HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.apz.001-78ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 78 /
RE:
Evaluation of the 1977 Commercial Projects Under the
Regulations of the Growth Management Plan (Ordinance
#48, Series of 1977)
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen adopted Ordinance #48, Series of
1977, to implement the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Policy
Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance permits the construction of 24,000
square feet per year of commercial space in the Commercial Core and
Commercial One zoning districts of the City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, two commercial projects (The Aspen Grove and the
Pitkin County Bank and Trust Buildings) applied for building permits
for the 1977 commercial square footage allotment, and
WHEREAS, the two projects were evaluated by both the Historic
Preservation Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission as
specified by Ordinance #48, Series of 1977, on the dates as presented
below:
October 25 - preliminary presentation of the Aspen Grove
Building to the HPC for design analysis and comments.
November l, 1977 - Continued analysis at an HPC Special
Meeting
November 8, 1977 - preliminary presentation of the Pitkin
County Bank and Trust (Pitkin Center) to the HPC for
design analysis and comment.
November 15 - HPC study session to continue review of the
Pitkin Center project.
November 22 - public hearing and assign HPC growth management
points to the Aspen Grove project. (14.4 points)
November 29 - HPC public hearing and assign HPC growth manage-ment points to the Pitkin Center project (13.8 points)
November 30-December 20 - preparation of planning office memo
to the P&Z.
January 10 - presentation of the Aspen Grove Project and
the Pitkin Center to the P&Z and allocation of points, and
WHEREAS, the deficiencies of the Aspen Grove project are namely
in the provision of community oriented services and energy conservation,
and
WHEREAS, deficiencies of the Pitkin Center are namely the
provision of community oriented services and energy conservation, and
-1
WHEREAS, the two projects together do not exceed the maximum
allowable annual commercial square footage of 24,000 square feet,
(Aspen Grove addition - 9,255 square feet; Pitkin Center - 8,530
square feet; total 17,785 square feet).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission submits the following point allocation to City Council
for their consideration for review of the two projects and allocation
of building permits for 1977.
Aspen Grove addition
Pitkin Center
31.46 points
22.2 points
Since the maximum points available to any one project is 40.8
points, and the minimum required by Ordinance #48, Series of 1977, is
21.6, this Board unaminously recommends that development allotments
be granted both projects and the applicants be complimented on the high
quality of preparation and design presented.
ATTEST:
Deputy(~y(ty Clerk
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
By ~
Chic Collins, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM
-2-
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -
Re: Amendment to Section 24-3(e)(1)
MEASURING FLOOR AREA FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a public
hearing on May 16, 1978 to consider an amendment to Section 24-3.7(e),
MEASURING FLOOR AREA FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO, and
WHEREAS, the Commission finds that amendment of this section is
necessary in order to clarify that the floor area of a building does
not include areas such as private balconies and other areas which are
not necessary for the function of the building.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission that it does hereby recommend to Council the amendment of
section 24.3.7(e)(1) as follows:
In measuring floor area for the purpose of calculating floor area
ratio, there shall be included that area within the surrounding
exterior walls (measured from their exterior surface) of a build-
ing or portion thereof, exclusive of vent shafts and courts. The
calculated floor area of a building or portion thereof not surrounded
by exterior walls shall include any areas under a horizontal projec-
tion of a roof or balcony which are necessary for the function of
the building.
Effective this° [~ day of July, 1978.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Charles T. Collins, Chairman
ATTEST:
Shery~/Simmen, Deputy City Clerk
RESOLUTION OF THE
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR
CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION AND PUD APPROVAL
OF THE ASPEN INSTITUTE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission received the "Con-
ceptual Subdivision/PUD Submission for the Aspen Institute/Meadows and
Related Lands" as submitted to the Planning Office on April 10, 1978 and
considered the submission at a special meeting on May 9, and again at a
special study session on May 30, and at a public hearing at 5:00 p.m. on
May 30, and
WHEREAS, the Commission notes that approval was granted to conceptual
SPA master plan by the City Council on August 22, 1977 and that the approval
stipulated numerous conditions to be met in further development of the plan
and reviews thereof, which conditions were as follows:
1. That an ongoing winter conference/educational program be pursued
to make use of the expanded facilities so that some reasonable chance
will exist for use of the facilities by other than tourists.
