Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Kirkwood topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alpine County forwards Kirkwood townhome application amid questions about employee-housing credits
Summary
Alpine County staff reviewed a conditional use permit for a 2,139 sq ft townhome at 999 Kirkwood Meadows Drive and asked planners to verify employee-housing credit allocations after finding an earlier development agreement may have expired; the panel voted to forward the application to the county planning commission with no technical objections.
Alpine County staff on Thursday forwarded a conditional use permit application for a proposed 2,139-square-foot townhome at 999 Kirkwood Meadows Drive to the Alpine County Planning Commission after discussing how employee-housing requirements and an expired development agreement affect approval.
The item, introduced by Ethan Gray, deputy director of community development for Alpine County, was presented by a team member who identified herself only as Erin. Gray said he and planner Sarah were filling in for an absent colleague and asked regional partners to weigh in on whether a single-family dwelling is permitted under the Kirkwood specific-plan multifamily designation and whether a conditional use permit is required.
“We've submitted everything that's required for a new conditional use permit,” Erin said, noting the applicant included plans, elevations, a geotechnical report and a will-serve letter from the utility district. She told the panel the project team proceeded under the assumption that an earlier conditional-use arrangement had expired and that this application was the appropriate next step.
Staff discussion focused on employee-housing obligations in Kirkwood. An agency official noted that, under the specific plan referenced in the staff report, single-family and duplex projects require one employee-housing unit for every three residential units. The same official told the panel the development plan that originally covered earlier phases had an effective date of 06/28/2001 with a 10-year term and appears to have expired, which would cause the county to rely on the specific plan’s current requirements.
That raised questions about how fractional credit obligations were handled in prior phases and whether prior projects recorded restrictions or purchased credits to satisfy employee-housing ratios. Participants discussed Timber Creek, Palisades and other resort-area allocations as likely places where employee-housing units or credits were recorded; staff said developer title searches and archived minutes would help clarify allocations.
An agency official said county staff would attempt to locate the so-called allocation “checkbook” listing where employee-housing credits were assigned and agreed to send those records to the applicant and other attendees once located. Sarah, the Alpine County planner identified by Gray during the meeting, confirmed the county can search clerk archives and staff records to assist the planning commission’s review.
After the discussion, an agency official moved to forward the application to the Alpine County Planning Commission "with no technical objections." A committee member seconded the motion. Voice votes were taken and 'aye' responses were recorded; the panel then moved on to adjournment, scheduling the planning commission as the next venue for a public hearing and final decision.
The Planning Commission will now review the conditional use permit application, the staff report and any records found regarding prior employee-housing allocations before making a recommendation to the Board or issuing a decision at a subsequent noticed hearing.
