HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20110614 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, June 14, 2011
4:30 p.m. Council Chambers
CITY HALL
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. Lift One Lodge Final PUD & Timeshare Review
V. OTHER BUSINESS
VI. BOARD REPORTS
VII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 12
P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ci
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director • . -° •
Drew Alexander, Planner
RE: Lift One Lodge Final PUD & Timeshare Review — Public Hearing
DATE: June 14, 2011 (Continued from June 7
SUMMARY:
Tonight's hearing is the second in a series of meetings to review the final application for the
Lift One Lodge. This project has been in the planning process since 2006 and has undergone
several changes. The project was granted conceptual approval by City Council in late 2009.
Last week's hearing provided a general overview of the project, it's evolution from 2006, a
description of the program, and an overview of the reviews required.
Tonight's hearing will provide more detail on the project — getting into the architecture,
massing, heights, parking, street vacations, zoning changes, etc. Staff will present findings
on review criteria and comments provided by referral agencies as well as a recommendation.
At the conclusion of the meeting on the 14 staff will propose continuation of the hearing to
June 21 Staff will want to confirm possible continuation dates in July if needed.
Last week, several requests for information and questions were asked of staff and the
applicant. Following is a re -cap of those questions with staff answers. Questions related to
the design, program, and operation of the project will be answered in the presentation.
• Is the Lift IA Lift moving? No. This property is no longer within the application and
there's no proposal to move the lift.
• Is the Lift IA Parcel a future "phase two" of this project? The applicant stated no. The
applicant has no authority over the SkiCo parcel and cannot represent their future
intension.
• Is this Lift lA parcel then sterilized? No, it just not part of the application. It's a
neighboring parcel.
• If the Lift IA Parcel were redeveloped what review would be required? An 8040
greeline review and a Wheeler view plane review would be required at a minimum.
Depending on the proposal, other review may be required.
• Are SkiCo ticketing and other SkiCo facilities proposed here? No. Because the SkiCo
property is no longer part of the application, there are no SkiCo operations requested or
Page 1 of 6
P2
proposed. The applicant is not aware of any desire from the SkiCo to change ticketing
operations.
• Are public lockers still part of the plan? Applicant stated yes.
• Requested detail on the Timeshare review standards. Staff will provide this with the
review standards.
• Requested detail on Floor Area verses total heated space versus "seeable" square
footage to grasp the size of the project. This will be provided in the presentation.
• Will the surface lift be "vested" as part of the approval or could it require a follow -up
review? The surface lift potential is there and certainly part of the planning for the
project. Staff may suggest a condition that the lift be provided long -term vesting and
require future purchasers in this project accept the potential for this later improvement.
• Can the applicant explore solar panels on the roof? A response will be provided during
the presentation.
• Explain how LEED Gold surpasses the City's standard requirements. This will be
covered in the presentation.
• Why is this project being reviewed under the 2005 code? Why not today's code? The
application was submitted in 2006 (under the hen applicable 2005 code) and the applicant
has the right to rely on the code in effect at the time of submission. Yes, there have been
changes to the project, but those have been in response to issues brought -up during the
review. The applicant could choose to go under the new code, but is not required to do
so. Applicants cannot choose specific sections of new code (no a la carte); its one code
or the other.
• What is Aspen's experience with fractional unit occupancy? Any data? Do they actually
rent to the 'public?' The City has not done an official study of fractional project
occupancy. Various compliance checks have been made via `secret shoppers' and some
anecdotal data on occupancy has been received. Staff will work on a more - thorough
answer for the meeting on the 2l S `
• Could eliminating lock -offs reduce the massing demand on the east building? The
applicant will address this in the presentation.
• Is the apres deck open to the public or just members? The applicant stated that this deck
is open to patrons of the restaurant/bar and not limited to just members /owners.
• Request for more detail on rooftop deck and pool railing or fence expectations. This will
be covered in the presentation.
Page 2 of 6
P3
• Request for more information on transit connections, on- demand service and the TDM
plan. This information will be provided in the presentation.
• Request for more information on the size of the dormitory units. This information will be
provided in the presentation.
• Request for more information on snowmelt scope and efficiency. This will be covered in
the presentation.
• Will the ski -back corridor be groomed and is the applicant committing to provide that
service? The applicant stated yes, likely through a contract with the SkiCo. Staff will be
recommending an operations plan be developed and recorded for the two public parcels
covering the ongoing responsibilities and expectations of the applicant, the Historic
Society, and the City.
BACKGROUND: (No changes from previous memo)
This neighborhood has had multiple development applications proceeding through
development review in the past few years. The owners of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain
project, the Lift One Lodge project, the Aspen Skiing Company, and the City of Aspen
jointly initiated a master planning process in early 2008 — the Lift One Neighborhood Master
Plan COWOP. That process incorporated a citizen task force and developed a master plan
for the entire neighborhood. The master plan was not adopted and that process was
eventually terminated.
Prior to entering into the neighborhood master planning process, the Lift One Lodge project
received positive recommendations for the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Historic Preservation Commission for their Conceptual PUD application. The Conceptual
application was not forwarded to City Council, but rather tolled for the term of the master
planning effort.
After the neighborhood master planning effort was terminated, the Lift One Lodge PUD
application was re- activated and forwarded to City Council. Obviously, the 2006 PUD
application did not incorporate the newer ideas of the master planning exercise as it was
prepared prior to that effort. Some of the new ideas were off - property items and could not be
accommodated on the smaller land area. Some of the ideas were still valid and were
integrated into the PUD application. The Conceptual application for the Lift One Lodge was
approved by City Council through the adoption of Resolution No. 52, Series of 2009.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: (No changes from previous memo)
This application is subject to the Land Use Code in effect at the date of initial submission —
November, 2006. The P &Z reviews have been combined with City Council review. The
Code provides this option to ensure clarity of entitlements and minimize conflicting
Page 3 of 6
P4
approvals. The project remains subject to all review criteria and public noticing requirements.
This project requires the following reviews:
Final Planned Unit Development: An application for Final PUD, pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.445.030 (B)2, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approve
with conditions or disapprove of the PUD after receiving a recommendation by the Planning
Zoning Commission. The City Council is the final decision - making body.
Timeshare: An application for Final PUD, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.590.040,
requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or
disapprove of the Timeshare use plan after receiving a recommendation by the Planning
Zoning Commission. The Citv Council is the final decision - making body.
Subdivision: An application for Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.480.040(C)1, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with
conditions or disapprove of the Subdivision after receiving a recommendation by the
Planning Zoning Commission. The City Council is the final decision - making body.
Amendment to the Zone District Map [Rezoning]: An application for Amendment to the
Zone District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.020, requires the City
Council, at a public hearing, to determine if the application meets the standards for an
amendment to the Zone District Map after receiving a recommendation by the Planning
Zoning Commission. The City Council is the final decision - making body.
Growth Management Review — Incentive Lodge Development: An application for the
development of new lodge units, commercial space, and associated free - market residential
pursuant to Land Use Code Section Sec. 26.470.040.C.3. The Planning and Zoning
Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the proposal. This review has been combined pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1. City
Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Growth Management Review — Essential Public Facility: An application for the
development of an essential public facility (the museum) pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.470.040.1.3. The City Council is the final review authority, who may approve, approve
with conditions, or deny the proposal.
Growth Management Review — Affordable Housing: An application for the development of
new affordable residences pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040.C.7. The Planning
and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the proposal. This review has been combined pursuant to Section
26.304.060.B.1. City Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Special Review for Average Lodge Unit Size: An application for Special Review to consider
the average lodge unit size, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.710.190.E. The Planning
Page 4 of 6
P5
and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the proposal. This review has been combined pursuant to Section
26.304.060.8.1. City Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Conditional Use for Restaurant and Bar: A conditional use application to consider the
restaurant and bar (within the lodge) pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.425.050. The
Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve
with conditions, or deny the proposal. This review has been combined pursuant to Section
26.304.060.B.1. City Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Conditional Use for Dormitory Units: A conditional use application to consider dormitory
style housing units pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.425.050. The Planning and
Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the proposal. This review has been combined pursuant to Section
26.304.060.B.1. City Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mountain View Plane Review: An application to the effects of the project on the Wheeler
Opera House designated view plane Land Use Code Section 26.435.050. The Planning and
Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the proposal. This review has been combined pursuant to Section
26.304.060.8.1. City Council is the final review authority after a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Condominiumization: An application for condominiumization, pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.480.090, requires the Community Development Director approve a plat for
recordation to affect a condominium form of ownership. This review has been combined
pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1. City Council is the final review authority. The plat will
be presented for administrative approval and recordation upon substantial completion of the
improvements.
Right -of -Way Vacations: Pursuant to C.R.S. 43 -2 -303 the City Council may vacate a public
right -of -way upon adoption of an Ordinance. City Council is the final review authority.
Extended Vested Rights: Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.308.010, City Council may
grant a period of statutory vested rights in excess of the minimum three -year period. City
Council is the final review authority.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Commission receive the presentation, ask questions, provide
comments and feedback. And, then continue the hearing to June 21
Page 5 of 6
P6
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to continue the public hearing on Lift One Lodge to June 21 "
PREVIOUS ATTACHMENTS:
A — Lift One Lodge Application (provided in the April 5th packet)
A2 — Application Supplement — June 7, 2011 — Revised traffic study, revised street plans
and profiles.