2. That a certain number of rooms be made available in winter for
community service purposes to include housing for local employees
as well as providing an opportunity for winter cultural programs.
3. That the 356 room proposal be approved in concept as a maximum
figure only with the understanding that all other Institute lands in
the City be dedicated as open space. It is also understood that the
356 rooms should include employee housing, the magnitude of which
should be determined through later studies.
4. That the development should take place in a cluster at the Meadows
and that the riding ring area east of Castle Creek and lands along the
Roaring Fork have all future development rights removed. A tennis
court is defined as too intensive an open space use, but a golf course
is not. Recreational uses should be those in response to the demands
of the Institute, not to provide outside recreation and such uses
should not involve permanent structures like bubbles over tennis courts.
5. That the motion should only be regarded as approval of the concepts
of (a) total number of rooms (b) development style and (c) develop-
ment location.
6. The Institute be encouraged to continue consideration of a lease
as opposed to sale or the development of other mechanisms to show
their intent and good faith in remaining in Aspen and to see that the
Meadows area is developed consistent with a winter conference and ed-
ucational facility as opposed to a tourist facility, and
WHEREAS, the Commission believes that the conditions have not been
satisfactorily addressed at this time.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Com-
mission that it hereby recommends den~l of the conceptual subdivision and
PUD application of the Aspen Institute because the considerations over
the conditions of conceptual SPA approval have not been resolved to the sat-
isfaction of the Commission as follows:
1. A 356 room resort conference center appears to exceed the real
academic needs of the Institute and is excessively devoted to commer-
cial marketing of resort conference activities.
2. A 356 room resort conference facility will have adverse impact
and burden on the City in respect to services, traffic congestion,
pollution, and the West End residential ambience, especially concerning
employee housing and transportation.
3. The 356 rooms is irreconcilable with the intention of the Aspen/
Pitkin Growth Management Policy Plan as adopted in the City and County.
4. The expressed intentions, admirable purposes, and sincere promises
of the Institute with respect to operation of the resort conference
center are an inssufficient guarantee for all time against increased
tourist use or complete conversion to a tourist hotel.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Commission, so as not to falsely
encourage the pursuance of the application as submitted,that these con-
cerns should be satisfied prior to any approvals because of the magnitude
of the possible impact on the community and that the Commission encourages
the applicant to address the above in a specific manner.
Approved by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission this
of June, 1978.
day
Charles T. Collins, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
ATTEST:
Sheryl ~nmen, Deputy City Clerk
RESOLUTION OF THE
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING CO~IISSION
REGARDING 1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ALLOTMENTS
FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, in accordance with Ordinance #48 Series of 1977, February 1,
1978 was established as a deadline for submission of 1978 applications for
residential, lodging, and commercial development within the City of Aspen,
and
WHEREAS, in response to this ordinance three commercial projects were
submitted for a total of 6,639 square feet of commercial space within the
24,000 square feet of commercial space available in 1978, and
WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings were conducted before the Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission on March 14, 1978 and before this Commission
on April 18, 1978 to consider the Growth Management applications and eval-
uate and score these applications in conformance with criteria established in
Ordinance #48, Series of 1977.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Commission hereby evaluates
ranks and scores the projects submitted in the following order:
Total Total
P&Z Average HPC Average W/O Bonus Bonus W/Bonus
1. Tom Thumb
Building 18.52 13.4 31.92 4.9 36.82
5455 sq.ft.
2. The Hutch 12.42 6.6 19.02 2.18 21.02
576 sq.ft.
3. La Tortue 10.62 6.7 17.32 .56 17.88
608 sq.ft.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that:
1. This Commission recommends that all three projects be approved regard-
less of the fact that two projects, The Hutch and La Tortue, did not achieve
a minimum of 60% of the available 36 points (21.6) points without bonus or
30% of each category. Both the Hutch and La Tortue failed to recieve 30% or
1.8 points in the category of community commercial uses (The Hutch received
1.52 points and La Tortue received 1.12 points). Because the two projects
were very small additions to existing small buildings, the projects were
unable to provide employee housing or supply professional or service oriented
space. The Commission feels that Ordinance #48 also had an unfair penalizing
effect on small projects in the area of architectural and site design. The
Commission~ therefore, recommends that Council consider a special ordinance
that would amend Ordinance #48 to drop the requirement that projects must
receive 30% of the total points in the category of community commercial ser-
vices, which would have the effect of allowing La Tortue and The Hutch to
build this year. This is appropriate in 1978 also because only 25% of the total
available allotment was applied for.
