some flexibility within their commercial space to live; would we take that away from them. We reach a point and we have to say we can't regulate everything. We have come along way. We're regulating all the development of CC and C-l, we are including the employee housing with it. We have got to let the market place work a little bit we can't tie peoples hands to the eMtent where they have no flexibility left., and thats what Gideon is afraid we are doing. Welton Anderson asks again whether or not the 60 units a year had been built the last five years have created the crunch and if we contin- ued at that same rate would that send voters and tax-payers into bankrupt- cy to keep up with that rate by havinfg to accelerate to 60 instead of 39. Secondly if the figure is 21 to cover the commercial built- out unit, could not we leave the quota of 39 free market units and add another quota of 21 of employee units for a total o~ 60 which is what historically we have seemed to be able to have handeled. and we could handle in the future without accelerating the operating of the Alan Richman said that what he was saying is that we have already accel- erated the upgrading, the upgrading should have occured according to the ZOl plan which was adopted based on the GMP, the upgrading should have occured in 1990. The upgrading has to occur now. Richman said that we've substantially exceeded increasing capacity, and the reason is pre- cisely the opposite od what Gideon maintains. Residential is the highest impact particularly in terms of of water, sewer, and transportation. It is a pure and simple fact that the resident is the one that is the one causing the impact. Commercial is a key concern for one reas on because the commercial creates employees which become residents. It's the housing unit that is the key to understanding all the Seconcdly this whole thing about the 21 figure as being something new which is not , rememberthose employee housing units, the 26 or so that have been reduced year to year in the past that includes those units in the Mill st. station, Epicure etc. It is not as if all of the sudden you have employee housing requirembtrelating to the commercial GMP which before you never did. It is in that number of 60. What that number shows you is that you have nothing getting 39 unitsof free market construction during anyone year, it has not happened. The quota would not have gone away based on the free market. The reason you have ex- ceeded the quota has been the number of employee units which have gone outside of the quota and therefore you have allowed a certain level - 10 - of free market development aasumi.ng that :t'ou your quota. Rli:hhIllsn".'comments: on the last point that Gideon made.; this thing about ending up with one unit available for competition, Richman said that he is afraid that is the way it is right now. The way tbe system is right now, if there were thirty eight units built on previously subdivided lots in anyone year you would end up with one unit. If there were forty units built on previously subdivided lots you would end up with zero units available for competition. Wbat this system does, which nobody seems to be giving it credit for, is that it effectively increases your quota forty seven units. In effect everyone is saying that we are tightening down, this is a larger quota than what is available... Sunny Vann said to remember that the P&Z approved, for example and open Marolt, which the employee was not subtracted, but the free market was approved, assuming they went for a building permit today, that thirty units would wipe out an additional previously subdivided lot quotas for the next year or two. Perry Harvey said the thing that is going round and round here is that we are taking the commercial and lodge separate quota, we are taking an element of those, the housing and we're weighing it on to the third area for the growth management plan. Sunny Vann said let's talk about why we are seeing this; if you didn't get the residential growth,and you didn't need the free market and didn't need the commercial, which now additional residential then the free market residential would not be reduced in terms of actual They are inter-related and you cannot ignore the fact. Perry Harvey said that it is not free- market residential anymore but that it is residential. Sunny Vann said that is right. Perry Harvey said that another issue was brought up on the change of use. Harvey said that a very real point was made about the ability of somebody to use a portion of their building for housing, then change it back and it is a difficult thing to monitor unless someone turns their residence into a store. Harvey is not at all comfortable with... Sunny Vann said that given the fact that it is currently included " - and that it is extremely complex, Vann is more than willing to take a look at it. Perry Harvey asked if there is any public comment. Spence Schiffer said that he missed something before; in the reconstruc- tion section the wording now is remodeling, restoration, reconstruction of any building existing at the time of this regulation. Spencer is concerned about the confusion of the original language doesn't contain that, someone might say well your talking about the adoption of this amendment. Schiffer thinks that the wording should be at the time of the adoption, the original regulation, the GMP regulation. Sunny Vann said the idea being to go back and pick up those structures which have already been demolished? Spence Schiffer said that there is no impac, presumable you inventoried everything before the GMP, if you are going to reconstruct something that was inventoried there is no impact, Spence said that is how he under- stood this regulation Sunny Vann said that the inventory takes effect as of this regulation, that is what the Planning office had intended. Alan Richman said that his only concern was somebody that hadn't done a verification for unitssdemolished, there is no record of this. Spence Schiffer thinks that they should go back to the inception because anything that inventoried at that time... Alan Richman said anything that exists now... Spence Schiffer said even if it had been demolished prior to this date with the adoption of this regulation, still it would have no impact. Alan Richman said that he thinks Roger pointed out verify results in the loss. Roger's point about failure to verify the contents can result in the loss of that credit at this point in time. Spence Schif~er said thats right but what if you could demonstrate that the building existed and the unit existed, at one point in time. Alan Richman said if ther is a verification. Schiffer said if we come through P&Z and go through the Planning offices recommended procedure. Perry Harvey said only if you change this date back, that would allow him to verify it. Lee Pardee said the thing he doesn't like is the fact that it seems somewhat inconsistant that if we get down to no units we give 8 and if it gets down to 1 we give nothing - Pardee would like it to read instead that any time it goes below 20% of the quota, we will quarentee 20% , , " I -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKELB.B.I:I:L.CO. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, '82 - 11 - percent. That gives the people something to work for, they know they have a minimum of 8 units and we are already adding in all the employee units which will make the number lower and lower. Alan Richman said that Lee has a good point and it is one that the ~lanning office is starting to pick up on. Roger Hunt said that there is some point where you have to say "Well we got to stop: this brings to mind a planning tool that maybe judges how much much fuel in an aircraft, but what it is, is show the capacity of the sewer plant, if it jumps you show that jump in capacity, you have projected lines and the actual line and when reaches that plateau you have to say "stop folks, thats no development" and if they are going to continue on, 8 units even though we have really 0 that we should allocate, you are going to reach that point early where you are going to have to say stop. Hunt really thinks the Planning office should really come up with that type of tool to demonstrate the problem because he doesn't think that most people understand it. Alan Richman said that still it is not easy and it is one that must be decided whether zoning build-out makes sense. Sunny Vann said that it is a threshold concept which don't make public expenditures annually on an inclinintal basis but there is a point at which a major expenditure is required, some level of activity kicks in and that necessity for the public expenditure. Spence Schiffer said that the 1st time he brought up this question; under section B) from the quota the reconstruction or the changing use of the structure, which has received historical designation, such as the Hotel Jerome. Schiffer is particularly concerned about the impact that is going to have just as we were discussing the impact on the residential quota, Schiffer is not sure that has been specifically addressed, but that the time to deal with that is when it comes up and Schiffer thinks the time to deal with that is now. What is going to happen to the lodge quota, where is that going to come out , when the building permit is issued? Alan Richman said right. That would affect subsequent lodge quotas from that point in time. Spence Schiffer asked if that has been taken into account when the Planning office recommended the increase in the lodge quota. Sunny Vann said no because the.number of quota does not reflect how many projects we want to get built, how many you caN sustain based on the priorities. .SE.ence Schiffer said that his problem with this particular section is that this one is not the same as A for example where units have been inventoried, taken into consideration in determining the GMP quota and then you are rebuilding those units, here you can have an enlargement of a use, where you have a very limited control, and you can presumably use up one quota for a number of units. Sunny Vann said that is correct; you basicly have a prior P&Z and a Council that made a decission of the intention of a historic structure warranted exemption from competition but that its impact would have to be absorbed. Vann said that is an exemption that currently exists on the books, specifically to accomplish such things as an expansion of the Hotel Jerome. Vann said that you can easily argue that it is no different than anyone else that you be subject to competiton. Nonetheless it.is a policy decision that has been made and there is no way in Vann's mind that you can exempt from the quota, you can't have it both ways, so you are talking about an equal dupproc type of application across the board. Spence Schiffer said that there is a public interest here also, and trying to find a way to accomodate that puhlic interest in both aspects; one public interest being to increase the lodge facility and upgrade it and the other is to get the reconstruction. The only point is that Schiffer thinks that may~e there should be some separate quota for this - 12 - or there should be someway of dealing with this separate and as far from th~e lIJ<\rk.et. Roger Hunt asked, would it or would it not make sense to exempt outside of the GMP. They have that affect on the future allocation spread over a period of ten years. Now, that doesn't mean that whne you hit the red line, you cross the red line, you still have to stop, but as far as allocations up to that point, it has an affect of what... Sunny Vann said Marolt and the same thing, because there is nothing in the Code right now that says how do you deal with Marolt when it comes on the line. Right now you simply have to subtract the 38 units from the total quota. perrt Harvey closes the public hearing. Harvey wants to get the Commis- sion s consensus on some of these issues. Harvey asked Pardee, in that 20%, what do they feel about that because there is that problem of being able to get one unit but if you go to zero you go to eight. So, what you are saying is, deducted units get up over 80% of the allocations and that kicks in. Roger Hunt questions; what about the kicker of when we reach our point of no return. Perry Harvey said that there is no point of no return. Hunt said what about when we reach the capacity of the sewer plant. Harvey said that is not an absolute. What we are trying to do is paste the growth so that the expansion of the support facilities doesn'thave to occur before... Roger Hunt said I understand