B — Lift One Lodge Application Appendix — by reference only. The City Clerk has a
copy and there's a copy in ComDev. A table of contents for the appendix is in the
main application.
C — Project Summary — June 7
D — Conceptual and Final Review Comparison Chart — June 7th
E — Neighbor letters — June 7
CURRENT ATTACHMENTS:
F — Development Review Committee (DRC) comments
G — Review standards and staff findings
H — P &Z and Council minutes from Conceptual Review.
Page 6 of 6
P7
EXHIBIT F
LIFT ONE LODGE FINAL REVIEW
DRC SUMMARY
Parks Department pg 1
Engineering Department pg. 4
APCHA pg.6
Sanitation p 9
Transportation pg. 11
Fire Marshal pg. 12
PARKS DEPARTMENT:
Parks D epartment Requirements Prior to City Council Approval:
The Parks Department and The City of Aspen appreciate the developer's commitment to
contribute $150,000 towards the relocation costs of the Willoughby Volleyball Courts.
The relocation and development will require a public process for which the applicant
should support with a financial contribution towards the public process. The Parks
Department has estimated $30,000 in costs towards the planning process. The
development team has completed a significant amount of work on a feasibility study for
locations throughout the City. This work combined with the proposed $180,000 in
financial commitment will guarantee a complete and thorough public process.
The City of Aspen with approval from the City Attorney's Office and The Parks
Department will require a modified lease agreement clearly indentifying and describing
the leased areas within Willoughby Park. The approved lease agreement should describe
maintenance responsibilities, descriptions of the lease boundaries and any specifics that
surround the leased areas. These would include but not limited to; special event uses,
historical displays, lawn maintenance, gardens, trees, ski access etc.....
The City of Aspen with approval from the City Attorney's Office and The Parks
Department will require a maintenance agreement for Willoughby Park, Lift One Park the
public easements and all common areas. The agreement should clearly indentify and call
out responsibilities for maintenance of these facilities. The specific agreement needs will
cover, who is financially responsible, who will actively complete maintenance needs
(mowing, weeding, repairs), how often, irrigation responsibilities, expectations of each
party as well as control and enforcement of the agreement.
The Parks Department requires a completed easement agreement for public access across
private lots 1 and 2 in order to connect to public lots 3 and 4. The agreement should be
written and approved by the Parks Department, City Attorney and the Applicant.
The City of Aspen should review and approve a planned schedule of completion
milestones. In order to prevent an impact to the public infrastructure longer than the
Page 1/12
Lift One Lodge
Exhibit F — DRC Summary
P8
actual project completion The Parks Department is requesting that the applicant seek
approval of a plan to replace all public lands and infrastructure in a timely manner.
Financial guarantees should be in place to allow for re- construction of these public
facilities in the event the project is underfunded or delayed. Scheduling of the project
should allow for these improvements to be completed without connections to significant
thresholds from the private development. The financial guarantees should be addressed
through the City of Aspen Engineering Department's bonding requirements.
The landscape plans should be reviewed and approved by The Parks Department with a
required signature on the Plat Documents. The Parks Department requires involvement
in the landscaping and site planning process for all facilities located within the project
area.
Parks Department Requirements Prior to Building Permit:
Tree Removal and Protection:
An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or significant property
changes take place. Parks is requiring that the tree permit be approved prior to
submission of the building permit. Please contact the City Forester at 429 -2026.
Mitigation for removals will be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on site, or a
combination of both. As referenced in Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code.
Parks Department staff cannot support the removal of the large spruce tree located on the
corner of Gilbert and S. Aspen Streets. Parks Department staff has identified the tree as a
significant tree specific to the area and recommends its preservation. However, if City
Council determines that the public benefits created by redevelopment of the site outweigh
the loss of this resource, then the applicant will need to be prepared to fully mitigate for
the removal of the tree.
A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or
groupings of trees remaining on site and their represented drip lines. A formal plan
indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. No
excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment,
foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This
fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920 -5120) before any
construction activities are to commence. As referenced in Chapter 13.20
Due to the proximity and nature of the excavations the applicant will be required to fence
off a larger protection zone past the drip line of the trees. This protection zone located
within the non - excavated area shall be twice the width of the drip line. Approval of all
protection zones is required.
Lift One Lodge Page 2/12
Exhibit F — DRC Summary
P9
Additional Tree Protection Measures:
• Excavation: All excavations adjacent to the drip zones will be required to be
vertical excavation only, with no over digging. Excavations will be soil
stabilized in a manner that prevents over excavation of the site. This will
require a one sided pour for all foundation walls located within these
protection zones.
• Mulching: Six inches of mulch is required to be placed within the zone of
vegetation protection. The mulch shall be maintained at a level of 6 inches
during the entire project.
• Irrigation: Irrigation of trees is required throughout the entire length of the
project. The Contractor will supply water to the trees at a rate which is
appropriate for proper health. Additional watering will take place along the
edge of the roots cutting. The contractor will be required to place a burlap
protection cover over the cut roots. The contractor will irrigate the burlap
with an appropriate amount of water in order to keep the burlap moist.
• Access: Any access across or through the area of protection is prohibited at all
times
Landscaping within the Public Right of Wav:
Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW
requirements. ROW requirements require adequate irrigation pressure and coverage, if a
system is not in place one will need to be added. As referenced in Chanter 21.20
Sidewalks shall be designed and built in a manner that reduces the impact to existing
trees and roots systems. All sidewalks located within the drip line of trees to be saved
shall be built on grade in a manner that allows for the sub -grade prep and sidewalk to
float over the roots preventing any excavation in to the soil. All work in protection zone
is to be accomplished without machines, handwork only.
There shall be no plantings with the City ROW which are not approved first by the City
Parks Department. All plantings along the edge of private property and the City ROW
should be of size and species which will not require major maintenance (pruning,
trimming due to over growth) by the city or developer.
All planting strips should be 5 feet or greater located between back of curb and edge of
sidewalk. Planting strips should be designed with 4 feet of good quality topsoil and
growing median. Spacing and type of tree will be coordinated with Parks and
Engineering. Cross Section A — South Aspen Street — separation of sidewalk required.
Lift One Lodge Page 3/12
Exhibit F — DRC Summary
P10
Lift 1 and Willoughby Park Access and Amenities:
The park's intended use and design is for public access in both winter and summer.
Current designs have appropriately addressed public access from Gilbert and South
Aspen Streets. Continued exploration into this should be considered.
The landscaping should be coordinated with Parks so that additional plantings do not
negatively impact the public space creating a private feel to the parks.
The applicant is required to purchase and install to park's specifications all amenities,
including but be limited to: irrigation, benches and other park furniture, property signs,
enforcement signs, etc.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project
packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting.
Drainage:
The proposed drainage concept for the site appears to work. However, the applicant must
complete a drainage plan and report that complies with the City's Urban Runoff
Management Plan, prior to final plat or building permit submittal whichever comes first.
In addition to site drainage, the project will have to address street drainage. The project
proposes to change the hydraulics and capacity of Aspen Street's drainage system.
Therefore, the project will be required to install curb, gutter and other drainage control
features (such as inlets and piping) on both sides of the street. If these features are not
installed, drainage and sediment will not be controlled, thereby posing a flooding threat to
downstream properties in addition to degrading the City's water quality.
Because the proposed method for maintaining Aspen street in winter months (i.e.
sanding) will have negative impacts on street runoff water quality, the City recommends
additional water quality mitigation efforts. The project will need to provide plans for
water quality treatment of Aspen Street runoff. The City proposes allowing the island off
of Deane Street and the bulb outs on Aspen Street as potential location for water quality
improvements.
Street Design:
Aspen Street: Since the street will not be snow melted, and the street slope of 13% is
greater than the maximum allowable by City standards (ie 6 %), there is a concern for
driver safety especially during the winter months.
The City's current street section standard includes a 5 foot planter / green strip between
the street and sidewalk. The current plans to not provide enough ROW for this strip on
Lift One Lodge Page 4/12
Exhibit F — DRC Summary
P11
either side of the street. Without this strip, pedestrians do not have a buffer from vehicles
that may jump the curb during adverse road conditions. Additionally, this strip is critical
for snow storage, without it the City will have to remove snow along Aspen street at an
additional cost to the general fund.
The City standards also require a minimum of a 6 foot wide sidewalk for multifamily uses
and 8 feet wide for commercial uses. The project is only allowing for a 5 foot sidewalk
for the project. The use of a narrow sidewalk will decrease the level of service for
pedestrians, this will make it difficult for pedestrians to carry skis and walk on the
sidewalk without getting in the way of on coming pedestrians.
Additionally, due to the steep slope of this street, the City anticipates an increase use of
sanding. This increase in sanding will have a negative impact on water quality. The
project approach to this issue includes the installation of catch basins for street drainage
with over -sized sediment traps to better accommodate more sanding material in the
runoff. The plan does not quantify how much sand and sediment will be captured in these
inlets. As a result, the final drainage report and plan will need to quantify the sanding
capture rate for the inlets this will include providing water quality treatment for up to the
80 percentile runoff event to provide treatment for the first flush.
