HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.08221995 _._.._
. �ra�'.. _..��7R: ��Ri;`�s.;� �� ..r:.._�� . ,_ . ��. - � � . ' . ........ .�..... ... � _
. _....._......_.._�._�__ �---'� 1 7'' t i,;
. . �i. : r,�4:
,�'i
fS1',
�.
�,�r}
�Wx t
P1TKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ,::.': ,��:�
WORK SESSION AGENDA �?;�''' �
" Plaza One Conference Room " ��1� -`�,.
4%;:�.,;�� .
� (Wayne Ethridge Not Present} �'•"`�''.�:;�,
TUF,SDAY.AUGUST 22. 1995 ,t :.; ,:
. �'';C�� 4 ...4.
10:00 AM 1. $ALLOT ISSUFS "'y�? <, r
Airport Funding Alternatives, Scott Smith f�=� �
Homt Rule Charter Amendtnents,John Ely ' �
Translator Funding,Tom Newland k_��°
�±�,
Recrcation Maintenance and Wildlife Protection,Tom Newland :�°•:,.��.
�r,;.
✓11:00 2. SPECIAL MEETING
Elk Mountain Lodge Special Review,Rick Magill �
� ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING '� .
�
11:15 Maroon Creek Bridge Update, Stan Berryman ^a
� � 12:40 LUNCH BREAK `
� ��
� 1:30 PM COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
3. Open Space Boazd Applications,]ane Ellen Ham�ton (5 minutes)
4. Emission Testing Update, Lee Cassin, 5ilvia Davis (IS minutes)
5. Redstone Bridge Propasai,Jane Ellen Hamilton(15 minutes)
6. Tax Burden Discussion,Tom Oken(1Q minutes) ���
7. Skiing Compa�ry Seat on RFTA Board,Suzanne Konchan (10 minutes)
• 8. Rental Car Agreement,Scott Smith(30 minutes)
9. Planning&Zoniug Commission Vacancy,Suzanne Konchan(5 minvtes)
10. Memos of Interest
11. BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION
� ^ Agenda requests/future agendas � '
± ' 3:15 BREAK
_ � 330 12. Transfer of Development Rights,Suzanne Konchan,Cinciy Houben �
4:30 SPECIAI.MEE'TING-EXECLTTNE SESSION ��
Personnel f'
5:00 PM ADJOURN �'
6:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING �:
I.ocation: District Court ;-�'�,`_%;
� . Agenda: Aspen Highlands Base V�lage PUD General Submission, � .}�
Rezoning, 1Q41 Hazard Review, Code Amendments,Tim Malloy ': ,4,
;,
� ,
j � .�:,.
:i..
� . � �}° ,.-.-..�-.:s.� .,a:wl:�3?c�.r3:a.`+:a. . , � ..a r �.,. � :_�t,...,.+ivn,�.�FS..za..:n.;�iiY�:,:.+.�;,'-�.w^...>.c:>�<i.^�c.ta�`:lA;�t"-'"�"Y}�°,� '1"'
_. L,_�" {
/ - � T��,,,.
. . � r
. y ' " . . . . . . . " -..�r�, �. t
f � L �
�t. .. . ' (,�� r . , l
.� � � '. . -._, ' ��
. .� ��. �. . .�.. �.� .� _ -.�.
.. . . . . '. . � .
- . : . . . � � . -�.. . � .':. . ... -.- . � ..
�. 4
\ . , . �
_ �. _
� � -. � —�� .r� -- ... .- �j _- .� . _. _ . � . . . . .. . , .. ., .
�; � . .. . . . � . . . � .. . . � . .
r��� ' _ ' . .
;� .
*- ,
. �.ti�. .. ...�- ,_ , , , � ' ^
� r'<�:1+rei".
. ' i'/;M1t<;
"-�
.S� •
� �rpr�ov4b �
S-sr-9 6 `�i
' MINIITEB i.,,
-i . . . . . . . � �%�-.- �
� PITRIN COIINTY BOARD OF COIINTY COMMIBSZON£R8 ;,��
i .. .
-" SPECIAL MEETING ��%'��
AIIGUBT 22. 1995 I L'''
�.
�� �
-••) C71LL TO ORDER: CYxairman Ireland called the meeting ta order at i l:pp • r °
a.-m. ;x;:.`:;
_ CODatI88ION lISMHERS PRE68NT; Mick Ireland, Jim True and Bill Tuite ��.�
�.-;.
87.1C lIOUNTl\IN LODGB BPBCIAL REVIBW - MOTTON TO TABLS TO SEPTEMBBR -
5. 1995 - Rick Magill, Staff Planner, said that the appZicant is
, requesting tablinq of this matter to have a better ahance of having
her application considered by mare than three commissioners. f .
True moved to table the Elk Mountain Lodqe Speaial Review an!! #�� �
aontinua the pubiio hearing to eaptember 5, 1995. With a seooaa r
bp Tuite, the motioa pasaed unanimousip. �
7►DTOURNMENTS The meeting was adjourned at]]:l0a.m. i
s ectfully s tted, ;
J anetL�e
i
erk to the ard of ounty Commissioners �
i�� �
_ Michael C. Ireland, Chairman a .
Board of County Commissioners �
. � .. � . . . . . _ . . . � ' .
� " � � .. ' . � i.
._� _" ' . .. . . . � �..
' � . . . . . . � . � � - . ... �'
. .,.'»� , . .. . . . ..-�. ,..:', �.
. . � . . . . .. � . . � . . . .� � � ' '
. . . . . . . � � � �. . . � � . . ' . �
.-� .� . ' . � . - � � � � 4
� . .. :. t. . . � � . . . . � ' . � I
- -��1. . . " . . . .
1
�.. � `� . .. � � � . � . . . . . . . � � . .. i � .
� t B011RD OF CODNTY CO2�IISISSIONBRS 1 AUGU6T 22� 1995 . !',�'i
�:
,. � .. � �i�id3`".�*Jed%,'..�,�.1�. ...� i }:,' 'F 'a... -S.:tr"„k.E .:v_� 9 _
/ - '"Rt��i'aw.r �.� .
. � ri�,�.. '
� .
. .. . ' �.-� -:. , ' ._. " . � - .
� � . � �...-- .:. �.: . . '�. � . � ' ��' .-'.`�. ; ... �.....
_ .�.. . . � ��, .. -�, �, . ... � ' .
- +>
l - � r� �
� y � 1
: ; ,
,
.: .. � � ..
.,.
.
i ,,,., s:. S,
� � � � -
�
� . �; . . � f- .. � ' ' / ..
. � �`�� . � . . � � .. . - . . � . � .. ' .. .
T�.. . . . . � .
� ` .
;
�.
- - - -- - - ,� -- .___,.
�, . ..�� , : ,.. . ' .. ' � ..< ,,...: , r
•�•. .�� �'`a;AC.'s f..�-� r ir.:.a,[w. �..^mtir,ea+e4it�lm.a*�7+.w.;..7:rw,r.;s+ete.evet:rc�r ��T
. ., �b�:�t`'�
4�a `�
>I:7� w�=
Yc!
:.. :�`�+
P1TKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS `="
WORK SESSION AGENDA :;� ,
?:; Plaza One Conference Room ,,'��
�i
- �f�'i��
.::I (Wayne Ethridge Not Present)
�� TUESDAY.AUGUST 22. 1995
. s.
:a r
�� 10:00 AM 1. BALLOT ISSUES
Y°. Airport Funding Altematives,Scott 5mith
- � Home Rule Charter Amendments,John Ely I
Translator Funding,Tom Newland ���.
�� Recreation Maintenance and Wtldlife Protecdon, Tom Newland �'�`'
.� I
� 11:00 2. SPECIAL MEETING ± l;
;. Elk Mountain Lodge Special Review, Rick Magill
� ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING ��
. � :% � ;
;� 11:15 Maroon Creek$ridge Update,Stan Berryman
r(:
, 12:00 LUNCH BREAK �
�':
;:,.
