Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20140218 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, February 18, 2014 REGULAR MEETING: 4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen I. ROLL CALL II: COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES—January 7, 2014 and January 21, 2014 IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS— VI. OTHER BUSINESS Lodging code amendments VII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: —2— Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission January 7, 2014 P 1 U Erspamer,Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre, Myrin and Gibbs present. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn and Jennifer Phelan COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Myrin asked if the Motherlode affordable housing has been occupied and Ms. Phelan stated she did not know. Mr. Myrin said there is an open house this week and he may attend. Mr. Erspamer stated he went to the work session last night for the cash in lieu discussion. He stated that the council wanted more accurate data so they can figure out what kind of system can be used to create the cash in lieu program. Ms.Tygre asked for more clarification and Ms. Phelan said there was a study for the cash in lieu in regard to income categories and it showed the current numbers are quite low to what today's market would require. Ms.Tygre asked why it has to be an ADU and Ms. Phelan said that is one of the options when building a single family home or duplex. Ms.Tygre said she wanted clarification that an ADU is one of the options and not a requirement. STAFF COMMENTS: There is a joint work session on Monday February, 3rd with City Council. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There are no public comments MINUTES - December 17, 2013 Mr. Gibbs made a motion to approve the minutes from December 17th, seconded by Mr. Myrin. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Ms.Tygre suggested the commission wait until more members are present before a decision is made. Ms. Quinn stated that the commission can delay if they do not feel there is a sufficient number of members present. Mr.Gibbs made a motion to continue the election of chair and vice chair, seconded by Ms.Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Gibbs recused himself from the public hearing. Public Hearing- 431/433 W. Hallam St. Residential Design Standards Variances Mr. Erspamer notified the applicant that since only three members are present, all three members need to vote the same in order to pass a motion one way or the other. He told the applicant that if he feels the hearing is not going the way he would like he could continue until more commissioners are present. The applicant said he has spoken with the owner and he would like to present the application and see where the commission stands before they make a decision to continue or not. 1 P2 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission January 7,2014 Ms. Quinn stated she has reviewed both affidavits of public notice and they are appropriate. Ms. Phelan, community development department,stated that the application is a request for two variances from the residential design standards. The property is 431 and 433 W Hallam. It is a corner lot in the West End on the corner of Hallam and 4th Street. There is an existing duplex. The owner is proposing to demolish and redevelop with a new single family home. She said that Dillon Johns is the representative for the applicant, DH Hallam, LLC. The lot is just over 6,000 square feet. There is not alley access because of how the property was subdivided in the past. The residential design standards have a provision that for lots without alley access a garage is required to be set back ten feet further that the front most wall of the house. There is another standard that requires garage doors that face the street to be either single stall doors or appear to be single stall. There are multiple residential design standards for single family homes including orientation and window requirements. She stated that the request tonight is not to have to set back the garage but be flush with the rest of the wall of the house and to provide a double garage door that matches the surrounding materials. The garage door should be hidden and blend in with the rest of the surrounding materials. Ms. Phelan stated the design standards are in place to preserve the neighborhood character. The intent is to have homes that contribute to the street scape and insure parking is concentrated to the rear or side of the home. She said that in regards to garage doors the intent of the standard is to minimize the presence of garages as a lifeless part of the street scape. To grant a variance from the design standards the board needs to determine that the design solution, as being proposed, is an appropriate solution considering the context of the neighborhood and the purpose of the standard, or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site constraints. Ms. Phelan said the purpose of the standards is to minimize the visual impact of garages. She said that the historic pattern of the West End is to have garages that are detached accessing the alley or a side street as an accessory structure. She said that this helps to minimize the presence of garages. This is a new redevelopment project and Staff feels that the standards should be met. The overall context of the West End warrants meeting the