Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740709 " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOf:CI(ElB.B.&L.ca. Continued Meeting . . , , A~p~n Plannin9 and Zonin~ July 9, 1974 Meeting was called to order at ~;15 P,M, by Cnairman Spence Schiffer with Commission members Janet Landry, Jack Jenkins, Robert Barnard; Bryan Johnson, and Assistant Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford, Durant Duplexes (Hibberd)i Conceptual Ms, Baer stated that the applicant had requested that the Commission not make an on site inspection at this meeting, but postpone it until next meeting, She stated she felt the Commission should have an on site inspection before they considered the pro- ject, Jenkins made a motion that they table the project until the next meeting. Barnard seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried, CDES Building - Final Ms. Baer stated that this was the final presentation under Ordinance 19. The building was primarily an office building which has received conceptual and preliminary approval. Conditions of preliminary approval were (1) that the uses in the enclosed ar- cade space, if commercial, be considered by the P & z. Baer stated that the Planning Office would encourage the P & z to consider asking them not to have com- mercial uses. (2) The applicant have no on site parking. They had received a variance to buyout under the terms of the old cod~. (3) The applicant agree to provide twelve bedrooms of employee housing off the site. Baer stated that the plans were in order. If a com- mercial use was allowed, such as the antique store, if the use would go out, the use should revert to office if this becomes a non-conforming use. The applicants noted that there would be handball courts and attending facilities in the basement. The other rental space in the basement is not under lease at the time. Schiffer asked the applicants to address themselves to the uses on the arcade. In preliminary approval, the P & Z had required that the uses be by covenant. The owners had not determined the uses, but it may possibly be a floral commercial use. Eubank stated that there were various expenses in- volved in making the arcade area usuable. The costs of this might be defrayed with a floral shop or a sculpture garden. This was not, however, an intense commercial use. Johnson asked if there was anv wav for the plants or sculptures simply be put on in the arcade, rather than a strict commercial business for actual selling. Schiffer asked how this type of commercial business could be restricted, since commercial uses are al- lowed in current zoning. Baer stated that this would be by agreement until the new zoning went in, and then it would be restricted by the zoning code. If the new zoning doesn't change, then they would be allowed to have a commercial use. -1- _"'_'W"~"'~""'__""'_'_'''''_''''__'''''__'''_'_" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM \~ C. F. HOEC~El B. B. lit L. CO. Continued Meetin~. , .. , , CDES Building ~ Final; continued ,. .~~pe~, Planning and zonin~ July 9, 1974 Schiffer stated that another consideration was employee housing, and he noted that it was the consensus of the Commission to eliminate this requirement from projects. Johnson made a motion to give the project final approval under Ordinance 19, conditioned on any use of the arcade space being in conformity with the new zoning code; and that if the antique shop is vacated by the antique shop, that any use of that space be in compliance with the new zoning code. Landry seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Schwartz Duplex - Conceptual Ms. Baer stated that this was a request for a duplex in Snowbunny on Bonita Drive. The current zoning is R-15, No decision had been made to restrict duplexes in the R-15 zone. Stanford noted that the Planning Office has taken duplexes out of R-15. It was noted that a letter had not been submitted. Barnard made a motion that the Commission approve the Schwartz Duplex based on the zoning that exists now. Jenkins seconded the motion. Jenkins stated that there was a need for higher density areas, in that if they keep eliminating high density areas, no one could afford to live in Aspen. All in favor, motion carried. Vidal Proposal - Mountainedge, Conceptual; Ute Village Residences, Clarendon Residences, Planned Unit Develop- ment and Outline Develop- ment Plan Chuck Vidal stated that he would like to review up to this date. Four pieces of property were in- volved; elements of the plan may not be ideal to the City, but the total package may be of benefit to the City as well as be attractive to the develop- er. Barnard asked if this implied that either all the projects go or none of them go. Vidal stated that this basically implied a density transfer, and that this project was bieng processed as a package. Vidal stated that the reason he had gone to Council with his project was that he wanted to align him- self with Council policies, and find out if he had done so. He said that he had received a unanimous straw vote from Council in his favor. Vidal stated that what he wanted was for the attitude of the City to be that they want this type of project. Vidal stated that they were presenting the Outline Development Plan for all three projects, under PUD, and conceptual for the Mountainedge project. He noted that all the porjects needed also to go through subdivision. Mountainedge - Conceptual Schiffer stated that first the Commission should consider the Mountainedge Conceptual under Ordinance 19. Schiffer noted that on the earlier Clarendon, a sophisticated impact study had been done. He asked -2- r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM5lI C.F.HOECKElB.a.II:L.CO. Continued Meeting A!,pen Planni,n9 and zonin9. . , July 9, 19:,4 Mountainedge - Conceptual if Vidal had considered the impact of the project, Vidal replied that the same numbers had been applied, Vidal stated that the decision that was reached did not really consider the impact study relevant to that decision on the