_ 1:30 PM COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
� 3. Open Space Board Applications, Jane Ellen Hamilton (S minutes)
� 4. Emission Testing Update,Lee:assin,Silvia Davis(15 minutes) `;
� 5. Redstone Bridge Proposal,Jane Ellen Hamt7ton (15 minutes) a
6. Tax Burden Discussion,Tom Oken(10 minutes) �.
7. Skllng Company Seat on RFTA Board, Suzanne Konchan (10 minutes) �
, 8. Rental Car Agreement,Scott Smith (30 minutes) ;=
9. Planning&Zoning Commission Vacancy,Suzanne Koncban(5 minutes) u.
10. Memos of Interest '
4';
ii
11. BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION
� Agenda requests/future agendas ft �
�� — �.
, 3:15 BREAK �
�
3:30 12. Transfer of Development Rights, Suzanne Konchan,Cindy Houben i .
_ ; i
4:30 SPECIAL MEETIlVG-EXECLTTIVE SFSSION � ,,`;
I Personnel <
}
' � 5:00 PM ADJOURN � `
1
, �.
� �6:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING �,�.
_ � Location: District Court �{-��_"'J
. .� Agenda: Aspen Highlands Base Village PUD General Submission, � �
Rezoning, 1041 Hazard Review, Code Amendments,Tim Malloy '��.
;; ���,
'r_
; �.�
:�;
,,�, x<.:., .:«,.«:�•.,,,.—. �-,-�,.�;._a:,��:.:::�..M...n,M:�K .�..,�.w�:.�..«.�.�� .�k.,.,�,W:,�...��d::�_..,�a.�,d.;::.�:�---
�� . . ,�-
. . . .. � ':�� f y',
,� `, i � r�i(� '
,,�
�
, , ,
� �. . �}. :.
, _.`
•
I .
1 { . ' .
� r
. • y.� . - . , . � . . . . . . ,�t. . _ .
' . ' — - —- -�� ' ....-,i — . � � - . .. . � . . � .
�r . .
, • � '..�: ., : . _ -.... . ._. ._.. . . ..'-. .
. ��: ...;_ �� . _ ' .... � � . . .� ._..._ ., '_ ��.,,. .
� :�,y��1�: . . . . � . .. � ' . . . . _ .. . ' � � , �. . .
��;
'Y`�. , . . . � .
�..a_ _
�`:,�:t. . .�._ ..._ - . ' , ' .........j_._., ....�..._�.,,, ._�..__....�.._..,....... �-
�P//Ln 6 Er� r�?'...
.;,,
D� �y�9� .
BOARD OF COUNTY CO�SSIONERS `�`�
PITKIN COUNTY,COLORADO r � :.
, MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 1995 �&,�';�!�y?
;y, ,�.
Present and votin • Mick Ireland Chai , , �-��
g. , rperson Jim True and Bill Tuite. �,� :�
Chairman Ireland called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. !".'�';,�.�
; ASPEN ffiGHLANDS VII.LAGE SUBDIVISION REVIEW-Tim Mailoy submitted letters to the record -_y�;.�-_-•
; received from the publia Tim spoke about 1041 hazards which have been reviewed and addressed once ` ''�'
j again by the applicant's representatives. Tim believes additional work needs to be accomplished on this �5`�,-' -
iissue. Tim discussed the source of water for the area which includes an irrigation ditch which indicates : ;s��:• . y
� wedands and which would then not be within the jurisdiction of the Board. Under the generai guidelines of ?�=='_r. '
' the 1041 regulafions there aze restrictions to such azeas. Staff is waiting for more information to determine �.�'� '��
� if this particular area is within wedands. Tim discussed the potendal historic status of the base lodge and �'''c'
the pe6fion submitted by some members of the public. A report has been submitted to staff and Amy 'k �-
Amidon, the historic preservation officer, witl review the report. The report does indicate that the lodge -
� dces not constitufe a historic structure. Tim began discussion of the Code amendments. Staff supports five <�':;-'�
codc amendments and one is not being support. �:�:
� Conversion of lodge allotments on a specific ratio to residential allotments is being requested. Tim
described the ratios proposed. There are also a series of tests which an applicant must pass in order to �' '?
� convert. Staff does not sopport conversion and Tim touched on the arguments in opposition to the ' ,
� conversion proposal. '':
Tim Malloy described the report which stated that the building dces not have historic status. .•�
- ! There ue six code amendments proposed of which staff supports fcve. The conversion amendment is not
supported by staff. Tim described the conversion formulas and series of tests which would have to be
made in order to apply for conversion.
i !;.
Tim Malloy discussed the arguments bmught up by the applicant in support of the conversion amendment �,,�`s
and stafPs reasoning for opposing the request. He spoke about community balance. It is the staffls �a1' �
_ � position that there is significant imbalance in the community with respect to second homes. He noted that
� the conversion takes the first land use application which has been submitted since the community plan was
adopted and staff contends that it flies in the face of the idea of promoting more affordable housing up-
� valley of Aspen Village. Fs
Jim True was unclear in how the housing being proposed flies in the face of the Aspen Community plan.
� r
� Tim Malloy explained that this site was planned for and assamed to be tovrist accommodation uniu and
what we aze looking at in this proposal is a request to shift to second homes. To retire some of the ability
of this site to accommodate tourist accommodadons and in exchange for a shift to a number of second
i homes. He contends we aze then loosing tourist accommodations and promoting second homes. Tim noted
+ a point offered by the applicant was that second homes also provide tourist accommodations. They also •
add variety to-the accommodation mazket. Staff does not support this azgument. Tim believes that there ;
' are more than enough second homes in the uea that may or may not be available for rental. Staff feels
that the base azea is an appropriate area for short-term accommodadons and that by allowing this project,
and this conversion, is giving away some of the ability for the azea to become short-term accommodaGons. `�'
� They are also concerned about the integrity of the growth management process. Tim believes that a �� `• �
� ooncern is that a precedent is being set that ae amendment can be approved that does not serve any public ,. .'-_�:
purpose. Staff is concerned that there was no competiflon for the allotments and as a result it was not � '
I � improved by virtue of a compefi6on. It also did not offer any incentive to any other projects it would have ?
{ competed with aver the years. ;
' i3o�c. � � �.�- �� ''
!
_._..._ __._ _ ___..�._---- ._--- . ,�
_ ______._______.__ ._�. __ _. � .
___.:.: _ .. __ . ,._
, r- _._.. _ _ . �%
. . . .. .. . . S s Y
. ^ _ _ . � - . - . - _ . . -- � �
. . - . . . � � - . � � � '�
. . � . . , � . , � � . - -i:- ..
� i � � . � ' . � . .. . - ' . .. . � � .
' .- � — - r -. _.. . . - ' .! �
• �Y . � ... . ' . .. � . . � , •
,��. -
��.� _ ..� ._ _
.7�in,-�'. _..JS'Lk.. ..�. .... ...�,'..: ' .. .... .. ',� .. _�:i�S.._..:�:�..w,nn..i..u.......�..kiaa..:.�:o-w.�f.�._•\�iW ..."'.3.r . .
' ��,"+.
�''
•)'p'
Board of County Commissioners �.,,.�: ,r�5
Meeting of August 22, 1995 PaBe 2 �a<r�'
�:,:t��.k��
. �,
Tim Malloy eacplained that the applicant is going to present informarion tonight that indicate that the �'= �`�
neighborhood has changed. Staff has never argued that the Growth Management process could not be '�" �`�
; I:.`:;.,.
changed. It has been changed numerous times in the past. However, they aze also aware that the changes .' !' .:i ry
that were done were accomplished by public process. Staff believes that this amendment dces not serve - .. .
� any public purpose and is primarily being brought forward for the purposes of building second homes. The `
� sld area is in the process of being upgraded and is in the hands of the Skiing Company. This project is �;:':`, r"
pmposed for the base azea. Staff believes that the basc needs to be improved. But staff dces not support ':f:��_%: .:
; the conversion and states that it is a bad and opportunis6c idea that serves no public purpose. '�:�:�-:;
i
i Tim Malloy explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission felt conversion was acceptable for the "'~'"
� right project. They also provided the BOCC with a bit of information to give an idea as to what an �:
( acceptabie project was. He pointed to the portion of the P&Z resolution with respe�t to condi6ons for �
� conversion. The resolution states that they offered to allow conversion of 40 percent of the remainder of `
; the allotments. In other words if you have a project,like the present pmposal, you need 73 of those �i�
� allotments which have been granted out of the 287 to fulfill the 40 percent. Of the remainder,214 ,
! allotments,40 percent of those can be wnverted at a rate of 3.3 tourist accommodation units per residential
� d allotment. That results in 25 residential units. This was about what the P&Z had in mind for free-market �
� units on this property. This was supported by a vote of 4-3. There is a minority opinion that supports the r
j staff recommendation in opposi6on to conversion. �?
i
+ Tim Malloy also thinics there is a better way to accomplish a project alternative. Tim explained that this is
� not by any means an attempt to design a project. It is an attempt to show that there aze other alternatives. }
The basic premise of the staff's alterna6ve is the assumpdon that the impacts of the project remain fixed. '
' This is sort of a black box theory. If we believe that the impacts associated with the project that is being �.