2. That consideration be given to an amendment to Ordinance #48 which
would deal with the discriminatory effect which the ordinance appears to
have on small projects. One proposal might be to,exempt small projects
(under 700 square feet) from review under the growth management allotment
system, but provide that any such buildout be subtracted from the foil,owing
year's allotment. Another solution might be to change the category of
"community commercial services" to a bonus point category only and still
require review.
3. That the unused allotment for 1978 not be carried over to subsequent
years, as it could raise the possiblity of an imbalance in commercial build-
out in the following year or in any of the next four years. Rather, the
Commission recommends that the allotments be reviewed after a five year period.
4. That the Commission has again recognized certain flaws in the working
of the ordinance and has requested proposed amendments from the Planning
Office to provide more definitive criteria for architectural design, site de-
sign, and
Dated this
ame6ities, among other matters.
4"-day of May, 1978.
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
ATTEST:
Sheryl Simmen
Deputy City Clerk
RESOLUTION OF THE
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGARDING 1978 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ALLOTMENTS
FOR RESIDENTIAL AND LODGING DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, in accordance with Ordinance 48, Series of 1977, February 1,
1978, was established as a deadline for submission of 1978 applications for
residential, lodging and commercial development within the City of Aspen,
and
WHEREAS, in response to this ordinance, seven residential projects and
two lodging projects were submitted for a total of 99 residential units and
44 lodging units, and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on March 14, 1978,
to consider the Growth Management applications and evaluate and score these
applications in conformance with criteria established in Ordinance 48, Series
of 1977.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Commission hereby evaluates,
ranks and scores the projects submitted in the following order:
1. Top of Mill
2. Park Central West
3. 500 S. Galena,
925 Durant
4. Andre Ulrych
5. Goodnough Apartments
6. Van Horn Subdivision
7. Cooper & Original
RESIDENTIAL SECTION RESULTS
W Bonus W/O Bonus
26 units ~ 44.8
10 units 42.6 39.6
29 units 40.4 38.0
6 studios 39.2 36.8
9 units 36.2 35.4
12 units 32.3 31.2
7 units 25.2 24.6
LODGING SECTION RESULTS
W Bonus W/O Bonus
1. Aspen Inn 36 units 50.6 48.6
2. Mountain Chalet 8 units 41.0 40.6
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that:
1. This Commission recommends that the City Council apply the 20%
quota bonus to allow up to 65 Residential units in 1978 with the full under-
standing that additional points would have to be given to qualify any pro-
jects other than the top two within the above list. That is, since appli-
cations must achieve 60% of points available under Section 24-10.4(d) (17,
(2) and (3) and this minimum requirement is 39 points and only two of seven
residential submissions have achieved that 39 points, then in order for the
20% quota bonus to be realized, the Council would have to award additional
points to other projects since the top two constitute only 36 units and the
total quota with the 20% bonus would constitute 65 units.
2. That this Commission reaffirms its approval and support for the
general concept of allowing projects to split with respect to location.
3. That the 33% bonus in lodge development be approved and that both
applications for a total of 44 units under the lodging section be approved.
4. That the 32 employee units proposed as a matter of FAR bonus in
the lodging districts be exempted from the Growth Management Plan as is
provided for in Ordinance 48, Series of 1977, with the understanding that
these units be controlled with respect to tenent qualification and rent.
5. That during the process of the Growth Management Plan submissions,
several flaws in the actual working of the ordinance have been revealed and
this Commission has requested additional proposed amendments from the Plan-
ning Office to deal with the discriminatory effect that the ordinance may
have on smaller projects and raw land subdivisions. Additional consider-
ation will be given to amending the ordinance to evaluate employee housing
percentages on floor area as opposed to simple dwelling unit numbers, and
the public facilities section of the ordinance shall be improved to provide
more definitive and determined criteria for sewer, water, storm drainage,
and objective criteria for public facilities.
?
'Chic Collins, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
ATTEST:
Sheryl ~mmen
Deputy City Clerk