Clarendon, Schiffer stated that the project was so large, that the impact of the project on the town must be considered. Schiffer asked if any type of phasing of the project had been considered. Vidal proposed two phases for the Mountainedge project. The first phase would include half of the units, and all of the common area, Schiffer asked about employee generation. Vidal stated that there would be employee housing, but did not have the necessary ratios of employees to units, and did not know how many employee units would be provided, Accommodations would probably be of the dorm type. Ms. Baer stated that a full service hotel requires the same number of employees as units. Jenkins further noted that if a full service hotel was not viable in Aspen, he did not understand why thj~ type of operation was needed in Aspen. Jenkins stated that, as in the condominium route, the pro- ject must be shown to be a benefit to Aspen, and not to those building it. If the form of ownership was the only thing that made the project viable, Jenkins felt that there was more to be considered, Vidal stated that in general economic terms, there would be a higher occupancy during the off periods in Aspen, Vidal stated that he considered this a benefit to Aspen. Jenkins replied that he was not sure that Aspen was in such dire need during these off periods. Also, if this adds occupancy during the low times, it superimposes a terrific load on the peak time, Every- one then increases their facilities, and this means that there will still be off periods. Barnard noted that this type of project would slowly take away reserve capacity and utilities of the City. Schiffer stated that his main concern in regard to this project was the impact it would have on the mountain for skiing and the quality of tourists who would come here. He stated that the project was overwhelming in this respect. Phasing may be the answer. Eventually this project would be built on, and, under the new zoning, could be built to capacity. The project did offer some trade offs. Johnson stated that he needed more information on the impact before he could make a good decision. Landry stated that the Ute Ave. trade offs were good. She stated that this project was substantially less than any other proposal previously received. She felt that the ownership problem was the developer's, -3- "-'~.-"....~ ,..~_.~.._..._-_.~--...... ".. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMIC C.F.HOECKEL8.a.&L.CQ. Continued Meeting Aspen PlanningandZonin9 July 9, 1974 . Mountainedge - Conceptual Schiffer noted th.a,t the water situation and utilities were a subdivision situation which should be con- sidered at that time, Landry continued that she felt the use and density was good for the project, Ms. Baer stated that proposed zoning had part of the area zoned lodge or tourist. The rest is R-15, and the County had already zoned their property R-15. Vidal stated that there would never be a lodge built on that property, Ms, Baer stated that they were dealing with a pro- blem that involves an annexation from the County of land which is now zoned R-15, to a higher density, and street vacation. The Planning Office could only give a land use recommendation, and cannot consider trade offs or law suits. She further noted that the P & Z should also take that position. If City Council wishes to make trade offs, that is where they should be done. Johnson asked for the Planning Office recommendation. Ms. Baer stated that the zoning map was the Planning Office recommendation. Schiffer asked what the Ski Corporations plans were for expansion on Aspen Mountain. Vidal stated that, basically, the economic returns for an increase in facilities on Aspen Mountain was not as much as the same increase on Snowmass. Jenkins stated he would like to postpone this pro- ject until the Commission decides whether they want to solve the engineering considerations. He fur- ther noted that the economic, cost-benefit study did not answer his questions. He also stated that another question was, if a full service hotel did not work, then why go another route if we do not need such a facility. Jenkins also needed to know about the employee housing problem. Schiffer stated that the only considerations to be addressed at this time was use and density. He then asked about employee generation. Vidal replied that he could apply all the rules of thumb that everyone else applies to determine this figure, but that he would guess one employee per unit. Barnard made a motion to deny conceptual approval under Ordinance 19 for the Mountainedge project. Jenkins seconded the motion. Commission members Barnard and Jenkins, yes. Members Schiffer, Johnson, and Landry, no. Motion NOT carried. Johnson made a motion to table consideration until the next regular meeting and find out as much infor- mation as the Commission as individuals feel is necessary. Landry seconded the motion. -4- " , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMIG C.F.HOECKELe.B./il.CO. Continued M,eetin9 . ~spen Planning and Zoning JUly .9, ~974 Mountainedge - Conceptual Commission members LC'\ndry, Jenkins, aohnson, Schiffer, yes. Barnard, no, Motion carried. Ute Village Residences, Clarendon Residences BarnC'\rd asked if these should be considered at this time. Vidal stated that if the Commission could reach a concurrent decision when the Mountainedge would be considered, that would be satisfactory. Barnard stated that he would rather not consider these projects at this time, He further noted that he would not vote on these projects, on the basis that the applicant stated that he was not interested in anything less than the whole package. Vidal asked what the applicant would be required to supply at the next meeting. Schiffer stated he wished to know more about the phasing question. Also, Assistant Planner Yank Mojo should be asked to address the impact question. Johnson made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. Jenkins seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 P.M. -(ltc~bv -e~ Secretary