Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19811119Mayor Edel called the special meeting to order with Councilmembers Knecht, Michael and Parry present. Sunny Vann, planning director, said the first item on the agenda, Aspen Inn request for an amendment to the 1978 G~P, has been tabled' for several months for the staff to be able to make decisions as to whether or not the application complies with the city's zoning regulations. The applicant has been compiling additional information, the staff thought this was complete but the building department has problems with the latest submission. The staff requests this be tabled until this matters can be taken care of and be tabled to a date uncertain. When the applicant notifies the staff, this will be scheduled for Council. Council agreed. Vann told Council the second item, the 1982 lodge competition, there have been two appeals. Both applicants have appealed the process. Vann said the staff was prepared to present this; however, the continuing staff review of the Aspen Inn GMP amendment for 1978 has raised some questions regarding the 1982 application for further extension of the 1978 project, which may or may not relate to this particular appeal. This may make some portion~ of the appeal a moot issue. The staff has contacted both applicants for the 1982 lodge quota and is requesting additional information from the Aspen Inn in order to make final determination as to whether this will affect this year's appeal. Staff is also requestin~ this be tabled to a date uncertain until staff can resolved 1982's Aspen Inn submission. Council agreed to table this. 1982 QUOTA/GMP Alan Richman, planning office, told Council normally determining the quota would not be of much controversy. There are several sections of the Code which provide methodology for staff to calculate the quota in lodge, residential and commercial. This has to do with the number of units constructed, those not allocated in the past, those which have been rescinded or have expired, those available on!a yearly basis, which is 18 lodge units. Richman presented a memorandum explaining the methodology of calculating this year's lodge quota as well as a 1980 memorandum from Ron Stock who helped establish the methodology to calculate lodge quotas. In 1979 there were 14 units available; there were also some expired allocations since Mountain Chalet did not go ahead with its plan. Therefore, there were 30 units available in 1980 for the 1981 competition. This would suggest that these 30 units were carried over to this year, as well as the 18 units available for this year for a total of 48 units. There is a potential for 33 per cent bonus on this year's alloca- tion, Which is a potential 6 unit bonus. This total 54 units for this years competition. Richman told Council when the city Council made the first allocation in 1978, it made two awards for lodge; one to the Aspen Inn for 36 tourist units and 24 employee units; the second award was to the Mountain Chalet for 8 tourist and 8 employee units. This was a total of 60 units to the Aspen in and 16 to the Mountain Chalet. The way the Code read at that time was that all the units, not just the tourist units, were subtracted from the quota. This is not the procedure followed at the current time. Currently only the free market tourist units are deducted from the quota. The appeal that has been presented for the lodge quota is that the 24 employee units granted to the Aspen Inn should not in 1978 have been deducted from the lodge quota. The applicant is asking Council to return those 24 units to the lodge quota to be available for this year. The applicant has stated, to justify bringing these 24 units back into the quota, is that employee units are now exempt from the quota and are not deducted. The applicant has also stated even if these should appropriately be deducted as employee units they are not lodge units, they are housing residential units. At a minimum, the applicant requests those units be deducted from the residential, not the lodge quota. The staff, in reviewin~ this appeal, is concerned about looking back at an action when in 1978 the Council, by resolution, said very clearl~ that those units shOuld be taken from the quota and should be taken from the lodge quot~. The resolution suggests year by year how each of those units could be made up and iqdicated there would not be a competition in 1979 as a result of the ~nits coming out. There would be a certain amount of units available in 1980 and in 1981, the resolution set ~he exact procedures on what quota would be available on a year to year basis. Richman told Council in the 1978 GMP ordinance, there were very different employee housing exemptions. Richman said the staff believes those exemptions that existed result from the resolution initially adopted the GMP at which time Council was discouraging the use of exemption whatsoever, At the time of the initial GMP, Council was moving in the direc- tion where all growth should come out of the quota, regardless of whether these were employee units or not. The city's position has moved quite a ways from that original premise; at this time, units that have a rationale benefit to the community should not be deducted from the quota. This has resulted in a dual growth rate; a regulated and an unregulated growth rate. Richman said the initial premise of the GMP and the way the Council was moving was a very sound one; deducting all units from the GMP is a very sound basis for conducting the GMP. The staff does not support an action, which was well founded in 1978, deducting the units from the quota and reversing that decision. The staff objects to that proposal. Richman told Council if they do believe there was any error in judgment, the only basis the staff can find for being an error in judgment is those employee units