� proposed are acceptable and or it is within that realm, that is sort of what this proposal is based on. StafPs .�j�.`•
i primary objective to this project is related to the single-family, residendai, free-mazket pods located on
either side of the central village. T'hey believe.that this portion of the project unnecessarily encroaches on
1041 environmental impact areas, that it is more visually inWSive,has more impacts on the surrounding
� neighborhood,it furthers the imbalance between second homes and affordable housing,it requires a ,
significant upzoning, it removes easy egress from the lower portion of the mountain for skiers, it requires ��
� an amendment to the GMQS conversion which it serves no public purpose, and it reduces the sites capacity :
to accommodate short-term accommodations and permanent resident housing. For all of those reasons,
�,. staff believes that this project neecls to be looked at more carefully. Tim suggested that it be looked at j
,' under the AH project guidelines for the City which aze being looked at by the County. This scenario is for
a 70:30 affordable housing to free mazket housing mix. Tim explained in his proposal he assumes the TA's
in the village remain the same, he reduced the number of single-family lots to etiminate all encroachments ;:
in the 1041 environmental hazard, steep slopes and avalanche areas. Tim assumed that the 32 free-mazket
townhomes would be converted to TA units, condominiumized and made available in a method similar to �_• ,
'The Gant and the 73 other condominiums being proposed. What this results in is a proposal with 31 '
single-family, free-market lots, with 20 in one neighborhood and 11 in the other. This is just to show that
it can be done. The applicant had 26 single-family homes in one neighborhood and 15 in the other. This ��
is a reduction of 10 free-mazket lots and is 75 percent of what the applicant proposed for single-family lots. � 4
j It would still include all of the restaurant and commercial space and 71 affordable housing units(a ��: ;�:�
i reduction of 2 affordable housing units). Lots F and G would be lost because they encroach onto steep ;' � °
' slopes. This is a project that meets the 70:30 requirement with 71 AH units and 31 free-mazket lots. In �, '�
Istaff s opinion there are still a lot of things being given away. The employee midgation for employees � " `
f generated by the commercial space and the lodging facility aze being waived. The housing being proposed t
' ��-9s` � :;;
i /�jd @.L � �l'
,
_ _ _ _ _ _..... .
. .__ ......._.. 5
. .. . ......_..... ._.__ . ..._,..:_. _�._-_..__ . _:.:.... �..::.. ..._ . .. - '��t
� .. _ ..._. �.... ♦�i` -.�:
/ . . . . . �I y��
F . ,!:
. . � .. � - �. . � . �� . �
. - . � . l;�� ' � � _
i."
� � . . . . � . . , !. . . .
.1 . . ". ' . .` . '
. . . . . . .. . . . � . , ' _ .
, • �: . . , � � . . . � , ' , • .
rt�
;�,��: . . .. •
i�A
��:a'• ., . � — . . � ' . � . .__... . ....__.........._.,....�.. ......._«,_._..._...._.+1 t =_i,i....y�fr
. ,� '
�� ,1X1
! Board of County Commissioners �� �`'
; Meeting of August 22, 1995 Page 3 i;y: ���
:.,��"
�..
' in this plan aze strictly as a msult of the free-market units. Tim noted that 187 TA accommodafions aze • -�,�
� being retired resulting in a reduction of the deficit to about 32 employees. -;;'��
� )'''.,:Z r
,,i Discussion ensued. ;
i •
It was noted that rezoning would s611 be necessary as a result of the staffs proposal. A rezoning to AH ��z Y
would need to be accomplished. . �:�';i: �.:
i F.=�::
i;. ,;.
- t Tim Malloy offered a calculation of the number of employees which are not being accommodated. f.�".,,;
:,,o;.::
' Glenn Hom began by saying that he appreciates Tim Malloy's comments with respect to AH alternatives.
� It is nice to see that Tim is thinldng about ways the County can accommodate this project and make it
work. However, he is asking the BOCC to keep an open mind and listen to the proposal tonight regarding ,
wnversion. Glenn said he would begin by explaining where the concept of conversion came from,will ��
• discuss what the conversion concept is, why conversion is a natural and appropriate tool to be inciuded in
Pitkin County's Growth Management System,and also present a historical perspective of growth "
management and the evolution of the GMQS.
Glenn Hom began by explaining where the concept of conversion came from. In the Fall of 1991,a long- ��
ume local resident and Glenn began discussions with Whip Jones about the development at the base of
FIighlands. At that dme Whip was very frustrated. He had acquired 10 years of allotments and sdll was
not close to obtaining the necessary allotments he needed to develop the Aspen Highlands Hotel, During I
' the time that he had been compedng in tFie process,the nesds of the Aspen azea and the community had l
i changed. In 1991, when they were having this conversation,there was no need in the Aspen azea for a big 4
hotel,just as there is no need right now. Glenn noted that since 1982, we have seen the development of �
the Silvertree in Snowmass Village, the development and expansion of the Hotel7erome,development of
the Ritz, the Little Nell Hotel,and renovation of the Aspen Club Lodge. In Snowmass Village there was
' approval for development of a major hotel which lapsed because the developers of that site felt that a hotel
was no longer needed in the Aspen/Snowmass area. It was impossible to finance a hotel. Whip saw >
conversion as a way to do several things. One being to settle the lawsuit between Piddn County and the t
Aspen Highlands Corporation, and, second, a way to develop a project with less impacts. As Whip said to '
, Glenn,conversion was a way to do Aspen Iiighlands Filing No. 3, a single-family residendal development �
` I in the Thunderbowl area without having to wait another ten years to go through the growth management
'-----=i system.
, ;
Glenn Hom began to discuss what the conversion concept is. Glenn explained that you can calculate the
impacts resulting from TA development and you can see how those impacts relate to residential
• development. You can develop a formula to convert TA allotments to residential allotments. The base of �
Aspen Highlands has received approval for development of 349 TA units. Conversion is based upon the '
applicant's analysis proving that 73 TA units and 73 free-mazket units will result in less community impact �
, i than development of 349 TA units. I'
During the planning process a bunch of issues have been raised, i.e.,fairness,quality development,rate of �, ��,
growth,impact mitigation and community balance. Glenn Hom contends that conversion is fair to p�ss'�as-� �_;
compe6tors. Research shows that all metro azea applicants since 1978 that met threshold have gotten the �� I �
allotments that they sought. One project actualiy received allotments and the property owner decided not to �,� �
pursue that project. Even with everyone receiving allotments, there were still 95 unallocated residential :.
1 . �; � `
� ��j OC� 3 �-1�-9� �i
.. �..--- __ _ . ._...___ -----`_ . __... _____
... ....�::_...,..� ....:...__ _.:_ _. - :
. . . !- � . '`��F �
\}3}�
� � . . . � . . . . . . • � y�.Y_ .'y��;
• . ... � .. � . � � . . . , � . . f�, �
^ . . . . . . �I - i
♦
. . . `' . . .. . __. .. . ..'
.. ... . . '. �. . . ..�;' '.� ..�
... ' .. ..� . . . . J �• - - . .
� � . � _ . - . .. . . . _ r ' . . . ' .
. . . . .. . . . . .1 ' .
� . � � . . _ . � . � . . �.. . . . � . ' �/ .
, _�(Y . . � . � . . � .. - . . . : ` ' .
t��h::U
yT . .. - � . . .
�
i�
� _.._. .�. �u__� �.�..._.