The Applicant has committed to providing the City Streets Department with an additional
sanding truck and the special sanding material annually for this street. However Aspen
Street will require an increase in staffing for street sweeping and sediment vault cleaning,
both of which will be an increase to the City's annual maintenance costs.
Skier Drop off at Deane Street: There are design concerns about the skier drop -off area
at the intersection of South Aspen Street and Deane Street. As a result the applicant
proposes two designs to address this issue, the City Engineering Dept recommends
Option 2 of Exhibit 4. This option will not only protect Deane Street as a pedestrian
corridor, it will reduce potential conflicts at this intersection.
The Engineering Dept believes Option 1 of Exhibit 4 , will create confusion for the
tuming movements at the intersection.
Street Design at Durant Street: Depending on the parking configuration Aspen Street
will "jog" to the east. This is not functional in the winter when pavement markings might
be obscured. In addition it may be difficult to jog when traveling down Aspen Street
when it is snowpacked. To minimize this "jog" the applicant has offered Option 2 of
Exhibit 2. This Option removes the head in parking on the west side of the street and
converts it to parallel parking. This is not only a preferred option in that it minimizes the
"jog ", it eliminates the safety hazard of head in parking. 42% of the accidents in The City
are attributable to head in parking. Head in parking is oftentimes problematic in that
parked vehicles are required to back into oncoming traffic when exiting a parking space.
Oftentimes it is difficult for the driver to see oncoming traffic due to adjacent parked
vehicles and it is also difficult for through traffic to judge movements of parked vehicles.
Lift One Lodge Page 5/12
Exhibit F — DRC Summary
P12
Deane Street: The final configuration and materials used for Deane Street must meet the
Engineering Dept standards and must be approved by the Engineering Dept prior to
building permit submittal. This includes the drop off area and associated island for Deane
Street.
Utilities: Utility separation needs to meet the requirements of the City Engineering
Department's Construction and Excavation Standards for Work in the Public Rights -of-
Way per the graphic in Exhibit A. Separation is measured from the outside of the utility
line or pipeline and the graphic allows for stacking or vertical separation in lieu of
horizontal separation.
The applicant has not addressed this issue for the dry stack utilities they are located to
close to the proposed inlets on the west side. Additionally applicant is proposing that
these utilities are located under a sidewalk. This will result in utility access covers in the
middle of the sidewalk. City recommends relocating these into the road section instead.
The applicant has also located the gas line to shallow. The minimum depth required is 30
inches not 24 inches.
There is not enough room with in the ROW to maintain the proposed stormsewer. The
City recommends either a change in ROW or an easement for this system.
Mudflow:
According to the mudflow analysis that was performed for the project site, the mudflow
depths will reach 2.5 feet on the south side of building B and 1 foot on the south side of
building A. Everywhere else on the site the mudflow depth will be less than 0.5 feet. The
City will require 3 feet of freeboard on the north side of building B and 1 foot of
freeboard everywhere else as recommended by the mudflow analysis. Additionally the
study recommends absorption type of material along the proposed defection wall.
Miscellaneous:
Construction Management: A construction management plan must be submitted in
conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned
sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan
shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust,
and erosion/sediment pollution.
Fee In Lieu: The applicant may be eligible for the fee in lieu, additional analysis that
complies with the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan needs to be performed in order
to determine this.
Lift One Lodge Page 6/12
Exhibit F — DRC Summary
P13
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY:
ISSUE: Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge — Aspen, LLC, is requesting approval for the
redevelopment of several parcels on the east side of South Aspen Street between Deane
Street and Hill Street. The Board will review the affordable housing mitigation aspect of
the project.
BACKGROUND: The plan seeks to develop a new lodge, a portion of the proposed
affordable housing mitigation, parking improvements, a ski museum, and a platter ski lift.
The mitigation requirement per the Land Use Code is at 30 %.
Affordable Housing:
This proposed development will generate a total of 37.62 employees, 34.27 employees
for the lodge's 46 new lodge keys and 3,560 square of new net leasable commercial area;
and 3.35 for the four new free - market residential units and the demolition of the Holland
House Lodge's existing residential credit. The applicant is proposing to mitigate 100%
by providing 8 dorm -type units on site for a total of 16 FTE's, and the balance of 21.62 to
be housed off -site within the Urban Growth Boundary. The specifics are to be submitted
for the City's review and approval prior to recordation of the proposed development's
final PUD /timeshare documents.
No affordable housing mitigation is required for 38 of the proposed lodge's 84 keys, one
of its five free - market residential units, and 2,429 square feet the 5,989 square feet of net
leasable commercial area as the development rights for these uses are to be derived from
the project site's existing reconstruction credits.
• 46 Unit Lodge GMQS Allotment 6.90 Employees
• Commercial Allotment 3.38 Employees
• Free Market Units 3.35 Employees
• TOTAL Employees Generated 13.63 Employees
This is based on the 30% requirement in the Code. The total amount of FTE's that will
be generated by the development is a total of 37.62. The applicant is proposing to
mitigate at 100 %. The plans are to provide eight dorm -type units in the Skier's Chalet
Restaurant which will be moved to the lower portion of the development and remodeled.
The 8 dorm -type units shall house two people each; therefore, the affordable housing to
be mitigated on site will be 16 FTE's which mitigates for the requirement under the Code
of 30 %. However, the applicant is proposing to mitigate at 100 %; therefore, the balance
of the total employees generated, 21.62, will be mitigated off site and within the urban
growth boundary.
The eight dorm -type units will be located within what is now the Skier's Chalet
Restaurant. The interior of the three -story building will be reconfigured as eight
Lift One Lodge Page 7/12
Exhibit F — DRC Summary
P14
dormitory units with shared bathrooms and a common kitchen and dining area. A full
basement will be constructed beneath the building which will be used for mechanical and
tenant storage purposes.
The eight dormitory units will contain approximately 2,697 square feet of net livable area
(excluding the common storage, kitchen and dining areas. The proposed dormitory's net
livable area per employee will be approximately 168 square feet, which exceeds the
minimum requirement stated in the Guidelines of 150 square feet per employee. The
units will be deed restricted and rented to seasonal lodge employees at rates to be
determined by APCHA.
Recommendation:
The Housing Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held March 2, 2011
and recommended approval of the application as to the affordable housing mitigation with
the following conditions:
1. A total of 37.62 employees will be generated with the development of which 16
will be mitigated on site. The applicant is not obligated to mitigate at 100% per
the Land Use Code, but has opted to do so. The additional mitigation of 21.62
FTE's will be reviewed and approved by APCHA.
2. The on -site dorm units will be rented to qualified employees of Pitkin County
and must be qualified through APCHA prior to occupancy. The owner must
provide signed leases to APCHA within five days of both parties' signatures. If
the owner is unable to fill the units with employees of the development, than the
units shall be leased to other qualified employees. The leases shall be for at
least a six -month period of time.
3. The lease for the on -site dormitory units will be reviewed by APCHA along
with the initial rental amount as it is not stated in the Guidelines. Once the
rental amount is set and stated in the recorded deed restriction, the rent will
increase by 3% or the Consumer Price Index (as stated in the Guidelines),
whichever is less.
4. A laundry facility will be provided within the Skier's Chalet Restaurant
basement area for use by the tenants.
5. One parking place per unit for the eight on -site units will be reserved within the
parking structure.
6. A secure storage unit will be provided for each tenant in the basement of the
Skier's Chalet Restaurant, for a total of 16 storage units.
Lift One Lodge Page 8/12
Exhibit F — DRC Summary
P15
7. All rental and ownership units must meet minimum occupancy requirements,
whether provided on -site or off -site.
8. Any other units provided off site shall be reviewed and approved by the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors. If the units are
ownership -type units, they must be sold through the APCHA lottery system.
If any of the units are rental units, the units shall be has available
riohalto qualified
employees of Pitkin County, although the applicant place a
qualified employee of the Lodge.
9. The deed- restriction for the dormitory on -site units shall be recorded prior to the
Certificate of Occupancy and no final Certificate of Occupancy for the Lift One
Lodge or the free - market units will be issued until the mitigation requirement of
37.62 has been satisfied.
SANITATION:
Since an upgraded main sanitary sewer line will be required to serve this new
development, a "Line Relocation Request" and a "Collection System Agreement" will be
required, both of which are an ACSD Board of Director's action item. Once detailed
plans for this application are made available and approved by the district, we can initiate
these agreements.
• Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and
specifications, which are on file at the District office.
• Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated
daily average and peak flows from the project.
• A wastewater study flow will be required for this project to be funded by the
applicant.
• All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio
drains) including trench drains for the entrances to underground parking
garages.
• On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must
accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations
and specifications.
• On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD.
• Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food
processing establishments.
Page 9/12
Lift One Lodge
❑vhinit F — DRC Summary
P16
• Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and
vehicle maintenance facilities. The elevator drains must also be plumbed to the
o/s interceptor.
• Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by
the applicant and approval prior to a building permit application.
• Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by the
district.
• Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must
preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system.
• When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines
(3) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to
specific ACSD requirements and prior to all soil stabilization activities.
• Below grade development will require installation of a pumping system.
• Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements
may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line.
• Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or
right of ways to the lot line of each development.
• All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
• Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the
planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or
treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the
downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional
proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area
of concern in order to fund the improvements needed.
• Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the
planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the
development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire
portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the
costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material
cost difference for larger line).
•
• The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and
requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available.
• ACSD will administer and construct the proposed new main sanitary sewer line in
Aspen Street at the developer's expense. The proposed main sanitary sewer line in
Lift One Lodge Page 10/12
Fvhihit F — DRC Summary
P17
Aspen Street shall be extended south to accommodate the Ski Company's on
mountain sewer line and the service line for the Shadow Mountain
Condominiums.
• SGM's timing of the Line Relocation Request and Collection System Agreement
needs to be revised.
• The District will not approve a recapture provisions.
• There will most likely not be enough room for all utilities in a 24 foot re- design of
Aspen street to accommodate the main sanitary sewer line relocation according to
ACSD specifications.
• The main sanitary sewer line relocation will have to be extended approximately an
additional 200 feet to the south to accommodate the upper traffic circle in Aspen
Street as proposed.
TRANSPORTATION:
The applicant proposes the development of a new lodge along with affordable housing, a
ski museum and a platter ski lift on several adjacent parcels of land which are located on
the east side of South Aspen Street between Deane Street and Hill Street. The project is
projected to generate approximately 710 daily vehicle trips on a peak winter day and
proposes parking management and TDM strategies to mitigate some of these trips. The
project has good access to public transit and is within walking distance to the downtown
core.
The Transportation & Parking Department offers the following comments on the
application:
Regulatory Comments:
1. The project will be responsible for the payment of TDM/Air Quality Impact Fees
as required by the Land Use Code, Section 26.610.090 Current Impact Fees.
Courtesy Comments:
1. The Transportation Department appreciates the effort made to develop a
comprehensive parking management and TDM plan. However, staff has several
comments on the plan which are listed below in order of appearance in the
Appendix.
a. Courtesy on -demand shuttle: Prior to COO, Transportation staff requests
the opportunity to review and approve a shuttle plan that includes the
following elements: minimum service levels, type of vehicle, routing and
marketing.
Lift One Lodge Page 11/12
Exhibit F — DRC Summary
P18
b. Public Parking: Parking staff requests that the operating plan discussed by
the applicant include the following information for approval by the
Director of Parking: parking pricing, entry/exit technology, residential
permit distribution and monitoring, carpool parking distribution and
monitoring, enforcement and special event usage. Staff would also like to
see the designated parking spaces for carshare and carpool uses be
changed to a pool of 11 TDM- related parking spaces that can be utilized
for either use as determined by current conditions at COO. For example
these spaces could become 3 carshare spaces and eight carpool spaces or
whichever combination is deemed appropriate at that time.
c. Implementation: Staff is comfortable with leaving some of the TDM
plan's final details to be determined prior to COO. However, staff would
like the final TDM plan to be developed in conjunction with the
Transportation Department and subject to approval by the Director of
Transportation.
d. Program Monitoring: Staff has discussed the following monitoring
program with the applicant: reporting every two years for 10 years to
include traffic counts, garage operations and TDM program participation.
Program elements may be changed every two years as needed and
approved by the Transportation and/or Parking Departments.
2. The Parking Department has additional comments regarding construction and
signage associated with this project.
a. The applicant will need to work with the Parking Department to develop a
signage plan. Both sides of Aspen Street will need to be signed No
Parking Fire Lane and signage sign receivers will need to be placed
during construction.
b. A construction parking plan will need to be developed that includes
emergency access during construction.
Fug MARSHAL:
See Attachment.
Lift One Lodge Page 12/12
C..L.fhf1 r — flP Ci immani
P19
Drew Alexander Y`+
From: Ed Van Walraven 11 11:55 AM nfire.com]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 (�GV� `l`yd•�A 1f�NrP/
11 11:55 AM
Su: Drew Alexander (,_ ,�
Subject: Re: Denis (41-0M-- ►_,/_ _ (�/
Hey Drew,
I have read the response for Lift One Lodge from Hughes and Associates and I agree with the majority the
evaluation and proposed remedies. There are some issues noted that I will need more clarification as the project
moves forward. This of course would constitute additional meetings with the applicants.
Call me if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Ed
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Drew Alexander <rlr Alexander(a�ci asoen.co.s> wrote:
Hi Ed
I think Denis is already out for the long weekend.
Drew Alexander
City of Aspen !Planner
Community Development Department
970- 429 -2739
•
d alexander(nc; aspen co.us
Ed Van Walraven
Fire Marshal
Aspen Fire Protection District
420 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
970970-990 (Office)
970- 379 -1378 (Cellular)
970970920-4451 (Fax)
t
P20
HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC. 520 Courtney Way, Suite A, Lafayette, CO 80026 -8863 USA
FIRE SCIENCE & ENGINEERING Phone 303-439-0485 FM 303-439 -7160 1 www.haifire.com
May 13, 2011
Bob Daniel
Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC
24398 Hwy 82
Basalt, Colorado 81612
RE: Lift One Lodge Site Evaluation
Aspen, Colorado
Mr. Daniel:
At your request, Hughes Associates, Inc. (HAI) has evaluated the Lift One Lodge information
provided by Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC (RFML) with regard to fire department
apparatus access issues and concem regarding specific firefighting and emergency response
situations.
A meeting was held with members of the RFML development team and Aspen Fire Protection
District (AFPD) on February 24, 2011. The concems expressed in the minutes from the
meeting indicate that the following categories of concerns exist:
1. Inclement Weather Roadway Concerns
2. Apparatus Access (General)
3. Apparatus Access (Motor Court)
4. Water Supply
5. Specific Area Response Concerns
With the exception of water supply items mentioned in the minutes, these issues will likely
require modifications to the current design or performance -based solutions that would be
considered by AFPD under Section 104.9 of the International Fire Code (2006 Edition) [IFC]. In
some cases, specific items may require iterative negotiations as the hazards are more clearly
understood. As such, continued discussions with AFPD, on a more frequent basis than typical
projects, are encouraged. Even with the aforementioned modifications and /or revisions, it is
believed that there are additional solutions that may be available through working in conjunction
with AFPD and the concept of performance -based solutions. HAI can be of assistance in those
discussions to enable the project to move forward.
I have taken each of the topics noted above from the meeting minutes and provided specific
commentary and in most instances potential solutions that should be considered.
1. Inclement Weather Roadway Concems
The steep slopes and narrow access corridor creates a concem in inclement weather since
water from rain or melting snow combined with steep grades can cause wheel slippage, deep
snow on the road surface can make traction difficult and piled snow after plowing can narrow
the actual access corridor. Because of the balance between sloped roads and steep grades
needed to accommodate both flat stretches for fire apparatus and slopes needed to traverse the
area, complying via traditional means is not achievable. This is a common condition in
slopeside properties developed in resort communities, and often cannot be avoided without
Baltimoremashington 1 Alexandria 1 Chicago l Cincinnati I Dallas 1 Denver
Idaho Falls 1 Los Angeles 1 Marlborough B Minneapolis 1 New York 1 Newark
Oakdale 1 Odando l Philadelphia p San Francisco 1 Warwick
London 1 Milan I Seoul 1 Singapore 1 Taipei
P21
Page 2 of 8
Bob Daniel May 13, 2011
Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC
infringing on other compliance requirements (e.g., community or corporate needs for
maintaining ski or park lands intact, town restrictions on disturbing open space, etc.). It is
acknowledged that balancing those needs against those of AFPD is necessary here, despite
that many existing properties exhibit similar conditions.
Approaches to addressing this issue should focus on providing the best driving surface possible
under wet conditions and removal of snow from the area. For the concem of wet road surface,
rough surfacing materials, ranging from large- aggregate asphalt to patterned concrete to rough-
hewn pavers, will provide better traction than smooth concrete or asphalt, particularly in wet
conditions. Methods of moving the water surface to gutters would also be highly beneficial.
These can include decorative channels (cut into asphalt or concrete or patterned into paver
installation), increased drainage slope, cross -road gutters and other similar means. Other
methods often utilized in roadway design are also available. Conversations indicate that these
same comments have been presented by the City of Aspen Engineering Department, as well as
the Streets Department. It is understood that RFMLA has addressed these issues with those
departments via the installation of a wider street section, pan gutters beyond the driving surface
and increased cross - slopes.
Addressing snow is more problematic, however. Since snow can easily overcome the methods
described above, it would be important to provide either technological or administrative
solutions that would minimize the impact. Again, through our conversations I understand that
you have working through the maintenance of this section of street with the Aspen Streets
Department and have come to some conclusion on sanding applications.
Snow removal becomes important in any case. As the last few years have shown, moving the
snow to the side of the road doesn't eliminate the concern, particularly on narrow roads.
Removing the snow from the area or having a dedicated location for snow storage that doesn't
res infringe on emergency vehicle
should ons der engagi g a sn wremoval company for services above and beyond
normally provided by the City.