standard. She stated that Staff does not see this having unusual site constraints. There are multiple lots in the West End that do not have alley access, Pearl Ct., parts of N 4th St., Lake. Ms. Phelan said that as shown in the application the standard can be met. The garage can be set back to meet the 10 foot setback. She stated that they can use materials that blend in with the rest of the home for the garage door. Ms. Tygre asked what hidden garage door means. Ms. Phelan said it is using similar materials so the garage door blends in with the rest of the materials of the home. There is no real official definition of hidden. Mr. Myrin asked if the garage is along the front most wall or side wall of the home. Ms. Phelan replied that the standard is when it is street facing so as a corner lot it would need to be set back on either side. Mr. Erspamer asked if it is a single family home. Ms. Phelan replied it will be a single family home. Dillon Johns,Zone 4 Architects, is representing DH Hallam. He stated that the project involves an existing duplex, late 60's edition. It is a single story home with a few set back encroachments. There is one on the 4th Street fagade about five feet over the line and a few inches on the East side. He said that trying to put a single family home with an ADU and a detached garage on a lot of this configuration is 2 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission January 7,2014 P3 extremely difficult. He said the reason they are here tonight is not to say that they could not come up with a solution to get the garage in there but they have a solution where the owner is a bit uncomfortable with the amount of outdoor area remaining. He said that because of the site condition and property configuration the project may not work for the owner. Mr.Johns noted that the garage on the Weaver property contains a garage as well as a surface parking area. The owner has been in talk with the owner of the Weaver property to try to acquire rights to go through the surface parking part of the property. So far the price is where they do not want to do it. Mr.Johns said that they are asking to move the garage mass towards the front facade of the building which would open up the outdoor area by 21 percent. He stated if they did have alley access it would be allowed and the only difference would be the garage doors would be off to the side. He said there are a few options of making the garage doors blend in to the fagade. He stated he took a half block radius and looked at the existing garage conditions. He pointed out multiple examples of Victorian and similar era homes that do not conform to the standard. He stated that there are 11 non-conforming garages in the three blocks he looked at. He stated that doing the hidden door solution is not a deal breaker. Mr. Erspamer stated if the garage set back is ten feet there would be an overhang of ten feet. He asked if the applicant is requesting to not have the set back but leave the garage flush with the house. Mr. Johns said they would like to bring it flush to the fagade. He said they don't feel that the pedestrians are being impacted here and it is not a sidewalk attainment zone and there is no current sidewalk. He said there is a few feet rise from the curb line to where the house is built. He also said there is an irrigation ditch that runs through along&I Street. He said they are losing usable space for the family on the interior courtyard in exchange for conforming to the design regulations. He said the town is not gaining anything but the owner is losing a significant portion of their outdoor space. Mr. Erspamer asked if there was a survey of what the back looks like ten feet in. Ms. Phelan replied it is diagram A100. He also asked if there are two doors would there need to be a post in the middle. Ms. Phelan said the requirement could be two individual doors that require a post or one double door that appears to be one door. Mr. Erspamer opened the public comment. Scott Hoffman,the owner of 501 W Hallam,stated he is new to the area and came for information. He said that if Staff says no then it should be no. He said the main reason seems to be they want more yard. Mr. Hoffman said that his home would be remodeled at some part. Mr. Erspamer stated that normally the commission does not let dialog go on and asked if he had an opinion one way or another. Mr. Hoffman stated he thinks the house looks better with the offset forms. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. Ms.Tygre stated that there are residential design standards and they are very clearly explained in the code. She said they need to choose A or B or not at all. That is the role of P&Z. She stated if it meets A or B they approve it and if it does not they don't approve it. She said everything else they are discussing is not relevant including their own opinions. She wants to focus the discussion on either A or B. She stated she is trying to find anything in the presentation that would contradict what Staff's findings are. She stated she did walk around the property this afternoon and double garage doors seem like a very suburban subdivision approach. She said that the context makes the design not compatible with the neighborhood unless there is a way to disguise the doors. She said the original solution did as good a 3 P4 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission January 7,2014 job for the double garage and what is proposed is not an improvement over that. She