.._.. .,
... ... , ,
�s� . _ _ _ _ . �,,,,,...,:::,
. .� •`'�;"',
�'Y� vf.t
�� i
! Board of County Commissioners -- }�
Meeting of August 22, 1995 Page 4 c-<� "'
�;- ;�tE
, ��:
free-mazket units when everyone received their allotments. This is more than enough to accommodate the .,
' 73 residential allotments required for this `;,*a
' project. Thece were 95 unallocated and 73 asked for as a part of this project. Glenn contends that .
i conversion is not unfair to the neighbors. In fact residenfial development is allowed as a use by right under •'�`a:�s
� the zoning. Glenn contends that the present system has been unfair to Hightands and the wmmunity. The '
applicant accrued allotments and then the community needs changed. Aspen's small lodge owners would be
� affected by building a lodge at this time. Glenn believes it would be unfair for any applicant to be asked to � r
compete for another ten years to satisfy the way the community has changed over the past 13 years. Glenn ��7� '
- contends that conversion will not result in uncon[rolled grow[h and blow the community growth rates that `�°~'
have been established. The most basic goal of the 1976 GM plan was to slow the rate of change in the ?�:r;.:
community. There has been no change at Aspen Highlands since the construction of the Mazoon Creek T%`r` •
� Lodge in the 1960s. Forty-nine units at the Aspen Highlands have been demolished. The pacing Y �-.
envisioned by the GM plan since 1972 has taken place. Pacing has occurred, wnversion will not blow the i
community growth rates. Conversion will not result in unmitigated and unanticipated impacts. A primary �
. objecGve of the 1976 GM plan was to control the rate of growth so the community can plan for public
� improvements and mitigate impacts. The Pitkin County Code is an impact based code. You cannot receive •
( approval under the Pitkin County Code withoat meering the criteria for impact mi6gation. Conversion will
not result in inferior development due to lack of competition. Glenn indicated that they have demonstrated (.
� in exhaustive detail that this is a quality development. They have committed to being scored and that it E
! must meet the minimum threshold scoring criteria. Glenn explained you get affordable housing,impact
, mitigation and the development of a world class ski uea in a place that really needs to be upgnded.
' Conversion will not lead to an inferior quality development.
' Glenn Horn began discussion of community balance. This was originally addressed in the 1976 Growth !i
Management Policy Plan. T'hings were much simpler at that time. Balance between development,impacts ��
of development and the capability of the community to accommodate those impacts with public services. � "
Since that time there are more indicators for community balance. Development and environmental quality
• will not be compromised by the development of the Aspen Highlands Village. Tlie applicant has been
through extensive 1041 reviews: They have addressed avalanche hazards,30 percent slopes and other -
environmental quality reviews. The communi[y balance between development and the environment will not �
be damaged by conversion. The balance between permanent and seasonai residents has also been -
addresserl. According to the staff's latest interpretaGon of the Aspen Area Community Plan,Highlands
' Village has a 46:54 relationship between permanent and seasonal populadon and a 50:50 relationship
�� be[ween deed restricted affordable housing units and free-muket units. Staff has suggested that people .
-----.. :
' residing in AH units are the only permanent residents in the County that count within the projections of the
AACP. They have suggested that people who live in free-market dweiling units at Aspen Highlands are the
only permanent residents in the County. He quoted from the staff inemo: "The plan calls for substan6al
• increases in the development of permanent employee housing while limiting the development of free-mazket .
' residents." The plan identified that new free-market residential development is almost entirely used as •
i second homes. Glenn contends this is incoaect and he refeaed the BOCC to the technical appendices to
' the AACP. The Housing Needs Assessment and a memo called Implications of Community Plan Policies.
� These documents show that in projecting fu[ure growth in this community,it was assumed that 21 percent
� of the new free-market units in this community would be occupied by permanent residents. The AACP � �• '
iplan itself says that free-mazket residential development is not synonymous with seasonal second home � ::_:
� development. In Glenn's research, the data supports the recommendations of the AACP regarding �� �
, permanent occupancy of free-market units. Glenn explained that about one of every four of the free-market � �.`
a units sold in the community in the Aspen area since 1987 are occupied by permanent residents. Glenn does
: ,
' �-��-9r ,
� ��� � y � .
� __ - ------ ___.. _ __ --
_._ ,._:w.�: _. _ __,_.__ .,__ __ __._ . _._
__ �
--. ._..._ _.
� t �,k;
� . � , 1., ;t
, � .
�t .
� ,
�- .
-- _ ` . �; ._ � '
. ...
. .
;, ., .
� � �
. r
� � �; , ' .
f..:. .
°�. "' . .
�,.
�:•
,_
� f �w.. --�-.�.
.7q � . T �� � ' n
.�
�,�"� ty� �y;. ��� - � Jt r . �f,(�`•` � ta �d` ! M 'w�••�',A i r-t;^'r�
�..t'Y.r,:�'�....�J kd.�'k:.�.. - �.�.�y-� �..ie...�J:` . .. . ,�t�-. ,`tire'a�w�. .:t..r«:u��>:T,.b J.rr.,�:,Y�;.s�"�cl'..AC��lfd'iC�%"1&�+�.�aetG�"Ls �.�i ..
�ytr�'�
',i9:e:
�k
i'
f'4.
: Board of County Commissioners ' �"�
• � Meetiag of August 22, 1995 Page 5 ���,�s
�..
� ...
� not think it is nnreasonable to believe that 3 or 4 of the 15 uniu in the Thunderbowl neighborhood will be � '`�
� occupied by permanent residents. He aiso contends that 7 or 8 of the 32 free-market townhomes will be ;�:•��
occupied by permanent msidents. Iie thinks it wiil be likely tf►at 5 or 6 of the 26 free-mazket units in the �` �.+'
Maroon Neighborhood will be occupied by permanent residents. When the free-market unit component of �•� .���y
this project is counted,Highlands Village reaches the 60:40 goal. Glenn Hom explained that there is a
projected 433 total resident population estimate made by the AACP. You lmow that 46% of the residents %
_ � will be empIayee residents. The applicant contends that 15 percent of peopla ie the project will be -'_:?i_ �
permanent residents in free-market units. Glenn discussed the balance between the supply of alpine slders ,��:..�..
and the alpine skring capacity of the valley. There was a question as to whether Aspen Highlands will =^•~�-
_ generate so many skiers that there are will be many slders in the alpine skiing terrain. The applicanCs ��:�`
research shows that this will not be the case. Conversion will not throw this project out of balance and
�.,..;,. .
there witl be ample terrain available for the alpine skiers generated by this project. The old base plan was t.
criticized because it did not integrate a base azea plan with a plan for the mountain. Glenn reminded the �
� Board thai at a meeting he attended during the review process for the old plan,Rick Jones told the Board
that Aspen Highlands would not present a plan for the mountain in absence of approvals for the base azea. �
The plan for the mountain was to be submitted at Detailed Submission. The current applicant has not
worked in this manner. They have integrated the mountain plan with the base area plan, The initial
� mountain improvements have been made in the absence of land use approvals. Some people may think the
1994 improvements aze enough. Glenn has skied the terrain that is pmjected in the sid area ptan and they
- { have just touched the sarface of what can be done at Aspen Highlands. The Deep Steeplechase lift alone
� will serve 400 acres of new expert and extreme terrain. Aspen Eiighlands will have lifts serving expert and
�. extreme terrain like Snowbird, Jackson Hole and Taos. The community wants these improvements. The
financiai viability of Aspen Highlands is critical to the development of the sld area as well as the base area. �
. � The base area must be financially solid for the developer to implement the proposed amenity package. The �
� free mazket residential units are critical ta providing affordable housing, transportation improvements, ski
i
; azea improvements,the sid club facility and the ski club lift. Conversion helps provide balance between
the ski area and base area improvemenu. It helps achieve the adopted community goal of redeveloping the
ski area and the base azea.
Glenn Hom believes there is some misconcepdon regarding the threat of conversion to the growth
� management quota system. Part of this is due to a lack of understanding about growth management in :
`a general. It is not just the quota system. Pitldn County manages its growth with a package of growth
. __._._:___
, ' management toois. The tools including zoning, impact fees, the capital facilides improvement program,
subdivision regulation,PUD regulations, 1041 regulations and the quota system. The quota system is just
one component of the package of land use tools. The quota system addresses primarily rate control and the
, pace of growth. In the case of Highlands, the pacing has already occurred. The conversion of TAs to :
residential allotments does not subvert the growth management allotment system. All the other growth
management tools aze still being used to guide Aspen Iiighlands development. Conversion is nothing more ,
� than a new land use tool designed to help the system meet current community needs and give the
community a pmject with less impacu than that which is currendy approved for the site.