2. Apparatus Access (General)
Section 503.1.1 of the IFC indicates that apparatus access roads are required to be provided
such that all portions of the grade level of the building are within 150 feet of a road, with the
distance based on a typical hose deployment. The distance can be increased in buildings
provided throughout with an automatic sprinkler system, although the IFC does not specify a
distance.
he distance predi n
cated on the amount of hose carried enforced and eas ly deployed on fire jurisdictions, s.th
It should be noted that the latter part of the requirement makes the consideration of distance
different than measuring via a radius from the points of access. This issue is often a point of
contention between developers and emergency responders, given that the IFC - sanctioned
methodology can result in measurable distances far less than those determined via a radius
method.
In addition to typical considerations, the building arrangement is such that there will be an east
and west portion of the building beginning at Level 2, and additional consideration will be
the
necessary
oofs of each building are occupiable, ble, wi l need the capability to use aerial apparatus, since
ed tobe considered.
HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.
P22
Bob Daniel Page 3 of 8
Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC May 13, 2011
The current access is limited by a number of features, including the hill slope into which the
building will be built and the open space between the two portions of the building. These
features make crediting apparatus access on the south side of the building and the areas on the
interior of the "U" shape created by the building (identified as "Lift One Park" on the drawings)
difficult, particularly when considering snow and inclement weather.
On the east, apparatus access is provided from Gilbert Street and the fire road between the
Caribou and Mountain Queen Condominiums. In both of these cases, snow plowing and
removal will likely be of concem, since Gilbert Street is proposed to become a dead -end and
the fire road is privately owned. It is in the interest of all the affected properties to maintain
access to these locations. Discussions with the City and the owners of the two condominium
complexes may be necessary to bring resolution to the issue. In any of these cases, however,
deep snow could make access from these locations difficult, if not impossible.
One improvement that could be proposed would be to provide a sidewalk or limited -width road
(10-12 feet, perhaps) between the door on the north end of the east building portion out to
Gilbert Street. The surface would need to be kept clear of snow and ice during winter months to
be considered useful, however.
The location of both the Gilbert Street and fire road access points are not beneficial for aerial
apparatus. Aerial operations require significant ground area to effectively deploy ladders or
platforms, and the clear volume above ground for movement of the ladder or platform into place
is also significant. In these two instances, there are few guarantees that parked vehicles, piled
snow or other obstructions will not be present and that vegetation will not obstruct proper
deployment of ladders or platforms. Therefore, consideration of other methods of accessing
roofs will be needed.
On the west, South Aspen Street points of access are indicated at intervals less than the 150
feet indicated in Section 503.2.5 of the IFC. Hammerhead tumarounds are indicated, however
road slopes are steep leading up to those locations. In addition to the two- dimensional
evaluation of tumarounds and road width, the differences in slopes at the transitions should be
examined to ensure that fire apparatus (and other large vehicles) do not "bottom out" or over
flex due to the changes in grade. Additionally, the cul-de -sac at the top of South Aspen Road is
indicated to have an 8% slope in the direction perpendicular to travel (i.e., across the proposed
hammerhead location). This steep of a slope can cause the apparatus to slide sideways due to
its own weight and the lack of traction. Slopes of approximately 6% or less have been shown to
be acceptable for most apparatus, and the project should determine if reducing the slope is
possible. Regardless of the outcome of that evaluation, water and snow removal
methodologies as described above should also be employed in this location.
Even with the recommended improvements, apparatus access could be problematic due to the
presence of parked vehicles, multiple large vehicles or groups of people resulting from
emergency egress or observers of emergency events. Given these conditions, other methods
of assisting emergency responders should be implemented to overcome possibly insufficient
access capability, particularly assuming that other aspects of the project considered required or
highly desired by the City of Aspen, RFMLA and other stakeholders (e.g., open space and
parks, utility corridors, etc.) cannot be compromised.
HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.
P23
Bob Daniel Page 4 of 8
Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC May 13, 2011
Below are some listed opportunities that HAI believes will assist in mitigating the apparatus
access issues noted above:
a. A proposal that was provisionally accepted by AFPD for a previous development plan
includes the use of high -rise construction and some high -rise fire protection methods.
High -rises require the use of Type IA, Type IB or Type IIA construction, with some
modifications, per Section 403.3 of the Intemational Building Code (IBC). These
construction types require fire resistance rating (ranging from one hour for Type IIA to
three hours for Type IA) of structural elements, floor separations and roofs. The fire
resistance rating will both reduce the potential for structural collapse and eliminate the
involvement of structural members as combustible materials in any fire.
Further, these construction types limit the use of combustible materials to very limited
applications (see IBC, Section 603.1). One of those allowed is fire - retardant- treated
wood in nonbearing partitions and in roof construction. It is recommended that RFMLA
consider the use of metal in lieu of wood in these areas (e.g., steel studs for walls
instead of wood, metal trusses in lieu of wood trusses, etc.) to reduce the potential for
fires to travel within concealed spaces not required to be protected by automatic
sprinkler systems.
b. Another basic aspect of high -rise construction methods is the provision of protected
enclosures for emergency responders. Typically, these include only stairway enclosures
and elevator shafts. However, in this case, the separation of the two sections of the
building suggests that an interconnecting enclosure would provide benefit, to allow
responders to traverse from the east portion of the building (where apparatus access is
more reliable) to the west side of the building (where apparatus can be problematic).
The benefit would extend to occupants, as the corridor could form a pathway for
rescuing and removing occupants from the roof of the west portion of the building,
addressing the concern of aerial access to the west -side roof.
Providing such an enclosure can be achieved by providing a fire resistance rating in the
corridor connecting the main entry area (lobby near the guest drop -off motor court) with
the two stairway enclosures in west side of the building. The rating of the corridor
should be equivalent to that of the stairway enclosures (assumed to be two hour fire
resistance rated based on number of stories connected). This recommendation would
require re- examining the lobby areas to identify preferred locations for walls and
additional doors to accomplish the enclosure.
c. An additional recommendation to address the aerial apparatus access issue would be to
provide protected access to all areas of the roof. Typically, buildings over a certain
height require direct access via stairway enclosures to the roof of buildings. This is to
affect rescue and firefighting operations without the need for aerial vehicles. In this
case, access to roof areas appears to be limited to levels with anticipated occupancy,
such as the pool area in the east -side section of the building. However, the "green roof
levels could also be occupied with staff maintaining the roof vegetation and other items.
Therefore, consideration should be given to providing access to all roof levels and
ensuring that such access is protected with fire resistance rated construction between
the stairway enclosure and the point of access (i.e., the "exterior door") if the stairway
enclosure does not open directly to roof areas. Such access is not normally required by
HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.
P24
Bob Daniel Page 5 of 8
Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC May 13, 2011
the building code, and could be obviated if some of the other performance -based
measures are implemented.
High -rise buildings require the provision of the following fire protection systems, as a minimum:
• Automatic sprinkler system, with protection throughout the building
• Standpipe system
• Emergency voice/alarm communication system (i.e., voice -based fire alarm system)
• Fire department communication system (i.e., "firefighters' telephones ")
• Smoke control system
The sprinkler and standpipe systems provide obvious benefit, as does some form of fire
department communication system, although an enhanced radio amplification system would
seem to be a better alternative. The emergency voice/alarm communication system (EVACS)
and smoke control system are considered life safety systems, and do not play a significant role
in firefighting operations. Therefore, the EVACS and smoke control systems are not
recommended in this case.
Automatic sprinkler protection would likely be required regardless of the access issue, although
one could argue that residential areas could be protected under NFPA 13R, Standard for the
Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies Up To and Including Fours Stories
in Height. It would be preferable to protect the building with sprinklers systems designed under
NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. The residential protection
requirements of NFPA 13 are more restrictive than those of NFPA 13R, and will provide
improved initial suppression response, but not so restrictive as to introduce significant cost
increases.
Providing standpipes in the building is beneficial in addressing the apparatus issue, as well as a
number of others, by reducing the need to provide hose access around the perimeter of the
building. Standpipes are required in buildings where the difference in elevation between the
point of apparatus access and the floor level of the terminating occupied floor (i.e., highest floor
level or lowest floor level) is 30 feet. The determination of the "lowest level of fire department
vehicle access" (as indicated in Section 905.3.1 of the IFC) is problematic in this case, given
that the slope of the west road does not lend itself well to apparatus placement for operations.
By providing standpipes that are part of a mixed riser with the automatic sprinklers, a cost -
effective and operationally beneficial solution is provided without significant added project costs.
Doing so would obviate any discussions on the applicability of Section 905.3.1 and would
provide responders the ability to achieve the goals of Section 508 of the IFC without
necessitating the implementation of snow removal operations on unpaved portions of the
building perimeter.
The combination of the noted improved construction type, reduced use of combustible
construction materials, protected enclosures, roof accesses and improved fire suppression
equipment are expected to provide similar capabilities as would be achieved through fire
apparatus access and thus mitigate most, if not all, if not all of the access issues noted herein.
3. Apparatus Access (Motor Court)
With the implementation of recommendations outlined for general apparatus access above,
access into the motor court could be considered unnecessary from a response perspective.
Combining the perspectives above with recognition that the motor court could be subject to
HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.
P25
Bob Daniel Page 6 of 8
Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC
May 13, 2011
obstruction evacuating occupants, vehicles otherwise leaving the building or other similar
responses to emergencies points to a conclusion that using the motor court presents
constraints to responses that would be difficult to overcome.