said she can't find the justification in the code as it is written to grant this request. Mr. Myrin stated that page 16,A and B and Staff's comments summarize what he would say. He agrees with Staff and if it is something where they need to change the code then they should change the code and should not be a one-time exception for a brand new construction. He said the house does not need to be as large as it is and they can give some of the house space to yard space or some ADU space to yard. Mr. Erspamer said that he and his wife own a unit with no alley and it is a hardship. He said that the blank door does not meet the code. He said it is acceptable to put a fagade on the door to make it blend in and look like two single doors. He said he does not see anything compelling why they can't do the set back other than losing ten feet in the yard on the backside. He said it gives it dimension and unless he sees something compelling he agrees with Staff. Mr.Johns stated he would like to continue and discuss with the owner. He asked if the feeling is that the alley condition does not represent a hardship. Ms.Tygre and Mr. Myrin agreed with this. Ms.Tygre made a motion to continue to the January 21St meeting,seconded by Mr. Myrin. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Myrin made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Ms.Tygre. All in favor, motion passed. Linda Manning Records Manager 4 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission January 21,_2014 P5 U Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre, Myrin and Gibbs present. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn and Jennifer Phelan COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Myrin thanked Ms. Phelan for confirming that the Motherlode has been occupied since 2012. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Manning stated that the P&Z interviews are scheduled for January 28t"at 4pm. There are eight applicants. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There are no public comments. MINUTES The minutes from the January 7t" meeting will be included in the next packet. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There are no conflicts of interest. Public Hearing - 431/433 W. Hallam St. Residential Design Standards Variances Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing. On behalf of the applicant, Ms.Tygre made a motion to continue until the March 4" meeting;seconded by Mr.Gibbs. All in favor, motion passed. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Mr. Gibbs nominated Mr. Erspamer for Chair;seconded by Mr. Myrin. Mr. Erspamer accepted the nomination. Mr. Erspamer nominated Mr. Gibbs for Vice Chair; seconded by Mr. Myrin. Mr.Gibbs accepted the nomination. The commission voted on the nominations and were approved. Other Business-Year in Review Mr. Myrin passed out handouts including the list from past years of the issues P&Z would like addressed as well as the resolution for parking they worked on. He said there is no advantage to making a new list until they find out what Council thinks the role of P&Z is. Ms.Tygre asked if P&Z can draft a resolution and send it to Council. Ms.Quinn said it needs to go through Community Development. Mr. Erspamer asked how P&Z can communicate directly with Council. Mr.Gibbs said that P&Z does not have the ability to change Council's priority list. He said P&Z could draft a resolution and have the chair present it at the non-agenda part of the council meeting then they can do what they want with it. This way it would be part of the record and Council would be made aware of it. Ms.Quinn stated that this has never happened before but is allowed. Ms.Quinn stated that the code amendment process has changed and P&Z now has a lesser role that was approved by Council.. P&Z is no longer part of the code amendment process. Mr. Myrin stated that 1 PIS Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission January 21,2014 P&Z in the past had been able to initiate a code amendment and work on it but that is no longer happening. Ms. Quinn said P&Z could do a resolution then it is up to Council if they want to allocate Staffs time to pursue it. Mr. Gibbs suggested that at the beginning of Council meetings when they are going over the board comments there should also be a section for voluntary board comments where P&Z or HPC could voice their comments directly to Council. He stated that currently the best method of getting their comments to council is in the P&Z minutes. Mr. Myrin stated that P&Z is not working on anything. Ms.Quinn asked him what he means by work on it. He said that P&Z would red line the current code then send it back to Council without using Staff. Ms. Quinn stated that she does not see how this is done without Staffs participation. Ms.Tygre said P&Z could red line the draft then give it to Staff to review instead of the other way around. Mr. Myrin said that if they recognize an issue they should be able to develop a code amendment. Mr.Gibbs said that P&Z is not the right group to be writing code amendments. It should be left up to the professional planners of Staff. Ms.Tygre agreed that they should only discuss the process with Council and not the list. Ms.Tygre made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor, motion passed. V U` inda Manning Records Manager 2 P7 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning& Zoning Commission FROM Jessica Garrow,Long Range Planner Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: February 18,2014 RE: Lodging Incentive Program Update and Feedback BACKGROUND: One of City Council's Top Ten Goals is to "Implement an incentive program for the short-term bed base." Staff is working on crafting code amendments to implement the goal and requests feedback from the Planning and Zoning Commission. This meeting is not a public hearing. Staff will include the meeting minutes and a summary of P&Z's comments to City Council as they move forward with the creation of a lodge incentive program. Over the past two (2) years the city has worked with the lodging and condominium community to understand the sector's challenges related to improving and maintaining their properties. An overriding theme staff has heard from the lodging outreach is city processes. should be predictable and streamlined, while also responding to the unique needs and situations on each property. Staff met with the P&Z in the fall of 2013 to get feedback on process changes related to PUD, Subdivision, and Growth Management. This memo provides an update on some recent code amendments to these chapters, and requests additional feedback on changes that will be part of a lodge incentive program. Specific questions for the Commission are included in bold in the memo. A great deal of background research has been completed for this project, and is available online at: http://www.aspegpitkin.com/De ai-tments/Communily-Development/Planning-and-. Zoning/Long Range-Planning/ (visit the Community Development portion of the website, click on"Planning and Zoning" on the left,then click on"Long Range Planning.") PUD AND SUBDIVISION: In November 2013 City Council approved code amendments to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Subdivision-portions of the-land use code. -Theses changes were primarily intended to streamline and simplify the review process. In addition, PUD is now called PD, or Planned Development. Highlights of the changes include: o . If a project is located in a Historic District or is designated historic the PD review and any other associated reviews can be completed by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). o The PD review process is a three-step process that focuses on getting major issues resolved at the beginning of the review rather than at the end. o A project will go to the P&Z or HPC for a recommendation on Project Review (step one). Project Review establishes the dimensions, including height and floor area, as well as the use mix of a PD. 2.18.2014 P&Z lodging check-in memo Page 1 of 6 P8 o City Council then completes the Project Review by passing an Ordinance (step two). The City Council Project Review is binding. o The final details of a project, such as easement locations and architectural materials, are completed by P&Z or HPC through their Detailed Review (step three). A project does not go back to City Council unless it is inconsistent with the Project Review. • Subdivision reviews were amended so the dividing of land into individual lots requires a P&Z and City Council review, but division of a single building into different ownership interests (condominiumization) is an administrative review. • A new section, Approval Documents, was added to the code to outline what documents are required to be submitted and/or recorded upon approval of a development. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: On February 10, 2014 City Council approved code amendments to the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) that eliminated the twice yearly application deadlines certain projects were subject to and to the scoring system. (Only certain projects were subject to these requirements.) Staff discussed these potential changes with the P&Z in the fall, and P&Z expressed support for the changes for lodges, but did not discuss eliminating them for commercial and free-market residential projects. The recent code amendment eliminates the deadline and competition for all projects. . There are six(6) other GMQS changes staff would like P&Z feedback on: 1. Increase or eliminate lodge allotments available each year. a. Current Process: There are currently 112 lodge pillows available in any one calendar year. Each lodge bedroom is considered to have 2 lodge pillows, resulting in the - ability to add 56 total lodge bedrooms in any one year. This represents a 1.5% annual growth rate. b. Discussion: This would enable more lodge projects to come forward in any year. Few lodges have come forward in recent years, so eliminating or increasing allotments would likely "make up" for the unused allotments and could be tailored to stay within an overall growth rate of 2% over a number of years (5 or 10 years). In the early- to mid-2000s there were no allotment limits for lodge units, so this change would be a return to an old process. c. Implementation Options: One option is to determine what the 2% growth rate of the last 10 years and next 10 years would be and establish one pot of allotments that any project can use for the next 10 years. This would enable small and large lodge projects to come through as they are ready rather than creating a rush of applications at the beginning of any one year. Another option is that a timeframe could be established for the effectiveness of this change (5 or 10 years). d. Question for P&Z: Does P&Z support increasing or eliminating the lodge allotments? 