Jim True asked for more explana6on of the impact on competition itself. While he noted the allotment �
. numbers, the competition is partly densiky related. `; �:.,
;�-�•_,
� Glenn Horn explained that development below allowable density is not a meuo area criteria. In the metro ;j
` area you want to encourage density because it takes advantage of the sites that aze afforded the capital
� facilities that exist in the metro azea. 'I� ;-
I � /���� ' �t��-9S s. �
,
. .. ___.---- . __ _--_. __..
_�.
.- ._ _ _..�_ . .� _. _. _.
„ . ._.. . . _...__._ _ �, .
. . . .. . � � � .. • . . � . . .9 7 �
� . . . . . . . ' . . . • 1._
.. . � . � , ' . 1� �;
:i . � ' - ' . .. . . . � . . � �.. .�.I �.
. . f . � . . ' . .
.. . . .. . . . � y.��.' . ' . � .
. � 1 . � . .. � . . ' . . . . . '.:.:� . .. � . � . .. .
. � .��,_. . .._. ..�;_. � .._ '. ��.:,t ._..;. . .... .( .
. � ' . . . --' _. � . •
1�y� .
;,�.a,�t
� .i ,....__
�.,:: ' '
.•J h
_�
�. , -: . . r
. '�"v+Y.'SQ��.:::I.. .
. . ��. .. .. - �
. ._1. e-1.�. � ic_ r..... . �.. � ..�.r�M1�...d:..uw....+..w..r-w.r...�..�_._..�.._._....� -� � 1.7k�r:(^'
♦./, i�.
�r.��
`f
Board of County Commissioners _, .w�.
; Meeting of August 22, 1995 �
� Page 6 r s, :
, . e'
�� �:!
� Jim True felt that possibly the public was aggrieved because there wasn't a competidon that would have ' �
� been genecated had this been residen6al. Compe6tion for whatever ueas there are competiflort. �J:_:�; '
i Nonetheless, the projects that were in the process, competing for residential units, would have had to adjust ;:�i":.�
� their pzojects and perhaps have been a better project in order to compete with Highlands. `�� �+;.,
� �, ,,
� Glenn Horn believes this gces to the quality issue which he addressed earlier. One benefit of the GM �
I. 's:�>:-.; .�.
system is that it can improve the quality of the project if people feel they are competing against another
-- competitor. The applicant believes that the BOCC has the ability W step in to assure that the project is the �
.highest quality possible in a particulaz development, Another point is that everyone that competed ia the �x-•-
metro uea competition that achieved the threshold was granted an allotment. They weren't highly �.':�;;;;_;
� - I competitive events. In some years tfiere weren't even compedtions. Many fimes there was just one �
applicant compe6ng for the alloiments. Over time, from 1978 through last year, there were 95 allotments
that weren't allotted.
1a
Tim Malloy expiained that there were more allotments requested thar�were allotted in specific years. In �t9
the first six or eight years,every year there was a sense of compe4tion. In totality people who were not �• -
granted allotments would come back and were able to get allotments. Tim overviewed the allotments over +��� ~
each year from 1978 to presertt. j�
� Glenn Hom asked the Board to k in rs estive the fact that when �'
�P pe p people met threshold,they got their 1'#
allotments. In years where people didn't get allotments, it was due to the fact ihat they did not mee[
threshold.
Mick Ireland noted that the applicant is asldng the Board to beiieve that nothing would have been different
had the Highlands been in the residen6ai competition. �p
- GIenn Hom eacplained that growth management is primarily a pacing mechanism. The BOCC should be
able to trust themselves judge the quality of developme�t.
Mick Ireland sees a problem with believing that it would have run the same way had another competitor
been in the residenNal growth management process in the past. He also cotttends that it is an inconect way `
! to look at this matter. �•
y� .
' _____"__' y .
'. ' Tim Malloy explained that they are not so concemed about the quatity of this project but by the quality of �
projects which may come under the new legislation in the future.
;
. The Planning&Zoning Commission approved every aspect of the en6re land usa plan including alI of the
lots on the map, The only difference in the approval is the rate of conversion.
. ` .
Glenn Eiorn explained that Atan Richman was present to describe how the GMQS has evoIved in response � . �
to community change. Alan is not present as an advocate for the Aspen Highlands Village project, bui ;�
� Glenn eacplained the applicant feels Alan has a better understanding of Growth Management and the GMQS
I than anyone in this community. Alan worked for the planning office for 10 years. He was thc primary
planner responsible for changes to the quota system and authored most of ihe changes. Alan has experience j ;�:;;
- in sld,base area and resort development in Telluride,Sun Valley,7ackson Hole and Park City. He will � �`--'
show how conversion fits with the GMQS and as a land use tool that should be part of Pitkin County's � i
assortment of land use tools. � ;�;i:
iSG�c L z�.-�� � ' �
_.� ..,.__. � :.:.:..___.__ __ � _ _.-.
�� 4
._._.:....�..,._�--'__ . ..,._._._. ._.__'_. . _... .'__'�'_.__.. . . . .. .,, t"•,
/.. ...'. . ._._ , . . . � �i`� y�.
� 0
' . . . . � . • . . . . . . . . . ' . . . � i
� . . � . . . . ., _ . . . . . .
, . _ . . . . �: _ . . .'��.
'. . . ' . ... . � `. . _�'. . . . .. ..-, . . . . '.'::.',�
i � � . . . � - . . . . � � � . .,y.-; _
�'1 i � .. .� .. ' . � . - � . . . . � � . _ �. ..� ' . .
' . - . . . � . � . � . . � � �.. - � . . .
� _� � . .. � i ., � .. . . - . . � . . . �� . .
.
. - -- . .—'_. ...._ _"".:. .i. . . . . .
. . '• -� � ^ . ' . . . / � .
�7 . . . . . . . . . . _.:. . � �. .. . . . .. ... � ' .
. ,�'�y� ' � .. ' _ . . , � . ; • .
.�� ' . . . _ . .
� � Y: i
� - . .. :,L f�..._'�ts.r�'.�_.�1t�:i4..1- �.j.�j�`wY'.....n.,h..��°i:���� � !e'T�..
� � ~ T 3`r':.
� Board of County Commissioners .,,` �`�;
Meeting of August 22, 1995 Page 7 1'°':: ,
,,��;
�,.
, Alan Richman explained that he is not present as an opponent or proponent of the Aspen Highlands Base ;�.�'.��
Village projec� He is also not present to dispute or argue with any positions that staff fias taken. He is ; ;:•..
present because in the past he has had an opportunity to participate in the evolufion of the City and County '' • '
� growth management systems and Glenn asked him to speak about that from a historical perspecfive and i :• 'f+
�' help the BOCC in deciding whether the proposed conversion amendment is consistent with the way growth ;�,-. s
( mana ement has evolved in the 20 ears since it was fust ado ted or whether in an wa it mi ht �" '
B Y P Y Y g L;'z: :
undermine the integrity of the growth management quota system. In preparing for his presentation, he
; looked back at the original growth management policy plan. He lookefl at some of the analysis that has %?-;._4`'
besn done in the years since growth management was first adopted and since it was first imglemented back � a.; :
j in the 1970s. The original plan only addressed commercial and lodge gmwth in the downtown area. Not � •
1 along Main Street,not at the Business Center,not in the neighborhood commercial centers, where
( supermazkets are be developing,and not at Aspen Highlands. Alan noted that he heard Bill Kane describe {�;
the system as somewhat of a stop-gap measure to give the community time to develop a more ' `
comprehensive approach to dealing with growth. The originators of the system knew that the system would �'�?
ti need to be modified over time, The original GMP Pian, in its conclusion,recommended a semi-annual �. ��
� review to evaluate it and to evaluate the impacts of a growth control system and to recommend amendments �'.;
to it. The system has never had those semi-annual reviews,but it has been regularly updated and modified '�„�.
to stay abreast of changing development pressures and changes in community priorides on how growth �``
should be managed. The original system was really focused on the Idnds of growth pressures the I•`�?
community was experiencing in the 2970s and the community's priori6es for addressing growth at that
!, time. By the early 1980s, the type of growth the community was ea�periencing and the locations had
- � already begun to change. The ldnds of priorities that the community had for growth management and the s
type of balance that was important to the community had also changed. It cha�ged again in the late 1980s, -
and it is changing again in the 1990s. There is a constant evolution to the ldnd of growth being f:�',.
experienced and the kinds of pressures being experienced. A principal established in the 1980s to address :��
i growth in all of its many forms, was that growth management needed.to be dynamic and flexible and it �
� coutd not be a static reguladon Alan noted that the Aspen Metro quota went from 27 at its beginning to
- � 33 units]ater on. The Down Valley residential quota started as a 44 unit quota and became a 24 unit
quota. A County commercial quota never existed in the beginning and was adopted in the early 1980s as a ��.