were deducted from the lodge quota rather than the residential quota. There is some rationale for deducting these from the residential quota, employee units are residential units - not tourist units. Secondly, if there has been excessive growth in the city over the last four or five years, it has not been in the lodge sector. There has been excessive build out in the residential sector with employee units and other units exempt from the GMP, and excessive growth in the commercial sector. If Council made a decision to put the 24 units in the available residential quota, this would be hindering future growth in the residential area. The Council would be wiping out the residential quota for this year; based on the build out, for 1981 residential there are 19 units avail- able for competition for next year. The recommendation of staff is not to change the previous action. The decision of Council in 1978 was a sound one; deducting the 24 units from the quota would result in comprehensive and uniform growth rate. Richman said this is consistent with the original GMP. Mayor Edel asked how the staff got to 30 lodge units availabe. Richman told Council there have been five competitions in Aspen at 18 units each year, a total of 90 lodge units. The first year Council gave 36 lodge and 24 employee units to the Aspen Inn and an award to the Mountain Chalet. That award expired. Riehman told Council he under- stands~ the logic of what the applicant is saying, that these are not tourist units and should not have been deducted from the lodge quota. However, Richman is reluctant to recommend to reverse a decision made on a sound basis in 1978. Richman is also reluctan' to ask Council to preclude this year's residential competition. Richman said if Council was inclined to putting those units back in the lodge quota, would be to remove them from the residential quota to stay consistent. Councilwoman Michael said if the Council goes with the argument that these are not lodge units but these units should be deducted from the residential quota, how does the city justify the fact they built an employee housing project that did not go through the growth management plan. Richman said the exemption was written differently in 1978; there was no latitude to exempt employee units. New sections of the Code have been written to address exemptions for employee housing. Vann told Council the planning offi. e is leaning back toward the 1978 approach. Vann said that the planning office is propos- ing that all units should be subtracted from a quota; this quota will include everything. Council will have to make a value judgment every year on employee units versus free market, etc. Vann said the staff is urging Council not to award excess allocations this year; next year's competition is a whole new ball game. The planning office will hopefully wipe out all the quotas and come in with a brand new basis. Mayor Edel asked if the planning office meant for the Council to award only 18 units. Vann said yes. Spencer Schiffer, representing the Aspen Inn, related some past correspondence. There is a July 21, 1981, memorandum from Richman stating that the lodge quota would be 54 units; there is another memorandum from Richman dated October let which also says there will be 54 units available. The P & Z recommended to Council in a motion that the quota be 54 units; now staff is recommending to Council that the 24 units go back into the quota and that only 18 units be~awarded. Schiffer stated he felt this was absurd. Both applicants based their applications on the available quota this year. Vann said the staff has always represented the maximum allowable is 54 units. There are 54 units available if Council wants to allocate prior quotas. Council is not required to allocat prior quotas; they are required to allocate 18 units if someone wins. Staff is making a recommendation, based on the direction this is headed, that only 18 units are appropri~ John Kelly, representing the Lodge at Aspen, said projects make no sense at 18 units; why would anyone bother to compete for 18 units. Hans Cantrup agreed 18 units cannot be paced for each year. Cantrup said the 18 units chosen was a political decision; a more normal quota would be 40 units. 18 unit~quota is based on 1000 square foot units when in effect lodge units are more like 300 or 400 square feet. Vann agreed that 18 units is probably not an applicable quota; the staff does not know what the appropriate number is. The staff is trying to reassess and reestablish the growth rate based on problems the Council has identified. Vann said he cannot recommend using quotas that have accrued over time with no understanding of the impact or the appropriateness of these. The position of the planning office is that since the Council has committed politically to award 18 units per year, award the 18 units and hold up any excess. The Council is doing this in the commercial quota. Vann said there have been concerns raised by the lodging association; there is a new ski area approved for in town and a potential one at Snowmass. The staff has no understanding of the bed base relationships. Schiffer stated the issue here is whether 24 units should be added back to the quota, not whether there are 54 units available. Schiffer said it is a foregone conclusion that the quota this year should be 54 units; the P & Z adopted a resolution recommending 54 units. The issue is whether to restore the 24 units which were erroneously taken out of the lodge quota. Schiffer said there was a mistake; the 24 units were employee housing units. To say these units should have been taken out of the lodge quota, which is only 18 units a year, is ridiculous. Schiffer said there has been some scknowledge- ment this was a mistake. Schiffer said the legislation is place now is what should be looked at. Cantrup stated