that but you are going to kick in 20% extra every year you are going to reach that point no further capacity before the time you planned. Sunny Vann said that there is an answer, the process we are doing, is essentially what you are saying. We are looking at it right now based on what on a regular basis continue to provide a quota system as necessary. Roger Hunt said O.K., so either you continue what you are doing and stop early or spread the remainder ... Perry Harvey is not comfortable with this whole issue. Harvey's source of discomfort is the fact that we are essentially eliminating competition because we are eliminating the quota. Harvey's real problem is that it doesn't make sense to have a quota when we have these pages of facts and figures that show us that the odds are that it has been exceeded every year and the odds are that it will be exceeded in the future. That is one source and the second source is that Harvey is uncomfortable with the commercial and the lodge competition impacting the residential competition because, I understand full well the reason that thats true. Harvey is still uncomfortable with it because we have three separate competitions. The reason we could have those three before was that we accepted the employee housing so that the commercial and lodge never impacted our residential competition, now we've got like a school yard gang or something. Lee Pardee asked Harvey, doesn't the fact that the past years active deducting previously subdivided lots, we may have had 15 and we are guarenteeing 8 now, we are going to have a competition, regardless of employee units regardless of the amount of previously subdivided lots or anything like that. What I am saying is that is the minimum level. Sunny Vann said that is the minimum of what you left in that years quota but it is not the minimum of what can be awarded. Perry Harvey asked if Pardee felt comfortable enough to act on this this evening. Al Blomquist said that he feels very comfortable with it and he thinks that what they have done is put it alII into one accounting system that the separate competitions and the accounting system don't quite fit, but in the next year or two because we have the accounting system which we didn't have and because we have the whole universe in other words everything is now in it, we will be able to ~ake very s skillful adjustments in the future because the system exists and it will bring us to concepts of balance for the town. Roger Hunt is ready to act on this, but the only thing that he is uncom- fortable with is that we have allocations , or the potential allocations in excess of capacity and the only thing Hunt would like to see in it that that be tracted and when we reach that zero point of that be remaining for one more unit thats when everything stops and we should put it out in black and white. Perry Harvey said that we are going to have a review, we are putting this on a monitoring basis and that is obviously going to be an element thqt is going to come before us; Harvey said that what Hunt is asking them to do is to develope some graphic guidelines that will keep us '-' ,/ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'D C.F.HOECKELB.B.IIl.CJ. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, '82 - 13 - tracking on where we are, We don't want them to walk in and say, guess what happened yesterday. You want them to say... Sunny Vann said that the assumption is that if you adoptquota as is and what we here from sanitation district is correct, if you want to monitor that is not going to happen. Vann said the only thing that would make it change would be a major project, which you have decided to improve for some community need which you ask us to go back in and look at the impact and we come say you can go ahead and do it if you want. Jasmine Tygre agrees with Al Blomquist, she feels quite comfortable with the overall approach. Jasmine understands what there may vbe concern about is that in effect other competitions are going to be from the residential quota would not necessarily be for the resi- dential portion of the impact that they~e going to have. Tygre said that Al pointed out that we may therefore have to start revising the scoring to make it more consistent so that we don't get a situation where commercial property provides X amount of employee housing takes away from a project which had employee housing of a higher quality but that it is in a different category. Tygre thinks that the mechanism that exists for 6eing ah1e to do that. Welton Anderson said that he still has a real hard time lumping the employee quota in with the free market quota that was based on the in this document. If sixty units a year cannot be accounted by the sanitation district, then he would like to know what can. Anderson thinks that it is arbitrary to take a quota that the free market the last five years and also Anderson is really worried about the effect it is going to have on the half of the Aspen economy that is not tourist related. Anderson thinks that there has got to be a figure somewhere betwen 39 and 60. Sunny Vann said that he has two final comments. Vann said that the timing of this may help to e1eviate some of the problems that originally were coming back to the P&Z, coming back to you are-recommendation the dates of all the competitions in the City and the County should take place based on the difference of number due-process each type of applica- tion you have to go through and the building seasons. Normally the res- sidential comes first. Vann said that the other one is that you have to remember that the Planning office didn't start exempting employee housing from the quota, in 1979 when we decided we had employee housing problems, the concept of the planning is that that is growth and it all comes out. Perry Harvey entertains a motion on this. Roger Hunt moves to have the Planning office write a final draft of Resolution 82-9 for approval. Al Blomquist seconds. All in favor except Welton Anderson. Roger Hunt moves to table action on Timesharing until next Tuesday. Pat Fallin seconds. All in favor. Perry Harvey said that the next item of business is the initial public hearing on the relocation of the County/City Building Department. Colette Penne said that the City/County Building