, 20,000 s.f, quota which was eventually changed to 33 employment genera6on units. Aspen has changed iu
residendal,commercial and lodge quotas. They have gone up,down and back up. The County adopted a
lodge quota in 1982. This is the only one of all of the quotas that has never been changed. The City had
- real concerns about the quality of Aspen's lodging and that it had dropped so significantly that they actually '�
'+. ._.___ increased the lodge quota from 8 to 45 units in the City. Thirty-five of those were downtown units to make
� some hotel projects happen, like Little Nell, and the other ten were separated for the small lodges. With
; respect to exemptions, the City decided that it wanted an exemp6on for historic structures. There was no a
j bound or limit on the number of hotel units that you could apply for or commercial space in his[oric ,
, structures,and it was left that way, The reason was specific, to allow the Hotel 7erome to be upgraded. '� � .
That was the public purpose to be served. Another exemption of interest was the Smuggler Mobile Home �
Pazk which was facing the bull-dozer in the late 1970s. In 1981 they created an exemption to take ',�:
advantage of an opportunity for some free-market development to occur that provided the opportunity to '(
save the park. In this case, the exemption was to create a way for growth to occur,just for keeping what ,�.`�.
we already had in place. Saving that part was an important community goai. When the exemptions were �
reviewed several years later, this particulaz exemption was one of the first to be removed. Alan noted that " ' '
i conversion may or may not have positive applications in the future. If not,it can be repealed. Alan noted i
'�' J tha[communides he is worldng with,outside of the Roaring Fork Valley, have wncluded that the �, �
( tradifional wning techniques, basic regulatory techniques really don't work well with ski base industries. �"' '
{ �
I �sOGC� 7 ���-9� << '. �
_.. .. _ ___ ._. � _.... . _ _ ___. `
x�
a .
. _ _ :
_ ,. ... . _ . _ .. .
� ��
. ,,
, . _ ` � : '= `; �
_ � ,
� ,, . .
�
, _ . ,
. :, ; �
�. •
;��1� . . .
;�;A
�.
,
' . '�Ji�� �'.�..+h, . . :4� M1 .
UciR �� . .✓M-',`�Aam' �.�::.. . .� '.nn.Y' � �-�; -� �� .. .:i_slT_.'.._:f�... �� .r,..«:..rt...w.. , ."""_'_
�.. _ _. . .�_.__..... 4
,�r.
Board of County Commissioners Fc. �:
Meeting of August 22, 1995 page g 4�'„��:".`
��i��;
Qaality base azeas aze a lot like littie villages that are very dynamic places that are composed of a lot of
� uses. That is ti►e only way they make any sense. The commanities Alan has dealt with,including i�
Snowmass,s�,vauey,and Pazk City, use flexible zoning techniques something like a specialty planned
area. They cannot specify in advance what uses will fit within a base area and the densities are hard to �'. •
� determine, so they try to mitigate tf►e impacts and make sure that there is a quality development. Alan
inoted that what makes a successful base azea today,is not necessarily the case a few years down the line. � `.
i He concluded that if you believe that this project accomplishes desired community objectives,and you ='. r
believe it contributes W community balance,history would then indicate that growth management can 7
I flexibly aoeommodate. Conversion is not going to destroy the integrity of the system or erode its technicai ��`
1 undertones. This is just another in a series of changes done for those public purposes, however,the BOCC �;.,,
1 must decide about those public purposes. Alan clarified that quality and balance aze being addressed nicely �:� -
in Jackson Hole and Puk City. Ae is not suggesting any comparison of Aspen to those communi6es.
t Sometimes communi6es are willing to be more flexible and more open minded and work with market
demands to determine what is and what is not appropriate in a base area.
Gideon Kaufman noted that the issue of conversion is very important and it is important for the BOCC to F
undecstand the applicant's position on it. He reminded the BOCC that at each meeting,they have
attempted to realisrically address the concerns that have been raised in the memos from the Planning&
� Zoning Commission and the Planning Office. Some of the concerns were slopes encumbered by littte
; bands of 30 percent,avatanche hazards in building envelopes, transportation issues, scenic impacts,
' i rezoning requirements and compliance with the AACP. At each step, they believe that ihey have
demonstrated how the plan complies with intent of the code and those realistic concems that have been
raised. Once again, the applicant believes that they have addressed the concerns that the staff has and that
have been addressed in the P&Z memo. The idea that conversion undermines or even leads to the end of
the GMQS is not correct and it is not in keeping with the previous modificatians. Modification that the
applicant believes have strengthened and enabled the GMQS to remain in tvne with the community. Gideon
• pointed out that Alan Richman did a very good job of offering concrete exampies of how flexibility has
strengthened and not in any diminished the growth management plan and how adjustment and flexibility ue
in fact the comerstone of the GMQS. These changes have delivered results that the community wants.
Gideon believes that conversion should be viewed as a useful tool which provides flexibiiity to the growth
management system. If there is concern abouf�future projects misusing conversion there aze safeguazds that
� can be udlized and they can be placed in the ordinance in addition to those which have been recommended
�� ' by the applicant. Gideon reminded the BOCC that once conversion is put on the baoks,the BOCC must
__--... ..._
• , find that converting the project is in the best interest of the community. BOCC discrefion is at the heart of
conversion. Gideon explained that the proposed project does not inuoduce any new unanticipated impacts
to the neighborhood. A large hote2 project, with significant impacts, was approved at General Submission
and competed successfully in the GMQS. The current proposal, Gideon contends,lessens every one of
those impacts and better addresses the concerns of the P&Z, neighbors and community. Gideon questianed �
whether single-family homes in this area is really a valid concem which leads to imbalance. He noted the I
zoning at Aspen Highlands is currenfly R-30. This allows single-family houses by right. The ott►et mne at
the property is AF-1. AF-1 zoning also allows single-family houses by right. The AR-1 zone,the wne for
the base of the mountain,also allows singie-family houses by right. All three zones on the property allow
� single-family houses by right. Under the existing wne,the applicant could build 48 single-family houses. �
; Permitting wnversion to be utilized to allow a use by right is not inappropriate and does not in any way
� �_i
f skew community balance. When you look at the free-market components of the project and add it to the
� affordable housing components of the project, the applicant achieves the 60:40 community balance goal of
� the AACP. Gideon contends that conversion does not create imbalance. Gideon explained that the
�jOG' C- �
, S� d��-4 s ;.
.
_ _ _...._._,_ ._._. _ ., _. ._ .. _ ___. . _ .».�,a.
_ .. . _
, _ _ - ; �
, ` ��'
_ .
- _ r::-� ,
... ��,. .
•1.;- :_
�; � :,..
� • . . . . . � . .k:�..,... .''
� . . � _. . t:� .
` ' . ' . � . . � . . � . . , .. .
i I .
: ._. ._�.:. .._:.- ..-'.�....... .. ' � .
/ '
��: . . . . .. � .
,��;:y
.,,- _� - •
• � .
Y d:
•3�`. � ..e . .ify... ..._..... .. i . t .
i �::;'�:ap;{',
� Board of Coanty Commissioners Y. �yk'.
� Meeting of August 2Z, 1995 page 9 �., s�:...