employee units are exempt; there are projects now being built that are exempt, they are not part of the quota. Vann skid new units being built are exempt; the planning office has a problem with the duality of the growth rate and they will be addressing this. The staff will be recommen~ ing to Council that employee units be brought back under in the future. When the GMP started off employee units were under GMP. The point is these 24 units were taken out of a quota in 1978; this position the staff strongly supports. Vann opined the 1978 Council did not make a mistake. If they did make a mistake, it was to take the employee units out of the wrong quota. The Code clearly said these units should be subtracted from the quota. In subsequent years, Council decided, because of the employee housing problem, Council would exempt employee housing from quotas. ~ann told ~ounc~ there have been problems associated with this. Vann said the Counci± can use ~ouncl± could use the current legislation to solve a problem, but in 1978 zoning laws were different, too, and the staff does not go back and allow people to build what they could in 1978 Mayor Edel said of all the things Council has done, exempting employee housing has created the most antipathy. Exempting employee housing has stirred more controversy than any other issue; this has prompted other rethinking. Lee Pardee, P & Z member, told Council the rules should not be changed. Both applicants were told 54 units were available and both applicants participated under this. Vann said the 24 units is over and above the 54 units available. Pardee agreed and said these should be left to die. Mayor Edel said he understood the 54 units available and had no problem with that; however, he does have problems with the 24 employee units. Hans Cantrup said the allocation is not 18 units it is 12 units if you take out the 24 employee units. Mayor Edel said they were taken out sometime ago and did not exist. Bringing up the 24 units now is a totally spurious a~gument. 3195 Special Meeting Aspen City Council November 19, 1981 Mark Danielsen told Council the application specially metnioned these 24 units and these units were realized to go back into the lodge quota. What has been done in 1978 has been changed. This is not an issue that has come up overnight. Schiffer said Council's concern is what will happen to these units. Schiffer told Council the applicant, Cantrup, would be willing to relinquish the 24 units plus the bonus to the other applicant. That way both projects could get built; this would obviate the necessity for hearing this challenge. Councilman Knecht said he felt Aspen desperately needs good lodging; there are two applications here that can give the city that. Councilman Knecht said he would like to add the 24 units while the chance is here; the 24 should not be eliminated out of the residential quota. Since these units are exempt as employee housing, the lodge quota should be redone. Employee hOusing should be part of the overall quota system. Councilman Knecht moved to use the 54 units as the total and add the 24 units on top of it and eliminate them from the residential quota; seconded by Councilman Parry. Councilman Parry said he feels that good lodging is very, very important and both projects are badly needed in town. Councilman Knecht clarified his motion that the 24 units NOT be taken out of the residenti~ t quota and these are to be exempt. Mayor Edel asked if Council had the capability of going back to 1978 and saying these units should have been exempted. City Attorney Taddune told Council they could give the staff some guidance as to what Council's intent was; there was a different Council but this Council still is the Council. At the time of this allocation in 1978, there was no exemption for employee housing the way there is today. Richman told Council that Council set up some very specific expectations for growth by saying what the quotas would be in the future. By going over the growth fOr the last five years, many needs have been found for going around those expectations. Taddune said he did not have a problem with the 24 units going back into the quota. Councilwoman Michael said in 1978 the Council wanted those 24 units as part of the lodge quota. Councilwoman Michael said she did not understand that logic. The growth manage- ment plan called for planned growth in lodge units, residential units and commercial space. Councilwoman Michael said it is clear that an employee unit is not a short-term tourist unit. Councilwoman Michael said she did not buy the argument that the Council cannot make some decisions regarding this issue without waiting for a full-on plan. Council knows the quotas are going to change; 18 units quota per year in a resort town with a deteriorating lodge base, that number will not go down. Councilwoman Michael said she did not want to impact the residential quota at this late date. All in favor, motion carried. 1982 COMMERCIAL GMP QUOTA Councilwoman Michael excused herself due to conflict of interest. Alan Richman told Council staff wanted some direction so staff could draw up a resolution for a regular meeting. Councilman Knecht moved the quota go to 27,500 square feet and approve all the units that are in the competition; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Richman asked Council if they wanted an action on the excess quota from previous years; the Council has a right to carry over or not carry over. Mayor Edel said he wanted it all wiped out. Council agreed. Mayor Edel said Council wanted one resolution for allocation 27,5000 square feet for 1982. As far as the resolution to wipe out the excess quota, this should come up before the full Council as another discussion. Councilman Parry moved to adjourn at 6:35 p.m; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. ~h~ City Clerk