2. Amend code so some or all Growth Management Reviews are completed administratively. a. Current Process: A lodge increasing by 1 or 2 units is reviewed administratively and can be applied for at any time. A lodge requesting 3 or more units (existing or new 2.18.2014 P&Z lodging check-in memo Page 2 of 6 P9 lodge) or additional commercial space or residential units is reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. b. Discussion: Most Growth Management Reviews are focused on accounting of allotments, not reviewing the merits of a project. Allowing this to be completed administratively would reduce the amount of time a project is in the land use process. This change would eliminate the opportunity for some projects to be discussed at a public hearing when they might include more subjective issues (i.e. location of mitigation). C. Implementation"Options: Most growth management reviews could be moved to administrative processes, but certain reviews that are more subjective could continue to be reviewed by P&Z or City Council. For instance, current Council level reviews, Essential Public Facilities, and any project requesting establishment of their employee generation rate could continue to be reviewed by P&Z and City Council. d. Question for P&Z: Does P&Z support making some or all growth management reviews administrative? 3. Exempt condominium units participating in an Incentive Program from the Multi- Family Replacement Program. a. Current Process: A residential unit that has ever housed a local working resident " cannot be demolished or combine with another unit without providing mitigation in the form of built units on the project site. Mitigation is most often not feasible because the existing building is non-conforming in terms of unit count and building size. b. Discussion: This change Would enable easier combination of units, which could move some units into the short-term rental pool because they are of larger.size or have a flexible configuration. The Multi-Family Replacement program was created, in part, to prevent condominiums from switching from housing local working residents to becoming second homes without providing new units for the displaced workers. This change would enable this conversion to occur without providing off- . set housing. ame could be established for the effectiveness of c. Implementation Options: A timefr this change (5 or 10 years). d. Question for P&Z: Does P&Z support exempting multi-family residential units that participate in the Incentive Program from multi-family replacement? 4. Amend the affordable housing mitigation location requirements in the Multi-Family Replacement Program. a. Current Process: When a. redevelopment triggers multi-family replacement requirements, affordable housing mitigation is required to be provided on the same parcel. b. Discussion: The location requirement has prevented many multi-family complexes from redeveloping because the density required by the location requirement exceeds what is allowed under zoning, or is deemed as unworkable by the complex. All other growth management mitigation requirements are permitted to be located on-site, off- site,through Affordable Housing Credits, or through a.cash-in-lieu payment. 2.18.2014 P&Z lodging check-in memo Page 3 of 6 P10 c. Implementation Options: A preference for on-site and/or off-site within the city could be included. Other mitigation options (like off-site or cash-in-lieu) could be allowed through a heightened review with P&Z or City Council. d. Question for P&Z: Does P&Z support amending the affordable housing mitigation location requirements in the multi-family replacement program? 5. In or eliminate free-market residential allotments available each year if those units are in the short-term rental pool. a. Current Process: There are currently 18 free-market residential unit allotments available in any one calendar year. This represents a 0.5% growth rate. b. Discussion:This would enable the expansion of existing condominium complexes if the new unit will be in the short-term rental pool. It would add to the overall inventory of short-term accommodations. If free-market residential allotments are eliminated it changes how the Growth Management system has worked since its inception. If allotments are increased it would be beyond the 0.5% growth rate currently permitted in any year in the code. c. Implementation Options: One option is to determine what the 2% growth rate of the last 10 years and next 10 years would be and establish one pot of allotments that any project can use for the next 10 years. This would enable condominium projects to come through as. they are ready rather than creating a rush of applications at the beginning of any one year. A timeframe could be established for the effectiveness of this change (5 or 10 years). d. Question for P&Z: Does P&Z support increasing or eliminating the free-market residential allotments? 