, i,,. -;t:
J::; �ti4:
-,�
applicant believes that the current proposal better approaches the goals and balances of the AACP. He "
contends that the analysis shows that no other appiicant would have been negatively affected by conversion ' �`,�
to residential. In fact,95 tesidential GMQS atlotments were never utilized. That is more than the 73 ' a
bein asked for b this a licant. Another concern brou ht u in o sirion to conversion was that the �''��-'�
8 Y PP g P PP� � i .
hotel pmject did not have competition in the GMQS process since there is no other property zoned for ! :. .':'"
; hotel. Therefore, the logic was no conversion should be allowed. Gideon sabmits ihat the exact opposite is
true. You have a hotel project that did not go through a competition,it did not have to provide the r
community benefits that we want today. It was designed and developed basetl on 1985 community desires. • 'r
On the other hand,if we allow conversion,we get a projact that the community works with the developer ��:+�:> .
on, to gei the benefits needed in 1995. Gideon noted that without conversion rental housing,cash-in-lieu,a �����-
bifurcated base area, and a lazge hotel can be buiIt. �th conversion,single-famiiy, for sale affordable '�'Of
housing,Category 1, 2, 3 and 4, sale uniu will be built. This project was unanimously sapported by the ' �
Housing Aathority Board. One that they said was creative and far-reaching. This is an affordable housing J '',
mix that has never before been envisioned in balance and mix. Cortversion also leads to dial-a-ride,local `'
' serving commercial, one ownership,comprehensive planning at the base,an upgraded mountain, school �
lift, and ski club building. Gideon Kaufman contends that conversion has a lot of posi6ve aspects. Gideon .. .
contends that conversion is also needed to rectify unfair treatment at the Aspen Highlands. The community l .
' determined in 1982 that the existing GMP lodge quota prevented development of hotels. The pmject was i
forced to compete for over ten years and slill doesn't have the necessary quota to build a lodge or hotel �
which was contemplated in the early 1980s. The system imposed upon the Aspen Hightands did not allow !
. for reasonable develapment. Gideon poinied ouf that every individual City and County GMP category,
except one, and their quotas have been modified and changed over the last 13 years to respond to changes
� and to show flexibiliry. 'The one which wasn't changed was the one at the base of Highlands. The
objec6ve of the GMP is to regulate and pace gmwth. It has done that in every other GMP category. At
the Highlands it has prevented and stopped growth. Gideon overviewed some of the changes and �:,
� exemptiorts which have been adopted in order to make changes occur that were in the best interest of the i�`'
, community. Gideon explained that i#you tike the project and the numbers,conversion is the best way to
get there. He summarized that the community needs to look at conversion as other changes have been
looked at in the past. As one of many land use tools that enables the community to achieve a land use
� result with community benefits. Conversion is another in a long series of evolutionary changes and it is in
keeping with the technical undertones of our own GMQS. We have a system that can accept change and
that needs to accept change and that has demonstrated thai it can be flexible. The GMQS does not have to � :
�� be rigid and force upon us projects that don't work. The choice here is to aitow the system to work for us
"';-- or allow the system to dictate what we get even if it is noi what we want.
�
� Mick Ireland noted that tonight's meeting is not scheduled for public hearing. However,he offered the
, � public the opportunity to direct comments which relate to conversion and issues iaised ak this meeting.
I A member of the public asked if conversion would be needed for the enfire base area if it were turned into � , �
employee 6ousing. 1
Tim Malloy answered this question by describing the reasons foz proposing the AH proposal for
wnsidera6on. 'I'here is a GM Exemption for a project that includes 30 percent free market units and 70
percent AH units. Under this scenario, the 30 percent free-mazket component,31 units described would be
exempt in exchange for the other 70. Tt�ere is also in the LUC an exemption for AH pmjects. 100% AH �=;
units could also experience the same sort of exemption. When he said there is an exemption, there needs j
i ,���� � ��-9�
�
,�.._.:.�M LL _^_ ___ ..�..,_. ._ __ __�_ti _._ ____. ,___
.,-.._:.. .,..,_ . . ........:.............__.. . .....,..,. •e!ty�yw•� . ,
� 1
. � . . . " . . . . .`���.} �� .
�
. , . � . . ' - . � ..
. . . . . . ' � 1..
�� . � . . � . . . . . . '1:':'I:�...��i:�..
- . � . • - � "_ � ,� ..�Y
(, 1
. � . . . f . � ��. . . ". ' ' . .
'
, . 1 . , . . � �. . . . � � ..
� � '� � � � l. . . � . .. •
� . . � . , �. . � � �i
� . � ._ __—. .. . _ ._. .. _ . �..I . . ' � ./ .
�: , . . .. � . . . .. . ' . � . .
,�..�� . . � . �. " . � . .� . . . ,
...��
�'.>. .. _. _ _:_ . � . � . . _ . _ ._. - _ _ __ - � �,;,,
_ .;._,�;z.
, � �,
Boazd of County Commissioners >- ylo's
Meeting of August 22, 1995 Page 10 r�r..� '':
, ` .
. K:,:�;t�?;
•: ,..
to be a Code amendment to amend the LUC to include a similaz type of AH pmvision as in the City's ,� _,- �
code. It was noted that there is already a code provision for 1003o AH units. :..,�i�
(`
Rick Jones representing some people in the neighborhood. Rick contends ihat this differs significantly in 1, ,'
im act from the reviousl a roved ro'ect. The construction od for the other ro'e�t was 3 ears �,'� ,���
' P P Y PP P J P� P J Y g .
? versus 10 to 15 years as proposed now. The ownership structure has changed dramatically. 'Phe #';�,.' ''
� responsible pazties at the base have gone from one management company to 146 scparate owners. 104I �.s:,; •'
c:::..
' was not an issue. PUD which is used irt this versus Whip's project had everything clustered at the base. �.:�.:: `
- � This uses PUD to sprawl up the side of the hill and an addi6onal 54.5 acres are to be developed under this ��;;-�;`:
E project as opposed to the last one through. The past pmject had density reducdons in it,specificatly to �.;,:;:.
` meet minimum thresholds. This one iooks like full build-out under underlying wning. Whip's projec[had t_' �s°:-
� � 3 percent of the project above the maximum height allowed. This project,the average height is 40 feet, ;: �
; which is way above what the maximum height should be. Rick contends that no mauer how strong the ��,
� uansit program, traffic is going to be impactive. Rick noted that Whip Jones'project was specifically =
moved down and away from the houses that he represents. In fact, he thinks Alan Richman,during the �{
� 1986 BOCC meetings regazding general submission approval for Highlands,indicated he had substantial �
z problems with the signi£cant impact on adjacent residential properties regarding the proposed cottage a
village units. He,at that time,recommended eliminating those units from the site plan altogether. The
F BOCC went out of i[s way to ensure that some R-30 land was addressed. This was specifically deducted as .�r
� open space as a result of that approval. Rick noted that the size of this project is over 50 percent bigger in "
gross footage. He noted this dces not include about 200,000 s.f. in driveways and roads in the subdivision
� up the hill. He thinks the neighborhood has the right to rely upon the wning and conditions of approval �'
( that were in place when General Submission was grantecl previously. The applicant Imew what was 4
� ailowed and what was intended and he beIieves it would be irrational to ignore conditions placed upon those !-
appmvals. He betieves the new applicant should be held to the previous requirements. Iie refetred to a ��
specific condition no. 7,of Resolution 91-2,which prohibits the lodge at Aspen Highlands being useti for
anything other than short-term. Condiflons 2 and 19,of 86-39 were also referenced with respect to
" dedicated open space. He noted that the approvals were not vested.
t
�
Mick Ireland noted the statement that the base azea must be solid financially W support mountain {
improvements. Iie asked if the implications of what was said was that if the applica6on was not approved :
as submitted, the mountain improvements were to be withheld or withdrawn. i°: �
. 3'
------- Gerald Hines responded to Mick's question explaining that two lifts were put in at H'ighlands last summer, �
� spending over 1/2 million dollars on improvements. Mr. Hines indicated those improvements were made
without any 6e to approvals. They aze not holding anyone hostage. They did it on a basis of good faith
because they thought it was important to the community. Whip Jones indicated to Mr. H'ines that when he ;
' put in the originat improvements,those improvements were put in with the sale of the lots at the bottom of ,
the ski mountain. Mr. Hines contends this is euactly the same proposal. Mr.Hines is seelring a sense af i� �
� fairness. Mr. Hines noted that they have stuck their necks out and he has done this many times before. in '
- most cases, he has been treated fairly. Mr.Hines noted that it is not possible to put in$25 million worth I•
of improvements on the mountain without the e�onomic benefits of the base. Mr. Hines is not withholding ,
� improvements to the mountain but the funds aze not available to put additional imgrovements in without a �, 4�
' reasonable approval for the base. Mr. Hines responded to a question by Mick Ireland that the Aspen : :�;;;
1 Slding Company has a financial stake in the base area development. (` ��-��
; 'r_ r,
�
1 t
i �✓dGC, /p �-�s-9" }�
' . :, . .__-_,.----- ----..._.._.f...___._--= --------__. ___.--- _ __..._�_
.�. ,
F�, .
