Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740611 r"' -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rO~M \{) C. F. HOECKEL B. O. ft ~. co. Spec;Lal Meet;Lng A~pen Planning a,nd Zon;Lng June 11, 1974 Meeting was called to order at 5:07 P.M. by Vice Cha,irman Spence Schiffer with Commission members Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Robert Barnard, Cha,rles Collins, and Janet Landry with Ass;Lstant Planner Donna Baer and C;Lty Attorney Stuller. Divine Sarah - Ordinance 19 Exemption Request Ms. Baer asked if the Commission would like to hear the case as an exempt;Lon from Ordinance 19 Review. The project entailed extension of a restaurant use behind the Brand Building. It was noted by Vice Chairman Schiffer that only business listed on the notice of the special meeting could be considered at this t;Lme. An exception at this time would require an amendment to the by-laws. Geri Vagneur arrived. Limelite Lodge - Conceptual Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office was not recommending approval of the project in this form due to the fact that the addition would bring the build- ing up to maximum density. An Ordinance 19 policy had been to reduce growth levels. Ms. Baer further stated that the Planning Office was expecting to recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission a .5 to 1 Floor Area Ratio, and an addi- tional floor area ratio to be allowed if employee housing is provided. The current floor area ratio in the AR zone is 1 to 1. with the floor area ratio recommendation, total employee housing required by the development should be included on the development. This amount can be determined; how many maids per 1,000 sq. ft.? It may then be possible to allow a higher floor area ratio. This figure had not been arrived at as yet. Ms, Baer mentioned that the Board of Adjustment had requested that she communicate to the Planning and Zoning Commission, in regard to the Fred Smith case, that they had been under the impression that employee housing was required. Ms. Baer stated that she had explained to them that this was a goal and policy under Ordinance 19, but was not required. They would like to prepare a resolution that this requirement become mandatory. Ms. Baer stated that another issue was the parking, and how many places could be provided on the site. Vagneur stated that to encourage lodge use as opposed to condominium use for the tourist, this type of expansion should be encouraged. Ms. Baer reitterated that she did not feel that this type of density was in accordance with the object of Ordinance 19. Vagneur stated that, if the project was built at the proposed density, there would be a floor area ratio of .75 to 1, while current zoning was 1 to 1. Jenkins stated that this density in this loca,tion was okay in his opinion, and that the economics of the project must be considered. Ms. Baer sta,ted that the ratio of the number of lodge units to mountain capacity, transportation systems, etc. must also be -1- r: -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM \~ C. F. HOECKEL B. B. 6: L. ~O. Specia,l Meetin~ Limelite Lodge - Conceptual, continued A~penPla,nning a,nd zonin~ considered. She stated a,lso sity mu~t then be considered Aspen. June 11, 1974 that this kind of den- for every lodge in Jenkins further sta,ted tha,t the lodge business was a large segment of the Aspen economy. Such businesses should be encoura,ged to expand. Landry noted that Ordina,nce 19 ca,me down ha,rd on the lodges of Aspen, but tha,t the Commission had changed their thinking, in tha,t the economic study ha,d shown tha,t lodges circulate a dollar much further tha,n a, condominium. Ms, Baer sta,ted that the la,nd use ma,p restricted the a,reas of mixed residentia,l. The Pla,nning Office had always encoura,ged the lodge business. Jenkins noted tha,t there was a, shorta,ge of high quality lodges in Aspen. Schiffer stated tha,t he wa,s more concerned with the overa,ll picture - the ca,pacity of Aspen Mountain, transporta,tion, and pa,rking, etc. Baer stated tha,t another consideration wa,s the pa,rk- ing. The lodge would need 27 parking spa,ces if they were allowed to build the fourteen unit a,ddition. This would tear up the site, with the two to three pa,rking requirement of 1967. Schiffer noted that the parking problem could be left to further consideration. Ba,er stated tha,t she ha,d only brought it up so tha,t the Commission could try to visua,lize wha,t the site would look like with this amount of parking. It was noted tha,t a va,riance would be required of less tha,n four inches. If the project wa,s a,pproved, the Commission would need to exempt it from PUD a,nd request the Board of Adjustment grant the var- ia,nce. Bulk a,nd lot covera,ge would be considered at the prelimina,ry sta,ge, and the Pla,nning Office wa,s interested in the employee housing ratio. Jenkins ma,de a, motion to give conceptual approval un- der Ordina,nce 19 to the Limelite Lodge, conditioned upon the following: that the parking problem be resolved; that the applica,nt obta,in a va,riance for the height, a,nd that the Planning and Zoning Com- mission recommend to the Board of Adjustment that they grant the varia,nce; tha,t the Commission take another look at the building bulk a,nd lot coverage a,t the prelimina,ry sta,ge; tha,t the Commission give further considera,tion to the employee housing at the next stage. Barna,rd seconded the motion. All in favor, motion ca,rried, The Commission then went into study session. Meeting a,djourned a,t 6:00 P.M. /7 J //-) <,---(;r(j-{hlo,_- Z ~/ \ Secretary