From the perspective that the motor court provides a tumaround for emergency vehicles, one
could argue that the recommendations provided in the "Inclement Weather Roadway Concems"
could obviate the need for this particular location to act as a turnaround point.
However, if AFPD desires this location as a turnaround point or the other recommendations
making roadway surfaces passable are not practical, it is recommended that RFMLA pursue
designing the motor court such that it can structurally support AFPD apparatus. Additionally,
the study of turning radius performed in support of the February 22 meeting should be closely
examined for other design issues that will need to be considered. For example, the turn radius
study indicates that the front and rear bumpers will overhang the walkway around the perimeter
of the motor court. As such, obstructions such as signs, bollards and decorations will need to
be placed well beyond that radius traced by the vehicle bumpers. Because fire apparatus can
discharge considerable amounts of carbon monoxide at low operating speeds (which is
common for all diesel -driven trucks), ventilation in the motor court area would need to be given
attention. Other such issues would need to be examined, as well as a part of the final design of
this area.
4. Water Supply Issues
Concems raised during the February 22 meeting included dead -end piping arrangements,
proper placement of fire hydrants and the provision of sufficient flow. The design provided by
RFMLA indicates transmission piping connected to the remainder of the Aspen water system at
two points (at South Aspen Street and Deane Avenue and at a location south of Gilbert Street
on the southwest comer of the property, both via 12 inch piping), with an 8 inch distribution line
installed in South Aspen Street, connecting the northeast corner of the property to an existing
distribution line at Durant Avenue.
The piping arrangement provides for increased reliability, in that it supports multiples paths to
fire hydrants and the service into the building. The 8 inch water line may restrict the flow rate to
the facility, which could make achieving required fire flow problematic. The project should
consider increasing the size to 10 inch during the planning phase, with the potential of reducing
it back down to 8 inch if initial hydraulic calculations prove the capability.
Hydrants are provided on the plan near the northeast and southeast comers of the building,
along the east side of South Aspen Street. Additionally hydrants are located on South Monarch
Street, to the north and south of Gilbert Street. This hydrant coverage is beneficial to the
response approach as discussed above. However, if AFPD decides to utilize the motor court as
a response location, providing an additional hydrant adjacent to motor court would improve their
capabilities.
5. Specific Area Response Concerns
AFPD has expressed concerns regarding the location of equipment and processes normally
considered to be "high - hazard" in areas that would be difficult from a response standpoint.
These include mechanical rooms (including those for elevators), large storage rooms, laundry
facilities and the loading dock.
HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.
P26
Bob Daniel Page 7 of 8
Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC May 13, 2011
Based on the recommendations above, these areas should be provided with automatic
sprinklers. However, the hazards that could be associated with the areas could exceed the
capabilities of automatic sprinklers (e.g., large stacks of pallets, electrical/mechanical
equipment with large quantities of flammable and combustible liquids, etc.). Additionally, the
rooms and locations are generally located away from stairway enclosures where standpipe
connections would be available or are in locations that place responders at risk.
Based on these perspectives, the following recommendations are made:
• The MechanicalElevator Equipment Room on Parking Level 3 should be minimized. If
equipment can be relocated to other mechanical spaces, it should be. If the room or
equipment cannot be relocated, then the specific equipment to be installed should be
examined to ensure that the automatic sprinkler protection provided is consistent with the
hazard. Standpipe hose connections should be provided at this level in the nearby stairway
enclosure.
• The Mechanical Room in the southeast comer of Parking Level 2 should be relocated such
that it is within approximately 75 ft of the door of a stairway enclosure (which ensures that it
is within reach of a standpipe connection). If the room cannot be moved, then the specific
equipment to be installed should be examined to ensure that the automatic sprinkler
protection provided is consistent with the hazard and, if warranted by the equipment, a
standpipe hose connection should be extended to the room.
• The Park's Department Storage Room in the southeast comer of Parking Level 1 should be
relocated such that it is within approximately 75 ft of the door of a stairway enclosure (which
ensures that it is within reach of a standpipe connection). If the room cannot be moved,
then the specific equipment to be installed should be examined to ensure that the automatic
sprinkler protection provided is consistent with the hazard and, if warranted by the
equipment, a standpipe hose connection should be extended to the room.
• In the Receiving area of Parking Level 1 (i.e., the Dock), ensure that automatic sprinkler
protection will match the hazards present. Because of the extreme hazard presented by
plastics, pallets and other items, administrative procedures will need to be put into place to
remove these items relatively quickly. In some cases, like pallets, automatic sprinklers will
only be able to provide protection against very specific quantities and arrangements, so it
will be important to ensure the administrative controls are committed to. Because of the
route between the adjoining stair and the dock, it would be beneficial to extend a standpipe
connection to the dock for use by emergency responders, with the top of the stairs near the
Service Lobby as a suggested location. These provisions should obviate the need to bring
fire apparatus into the dock area. However, if AFPD desires apparatus access, discussions
will need to occur as to which apparatus might be used so that the structural design of the
facility can accommodate it accordingly.
HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.
P27
Bob Daniel Page 8 of 8
Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen, LLC
May 13, 2011
In summary, the proposed performance -based solutions address the concerns raised in the
initial meeting with the AFPD, and the hazards or situations noted in the meeting can be
mitigated accordingly.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this information further, please feel free to
contact me via email at dtomecek(thaifire.com or telephone at 303 -439 -0485.
Regards,
David Tomecek, Tomecek, PE
Senior Fire Protection Engineer
HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC.
P28 f s � .:�
LIFT ONE LODGE
Final Review Criteria
Planning and Zoning Commission
PUD pg. 2
Timeshare Lodge Development pg.17
Subdivision pg. 22
Growth Management — Affordable Housing pg. 26
Growth Management — Essential Public Facility pg. 28
Growth Management — Remodeling or Replacement
of Existing Commercial or Lodge Development pg. 30
Growth Management — Replacement of Demolished
Multi - Family Residential Units pg. 31
Growth Management — Incentive Lodge Development pg. 32
Conditional Use for Restaurant/Bar, Dormitory Units
and Commercial Parking Facility pg. 35
Amendment to the Zone District Map (Rezoning) pg. 38
Special Review pg. 41
Mountain View Plane pg. 43
Condominiumization pg. 45
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 1/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P29
STAFF FINDINGS: PUD
A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and
requirements (staff findings follow each requirement):
A. General requirements.
1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Staff Finding
Staff fords the proposal is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Outlined
below is the project's consistency with applicable individual goals in the AACP.
Managing Growth
The community goals listed in the AACP include:
• "Provide for a 'critical mass' of permanent local residents by providing a limited
number of affordable housing units within the Aspen Community Growth
Boundary." The proposal houses 100% of the additional employees generated by
the development. This exceeds the City's Land Use Code standard requirement of
60% mitigation and far exceeds the 30% mitigation requirement for this type of
lodging. The proposal includes housing units for on -site workers, assisting with the
long -term viability of the lodge operation, and is committed to meeting the
remaining requirement through off -site house which could include use of the
recently- created housing credit system. Staff finds the proposal meets this goal of
the AACP.
• "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth
Boundary..." The proposed development is within the Aspen Community Growth
Boundary. Staff fads the project meets this goal of the AACP.
• "Foster a well- balanced community through integrated design that promotes
economic diversity, transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles, and the mixing of
people from different backgrounds." The project creates spaces for free - market and
deed - restricted residences, lodging opportunities, lodging associated commercial,
improved access to skiing, a ski museum, and enhanced pedestrian connections. The
proposal includes a range of economic diversity — space for a non -profit, affordable
housing, free - market housing, and market rate lodging. The uses are integrated into
the site design in a manner that creates pedestrian places and opportunities for locals
and tourists to integrate. Staff finds the project meets this goal of the AACP.
• "We should endeavor to bring the middle class back into our community. We should
discourage sprawl and recognize its cost to the character of our community, our
open spaces and our rural resources as well as the fiscal expenses associated with
the physical infrastructure of sprawl." The base of Aspen Mountain is an
appropriate place for high density lodging development. This area is within walking
distance to all the City's attractions and connections to the region's transit services.
Lift One Lodge Final Review
Page 2/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P30
The proposal does not contribute to sprawl and, by housing many of' the employees
on -site, attempts to limit additional sprawl. The proposal will also enhance a
forgotten neighborhood. This "side" of Aspen Mountain accounts for only 3%
(approx.) of the daily initial uplift of Aspen Mountain. Redevelopment of this area
will bring back some vitality of this once popular area, highlight the area's historic
resources, and utilize the area's public infrastructure. Staff finds the proposal meets
this goal of the AACP.
Transportation
The community goals listed in the AACP include:
• "Maintain and improve the appeal of bicycling and walking...by adding sidewalk
connections, replacing sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development
approvals, where appropriate..." The area now has very • limited pedestrian
infrastructure. In fact, one of the current obstacles to the use of Lift 1A is the
absence of proper pedestrian connections — the area is not currently convenient for
pedestrians. The proposal focuses on accessibility by providing pedestrian
infrastructure where none exists today, potential for a surface lift providing access to
Lift 1A, public parking, automobile drop -off zones, and shuttle service for lodging
guests. Staff finds the proposal meets this goal of the AACP.