6. Eliminate the Growth Ceiling from GMQS. a. Current Process: There are currently growth ceilings established for free-market residential, affordable housing, commercial, and lodge development. There is no growth ceiling for essential public facilities. b. Discussion: The growth ceilings are based on a desire to limit population in the Aspen Area to 30,000 people, as was established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). The 30,000 population limit was specifically not included in the 2012 AACP because it has already been broken and because it is likely unenforceable. Instead, the 2012 AACP focused on population sectors and understanding how to limit growth impacts through other methods, including through increased mitigation requirements. c. Implementation Options: For this section of the code the only options are to include a growth ceiling or eliminate the growth ceiling. Staff recommends removal of the growth ceilings because of the direction in the AACP and the potential enforceability issues. d. Question for P&Z: Does P&Z support eliminating the Growth Ceiling from GMQS? DIMENSIONS: Part of the feedback staff has heard from lodge operators and developers is that additional dimensional allowances are needed to create a successful lodge product. These changes fall into three main categories that staff would like P&Z feedback on: 2.18.2014 P&Z lodging check-in memo Page 4 of 6 P11 1. Free-Market Residential Unit Size. a. Current Requirements: Free-market residential unit sizes are limited based on zone district. Units located in the Lodge (L) and Multi-Family Residential (RMF) zones are limited to 1,500 square feet (which may be expanded to 2,000 sq ft with the landing of a TDR), while units in most commercial zones are limited to 2,000 sq ft (which may be expanded to 2,500 sq ft with the landing of a TDR). b. Discussion: There's been some discussion that allowing some increases to unit sizes and allowing the combination of units might help some units be more rentable or enter the short-term rental pool. Staff has some concerns that significantly increasing allowable unit sizes could have the opposite effect, and could result in a unit functioning more like a single-family home than a short-term rental unit. C. Implementation Options: Staff suggests P&Z'consider a modest increase in allowable unit sizes, such as 500 square feet, while allowing for the combination of units. One. option is to keep the current unit size requirements and allow more increases through the landing of TDRs, or allowing the landing of one (1) TDR to be worth more square footage. Another option could be tying any allowed increases to some kind of rental program incentive (such as returned fees or taxes) or requirement (such as joining a rental program). d. Question for P&Z: Does P&Z support increasing the free-market residential unit sizes? If so, does P&Z support this as an across the board increase or an increase limited to a lodge incentive program or by zone district? 2. Height. a. Current Requirements: Heights are limited by use and by zone district. In the Commercial Core (CC) zone, all properties on the south side of the street are limited to 28 feet, while properties on the north side of the street'are limited to 38 — 40 feet. In the Commercial (C-1) zone, all properties on the south side of the street are limited to 28 feet,while properties on the north side of the street are limited to 36 - 38 feet. In the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district lodge and mixed-use buildings are limited.to 28 — 32 feet. In the Lodge (L) zone district, lodge uses are limited to 28 — 40 feet depending on the lodge density(the more dense,the more height is allowed). b. Discussion: For lodges, most feedback staff has heard has indicated that some additional height is needed to justify investment in an existing lodge or to make a new lodge work. In general, feedback has indicated height for a fourth floor for properties closer to the mountain is appropriate, while lower heights in neighborhood lodges is most appropriate. c. Implementation Options: Staff suggests P&Z consider a modest increase in allowable height for lodge properties south of Durant Street that could accommodate four stories. One option is to keep the current height requirements and allow increases through a heightened design review or through a mandatory PD Review. Another option could be to allow more digging out of properties on their non-street facing facades to accommodate an additional story with some daylight. d. Question for P&Z: Does P&Z support increasing allowed heights for lodge projects? If so, does P&Z support this as an across the board increase or an increase limited to a lodge incentive program, location, or zone district? 2.18.2014_ P&Z lodging check-in memo Page 5 of 6 P12 3. Floor Area. a. Current Requirements: Allowed floor area is limited by use and by zone district. In the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) zones, lodge uses are limited to 0.5:1, which may be increased to 2:1 if the average unit sizes are 500 sq ft. In the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district lodge and mixed-use buildings are limited to 0.75:1 up to 1:1. In the Lodge (L) zone district, floor area allowances depend on the lodge density(the more dense, the more floor is allowed), with an upper cap of 2.75:1. b. Discussion: There has been little specific discussion of floor area allowances for lodge properties, but a general theme of feedback staff has heard is that some additional allowances may be appropriate and that the tie-in to density should be eliminated. c.. Implementation Options: One option is to keep the current floor area requirements and allow increases through a heightened design review or through a mandatory PD Review. Another option could be to allow floor area for any type of lodge regardless of density. d. Question for P&Z: Does P&Z support increasing allowed floor area for lodge projects? If so, does P&Z support this as an across the board increase or an increase limited to a lodge incentive program, location, or zone district? 2.18.2014 P&Z lodging check-in memo Page 6 of 6