,....�.;.:.... . . .-,.'.......... . --.'.�,. ,:j'�
f 1 ;
/ •. . .. � ... . . .. I ` ' ���� �:� .
H
. ^ . ' . . ' ' '. �� ;
.. �. . . . � 4 ' . . � . . �` ` .
. . . . . � � '. � . { .
. ' . . . ..' �`. ..'.
. . � .. . . . . .:�:' . .. ..
\ ' . . ' � � . .. � . . . .
. � . '. . . . � , ! - '
� __. _._ . ,_. . . ... . _1' _ . .. � .
�� . . � .. . .. . . . , , ,
y����� .. . . _ � � . .
��M1. � ra .. . .
Y! .
__ _. , ,_ __
. �::.. .,,. . .:,..., _.�,_.._ _. - . ' . � ...�.. .�_._...,....�._....,,_,,.,,_..,___._..�..._�.� � ,t.;:.
;;�� , _,,y„{
Boazd of County Commissioners � �`.
�� Mceting of August 22, 1995 Page 11 �: �Y-,;
. t `�.�'
� Discussion ensued regarding the interests served in the community with or wiffiout conversion on this ,
Iparticulaz projec� c"•'�
•.' 1 The P&Z recommendadon with respect to conversion was discussed. i;�y'�
IGideon Kaufman explaine�that the P&Z recommendation was based on a compromise by the majority just ' � �r
� to pass the matter on. �i: ':
- � - I It was noted that if this project was to go forward with some type of AH proposal, the matter would ��i.
probably need to go back to the Planning Commission. Disoussion ensued. `�'�
Mick Iretand asked if the applicant believes that there is an imbalance in the community with respect to �',,, .
second homes and permanent resident homes. ;
{
�
• Gideon Kaufman exp2ained that the plan proposed does not pmmote any imbalance but helps to off-set any i_;..
imbalance which may exist.
�
Mick explained that the AACP says the critical mass in the community,or 60 percent of the work force ;
should work up valley of the Aspen Village Mobile Iiome Pazk. He questioned the applicant's contention
that this project dcesn't cause more problems than it solves with respect to the housing the loca[work
_ force. He thinks it creates more second homes and more prablems than it solves. He noted that 30 more
employees are going to be generated than housed under even the Planning Staff proposal.
i Richard Gordon believes it would be irresponsible to even consider any more development. • ;.
' �.
Hans Gramiger discussed the conversion,footprint,number of hotel rooms originally proposed,and '
- transportation. He believes everything has to do with the entrance to Aspen. Hans noted he wrate a letter
regarding tiansporta6on for submission to the record.
� Mick Ireland entered several letters into the record. Katy Ingham who opposed the project;Betty Farson,
( opposed to the projecr Tim Clazk in favor of the project;David Harris in favor of the project;Sandre
7ohnson opposed to the project;and Laun Weinerman in favor of the pro}ect.
y �
`� #"---;— 'i Connie Harvey offered several comments. She noted that it will generate more traffic, create more roads
-,;', where ihere is currently skiing, the markets will be impacted,and Mazoon Creek Road will be severely
- ; impacted. She suggested TDRs be considered before approving anything. ' �
i Peter Guy offered his own perceptions on the concept of conversion. Ae concurred with Alan Richman's
presentation on GMQS and the ability to be flexible. He said they maneuvered and manipulated the GMP � ,
to get what was desired. If you like the project, don't be afraid of conversion. If you have some
reservadons on the pmject,don't be afraid of conversion. Instead, find out what the problems aze and deal
': with them appropriately,
�
I "
' Melissa Goldrich has a sma111odge in town. She feels the County needs to be flexible. She explained that :�;;
; they canrtot rent out rooms sometimes in the lodge. She supports the proposal. 3� J
�, ,
� /30GC. �/
�'��`ys �
...:_.,_w _�_----j-------.W_ __-- _ ------ - � .
/ __...w� — .. �.w. . �� �
, . . , . ;
_ _ ;
�, : � ..
, . ; , :. ._
- �.--. .
, . .. .
�. � � ; � �
,
�: -, _,
�.. �: � . _ ,
,��� . . _
�u �
. ^ .
�;::�� _ . _ . ,
� - -- r,,,�;>,.
• �' t..k-,.,•;
r..:.
Board of County Commissioners . ,. �:
Meeting of August 22, 1995 Pagc 12 � .: �';;
p�;,� ,t�t'�1
, :,
David Brown explained that he saw this application originally in front of the City P&Z. David spoke about ', ;�
� the 70:30 mix,the mixes of uses, and the idea of a real village which is anticipated and desired by the .�;1
community. He urged approval of the pmject. ���,;;'.,,
�.!< .y,
--;.
Ms. Gold****(adjacent property owner)stated that Mr.Hines lonew the wning of the property before he �`n,.''''r
purchased it. She asked that the BOCC deny the project for the community and for her. ,�,'.'.. r
:_�'� �,
Mike Convisor noted that all of his friends are involved on all sides of this case. He spoke about the � `
�'.'.'
____ _- people who are opposed to this project. Mike noted that one member of[he P&2 was in favor of the `�r "
;��s:
project, but oppased to the conversion formaIa proposed. He also spoke about the black box stating that .-:,,.�.: .
this is part of the process. He believes transporta6on needs have not been solved yet. `,'•��::: �.
_I
� Perry Harvey spoke to the conversion issue. He was on City P&Z from 1978 to 1985. They heated `.�' .,
' growth management as kind of a City business plan. As such,a business plan must be fle�cible and must be
� able W be changed. The rules were looked at annually, small lodges had a new category,created an �
iezemption for historical structures to accommodate the Hotel7erome,raised and lower quotas to meet `
. �. demand to encourage supply ia various sectors of the community where thsy wa�ted it,put in a conversion ,*; �
mechanism, so that commercial space could convert outside of growth management, and residential to go to
commercial. He urged the BOCC to look at conversion not as a violation of growth management,but �
rather as the part in the process of what growth management must be if it is to be successful. •a`�
- � Pat Fallin served on City P&Z for many years. She explained that the GMP was created to serve the
; community. She urged the BOCC to look at conversion as a way to adjust for the community.
,
; After a short discussion it was determined that this meeting would be adjoumed to reconvene on Thursday �i�''
� at 3PM at the Library meeting room.
�
;� Respectfully submitted, 1
I
� �:'-ELrti�-�gr-�-. �'
� ��net RacTak . :
-�1 Transcribing Secretary
'�:---I Rncznx,Wc. .�
i, 215 S.MONARCH,SUITE 104 j;
i ASPEN,CO 81611 ,�
(970)925�869 G
• • . BOCS 22.96
- �,- ;;
;
I /�J�J �,
�!/r . � �,:
Michael C. Ireland, C airman i
Board of County Comm ssioners " �' ?
;�; I�'.
`•.'.
,�0��-- /�- �-�.�-yS �
. . .....�,.f.�casc�a�ua�,xa:.m.:.�---- . . — , ...��pu
–.. � ' - . ��`k
}
. . � � . . � . '.� . . 5
.
. •
� .. ., �. 4� �
" Y y�. • �
f .��r
M .T. l
. ` . '• . �:i. j
. .
- � � � � .��;��::. - � . .
. 1 ..1'. ' . " ,_ ..'' ... ' . .
. . .. . � . . . . .. , ./ .
. ,
.. , .. - .�: : " , ... . .....__ ..�,.. ..� .
. .�' . .. ,. . � . . - . . .. � .
.��t"''� _, . _ �
`a„i ��