• "Reduce the adverse impacts of automobiles on the Aspen area." The development
includes underground parking for tenants and residents of the development and
public parking for visitors, skiers, lodge guests, and restaurant patrons. The project
provide enough parking for the businesses to be commercial successful without
inducing unnecessary traffic. The area's surface parking will be removed (replaced
underground) and the aesthetics will be substantially enhanced by this change as the
streetscape will not be dominated by autos. The location of the public parking
reduces the impact these cars would otherwise have on the surrounding community
if they were required to park at street level in the neighborhood. Staff fords the
proposal meets this goal of the AACP.
• "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by
transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and
bicycling." The proposed development is served by existing transit (one half -block
away) and is composed of compact mixed -uses conducive to walking and bicycling.
The site is ideal for utilizing existing transit and encouraging walking/bicycling.
Staff finds the proposal meets this goal of the AACP.
The intent of the Transportation section states:
• "The community seeks to provide a balanced integrated transportation system for
residents, visitors, and commuters that reduced congestion and air pollution.
Walking, Bicycling and transit use is promoted to help us reach that goal." The
proposed development promotes the use of transit and a pedestrian friendly lifestyle.
The development is within walking distance to the center of town, shopping,
recreation, and regional transit. Deane Street is proposed to be enhanced as a
pedestrian friendly connection to other lodging and the Gondola Plaza. The existing
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 3/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P31
pedestrian experience along South Aspen Street is poor and this development will
improve the situation by providing sidewalks, landscape improvements, interesting
architecture and pedestrian- oriented commercial space. Staff fords the proposal
meets the intent of the Transportation section in the AACP.
Housing
The community goals listed in the AACP include:
• "Encourage development to occur within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary
and emphasize `good city form'. " The project is within the Aspen Growth Boundary
and within the Aspen infill area. The development also promotes "good city form"
by focusing development within areas already served with infrastructure. By
providing additional lodging at the base of Aspen Mountain more visitors can be
within walking distance of downtown Aspen, thereby minimizing the resort-wide
reliance on the automobile. Staff fords the proposal meets this goal of the AACP.
• "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing
affordable housing." And "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in
developing affordable housing." The project includes affordable housing on -site
with the provision of dormitory style housing units. The project has committed to
housing 100% of the additional employees generated by the development, exceeding
the City's standard of 60% and far exceed the 30% requirement for lodging of this
type. Staff find the proposal meets these two AACP goals.
• "New affordable housing projects should reinforce and enhance a healthy social
balance for our community and enhance the character and charm of Aspen." The
proposal provide short-term rental housing for lodge employees, a critical need in the
community, by retrofitting an historic structure — the Skier Chalet Steakhouse. This
housing will relate well to the existing neighborhood structures, maintain historic
reference to the original base of Aspen Mountain, and provide much needed rental
housing. Staff fords the project meets this goal of the AACP.
Economic Sustainabilitv
The intent of the Economic Sustainability section includes:
• "Maintain a healthy, vibrant and diversified year -round economy that supports the
Aspen area community..." The proposal includes much need lodging at the base of
Aspen Mountain. This project will partially make up for the dramatic loss in bed
base that the community has experienced over the past 10 years and will help sustain
Aspen's resort and year -round local community. The significant provision of
affordable housing will help sustain the social infrastructure of Aspen as well as
local businesses. Staff finds the project meets the intent of this section of the
AACP.
• "Enhance the wealth - generating capacity of the local economy while minimizing the
rate at which cash flows through the local economy and limiting the expansion of the
physical size of the community." The project occurs within the Aspen Growth
Boundary and attempt to maintain the region's bed base and tax generating
commercial uses within the City limits. The development will increase the local
economy's wealth- generating capacity by providing commercial and lodging uses
Page 4/45
Lift One Lodge Final Review
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P32
within the existing footprint of the community. The project also houses a non -profit
(the ski museum), a significant amount of affordable housing, and a restaurant
expected to be popular with visitors and locals. The project does not increase the
physical size of the community. Staff finds the proposal meets the intent of this
section of the AACP.
Parks, Open Space, & the Environment
• "Seek opportunities to discourage sprawl in order to preserve open spaces between
communities. Encourage infill projects that integrate more housing into the existing
urban fabric." The development enhances access to Aspen Mountain, the
community's primary recreation facility, and provides functional open space within
the project. The project discourages sprawl by effectively utilizing land within the
existing footprint of the community to achieve community goals for lodging,
affordable housing, recreation, historic preservation, and mountain access in a
manner that re- vitalizes and visually enhances the neighborhood. Staff finds the
proposal meets this section of the AACP.
Design Quality
The intent of the Design Quality section includes:
• "Ensure the character of the built environment in Aspen is maintained through
public outreach and education about design quality, historical context, and the
influence of existing built and natural environments." This project addresses this
goal by providing a home for a skiing museum. This idea has been on the "drawing
board" for many years as a way to sustain understanding of the community's skiing
heritage. Chalet architecture was prevalent in Aspen during the early years of skiing
in North America. The proposal includes retrofitting of two chalet buildings — one
for affordable housing and the other is being restored to house the museum. Staff
finds the proposal meets the goals and intent of this section of the AACP.
The community goals listed in the AACP includes:
• "Retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles to maintain and enhance the
special character to Aspen." The proposal integrates a traditional chalet style of
architecture with the skiing museum and the former Chalet Steakhouse. The site
plan and architecture represents a high quality design that will work with and
enhance Aspen's unique character. There are multiple buildings and the mass is
broken up through facade fenestration and the use of different materials. This helps
the project relate to Aspen's historic development pattern. Staff finds the proposal
meets the goals and intent of this section of the AACP.
2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 5/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P33
The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of short-term lodging,
commercial accessory to lodging uses, full-time free - market housing, full-time
affordable housing, part-time free - market housing, recreational facilities, and ski area
operations. While there has been some building refurbishment activity in the viicn�
the South Aspen Street area has not seen significant reinvestment in many years.
proposal provides a similar mix of uses — lodging, accessory commercial, free - market
and affordable residential — with the addition of a non -profit operation of the ski
museum. Staff believes the addition of the ski museum is compatible with the
neighborhood as Lift 1 is the birthplace of skiing in Aspen. A museum celebrating
skiing fits with this theme. In addition, the museum at this location was the subject of a
successful public vote in 1991 indicating public acceptance of the concept. Staff
believes the proposed uses are consistent and compatible with the character of existing
land uses in the surrounding area.
3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of
the surrounding area.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the ability for surrounding
properties to develop in the future. In fact, this project may actually enhance the
opportunities for redevelopment by dramatically improving the appearance and vitality
of this area of town. Additionally, the project will upgrade wet and dry utilities
throughout the development allowing for easier connection by future users. The Project
is proposing to improve the storm water mediation that presently is unchecked on South
Aspen Street. The project will reconstruct South Aspen Street improving safety,
function, and access to surrounding properties. The Project will also create an improved
open space through the connection of Lift One and Willoughby parks as well as public
useable public parking. These improvements to basic infrastructure will positively
affect the developability of the area and not hamper or adversely affect future
development possibilities of surrounding properties. Staff believes this proposal meets
this criterion.
4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt
from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD
development plan review.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES, CONDITIONALLY
The proposal requires allotments for lodging, affordable housing, and commercial space.
The allotments have been requested and are available. Staff supports the allotment
requests finding the proposal in compliance with the growth management criteria. If all
of the requested growth management actions are approved, this criterion is met. If the
growth allotments are not granted, the project does not meet this criterion.
B. Establishment of Di mensional Require
Page 6/45
Lift One Lodge Final Review
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P34
The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all
properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone
district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the
PUD. Staff finds the dimension requests to be acceptable to achieve multiple goals of
the community.
1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate
and compatible with the following influences on the property:
a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land
uses in the surrounding area.
b) Natural or man-made hazards.
c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as
steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms.
d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the
surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation,
parking, and historical resources.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Generally, Staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards are appropriate for the
site for the above characteristics, as follows:
a.) See discussion from 1.A. above.
b.) The project's massing responds the slopes of the site by stepping the massing and
placing larger portions of the buildings to the center of the project so as to minimize the
visual effects. Maximum allowable floor area on Lot 1 is 47,760 after slope reduction
and subtraction of proposed vacated ROW. Proposed floor area is 77,010 which
exceeds maximum allowed. See items 20. And 21. In Table 2, page 102 of application.
Not sure how you want to present the floor area issue. If vacated ROW included then no
problem. FAR goes from 4.0:1 to approximately 2.0:1 on lot 1 which is a more accurate
reflection of the lodge's size in relation to the actual size of Lot 1.
c.) Most of the proposed building site has already been impacted by existing or prior
development. One large tree will be affected to accommodate a portion of a building.
This change was requested by the City during conceptual review to accommodate a ski
corridor and staff believes this is a reasonable trade -off. Staff believes this criterion is
met.
d.) Any development on this property would likely increase the above impacts; however,
Staff is comfortable that all of these impacts are adequately mitigated. Noise is
regulated by city ordinance; trips are expected to increase, but stay within the existing
road capacity. Many visitors will arrive to town by airplane and be brought to the lodges
by shuttle where the convenient Location will allow walking to downtown and to the ski
area. If guests do drive all parking is internal to the site, underground. Regarding
impacts to historical resources, the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse is listed as an historic
property is proposed for rehabilitation with HPC approvals. The Skier's Chalet Lodge
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 7/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P35
I was an "ordinance 48" building (the Ord 48 regulations no longer apply) and is proposed
to be relocated, rehabilitated and historically designated as a ski museum, voluntarily.
2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of'
open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the
proposed PUD and of the surrounding area.
STAFF FINDING: 1 DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The scale and massing of the proposed lodge is compatible with that of the
neighborhood. In fact, many of the hotels (St. Regis, Grand Hyatt, Little Nell) in this
neighborhood are larger. The project is broken into several structures, providing useable
open space between buildings and an appropriate level of site coverage for the area. The
proposal is appropriate for a lodge located on the south side of Durant Avenue and in-
line with the character of this area. Staff fords this criterion met.
3. The appropriate number of off -street parking spaces shall be established based on
the following considerations:
a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development including any non - residential land uses.
b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is .
proposed.
c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize
automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and
general activity centers in the city.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
Staff fmds the proposed amount of parking to be adequate to serve the needs of the
development. The proposal satisfies the underlying zone district's parking requirements
and actually provides additional parking for additional guests, day skiers, and the
public. Given the proximity of the site to the commercial core, the ski area and transit
connections and considering that many guests of facilities such as this arrive without a
car, staff believes that the parking will be sufficient to meet the demand. Staff finds the
proposal meets this review criterion.
4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a
PUD may be reduced if:
a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other
utilities to service the proposed development.
b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and
road maintenance to the proposed development.
Page 8/45
Lift One Lodge Final Review
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P36
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Adequate public facilities either already exist or will be upgraded at the owner's sole
expense in order to meet the expected demand. South Aspen Street is a steeply pitched
street with wintertime challenges. The City Engineer and the Fire Marshall are
confident that the enhanced aggregate surface and winter maintenance will provide
adequate and safe access to this project and for fire protection. To enhance fire
protection, the structures will contain complete fire sprinkler systems. Staff believes
that no density reductions are necessary.
5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists
natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum
density of a PUD may be reduced if:
a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground
instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers.
b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water
pollution.
c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in
the surrounding area and the City.
d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail
in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes
harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY
Staff believes the site is suitable for development. Improvements the area's drainage are
necessary and are part of the development proposal. A requirement to monitor the slope
stability of the area to detect significant movement is recommended as an approval
condition with ongoing monitoring before and during construction as necessary. Staff
believes that the proposal satisfies this criterion, with this condition of approval.
6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists
a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the
development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns
and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a
PUD may be increased if:
a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area
plan to which the property is subject.
b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and
there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in
subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those
characteristics mitigated.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 9/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P37
c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern
compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and
expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The proposal serves more than one goal of the AACP — affordable housing, economic
diversity, historic preservation, and open space and recreation goals. No increase in the
amount of density is proposed. Staff finds this criterion met.
C. Site Design.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is
complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public
spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall
comply with the following:
1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide
visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the
town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The site is located near the base of Shadow Mountain, but is not proposing to impact the
mountainside in any way. There are unique historic ski lift apparatus proposed for
preservation and enhancement along with a museum focused on Aspen ski heritage.
This aspect of the project is a significant public benefit. Staff feels that the
redevelopment of the site with lodging, residences, a restaurant, and underground
parking will be an enhancement to the neighborhood. Staff fmds this criterion met.
2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces
and vistas.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The structures on the site have been planned and organised around open space,
significant vistas, and the "ski- back" corridor. This provide the potential for a future ski
lift along the previous Lift one alignment. The ski -back corridor also provides a
significant public benefit and benefit to surrounding properties. The site plan permits an
important view up Aspen Mountain along the original lift alignment. The site planning
for the ski museum purposefully allows for event space for formal or informal
gatherings and passive and active recreation. Staff finds this criterion met.
3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or
rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of
vehicular and pedestrian movement.
I STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Page 10/45
Lift One Lodge Final Review
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P38
The structures are oriented to public streets, the ski corridor, the base of Lift 1A, or to
small outdoor gathering or restaurant seating areas. There are multiple points to engage
pedestrians, skiers, and provide for interesting streetscapes. The buildings include
orientation to the sidewalk and the street, providing what staff believes will be a
enjoyable pedestrian experience. Staff Sods this criterion met.
4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and
service vehicle access.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY
The Fire Marshal has reviewed the plans and has stated that there are no major concerns
with the proposal. The Fire Marshal did suggest a series of minor changes and the
applicant has accommodated those requests (condition). A final review by the Fire
Marshal is required prior to issuance of a permit. Emergency and service vehicle access
to Aspen Mountain is maintained with this plan. Four parking spaces within the
proposed turn- around (June 7th amended site plan). These spaces are proposed to
replace existing spaces in the ROW predominantly used by the Shadow Mountain
Condominiums. Given the operational demands at the base of the ski area, staff believes
these spaces should be reserved for emergency vehicles, ambulance, etc. as well as
vehicles associated with ski area operations or special events. Staff suggests these space
be signed for emergency and official vehicles only (condition). All structures will be fire
sprinlded for further safety. With two conditions of approval, staff finds this criterion
met.
5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY
The Building Department has reviewed the proposal and believes the project complies
with all applicable accessibility requirements. A detailed review is required prior to
issuance of a permit. Adequate pedestrian access is being provided with the addition of
detached sidewalks. This should greatly increase access and safety for pedestrians who
currently walk in the street. With a condition of approval, staff finds this criterion met.
6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and
reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY
Site drainage from the properties is proposed to be handled by directing drainage into an
extension of the existing storm drain facilities located in Durant Avenue and to the
City's storm drainage system. This plan will accommodate the City's desire to
minimize sedimentation -laden drainage from leaving the site and significantly improve
the existing condition which allows sediment -laden surface drainage from the
mountainside to sheet drain across the road and into the downtown. A drainage plan
will be required to be filed with the final plat and a detailed drainage plan review is
required prior to issuance of a permit. With a condition of approval, staff finds this
criterion met.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 11/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P39
7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately
designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The plan allows a "ski- back" corridor along the original Lift One alignment. This is a
significant public benefit of the project as this corridor is partially on private land and
has been compromised with various physical intrusions over the years, including a street
through one section. The plan also provides funds for a potential future surface lift
within this corridor, further enhancing skier access to Aspen Mountain. The entrances
to the lodges are well designed and allow for off -street loading/unloading as well as
valet service. The ski museum incorporates an outdoor space which can be used for
programmed events or informal gathering. Apres ski opportunity exists with this plan,
allowing locals and guests to get their party on. Staff finds this criterion met.
D. Landscape Plan.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with
the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and
proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply
with the following:
1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces,
preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and
variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate.
2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide
uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an
appropriate manner.
3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape
features is appropriate.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? 1 YES
The proposed lodge will be extensively landscaped with vegetation appropriate to the
climate. Several trees will need to be removed to allow for return skiing to Willoughby
Park. Only one tree is significant and this tree must be removed to accommodate the
building footprint changes made during the conceptual review to permit a ski -back
corridor. All removed trees will be mitigated per Code requirements. Staff believes this
is an acceptable trade -off. Staff fords this criterion met
E. Architectural Character.
It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character,
and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting
efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a
building for its purposes, legibility of the building' s use, the building' s proposed
massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of
materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the
proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 12145
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P40
an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed
development. The proposed architecture of the development shall:
1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately
relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character
suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing
of nearby historical and cultural resources.
2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking
advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non-
or less- intensive mechanical systems.
3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and
appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Staff finds that the proposed architectural character will be an enhancement to the visual
character of the neighborhood. This project will dramatically update the design quality
of the neighborhood, reflecting an appropriate ski -resort style in an established
neighborhood context. The design of the lodge clearly represents the lodge use, while
the two chalet buildings provide historic context compatible with their respective
affordable housing and museum uses. The lodge will be designed to LEED Gold
standards, which is very significant given the rigorous design and operating
requirements. This will be Aspen's first LEED -rated lodge and one of only a few in the
country. Staff finds this criterion met.
F. Lighting.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be
lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic
concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished:
1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or ha7nrdous interference of
any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and
access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner.
2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards
unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of
site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate
attention to the property is prohibited for residential development.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY
The project is committed to meeting the City's outdoor lighting standards. Staff and the
applicant believe this is achievable and expect no major issues. The proposed lighting
pan appears to meet the City's requirements. An exterior lighting plan will need to be
recorded with the final PUD plan set, which is typical for PUD projects, and a final
check occurs during building permit review and site inspections. With a proposed
condition of approval, staff finds this criterion met.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 13/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P41
G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area.
If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area
for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria
shall be met:
1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or
recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering
existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property,
provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual
benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD.
2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is
deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner
within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.
3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared
facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or
industrial development.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES, WITH A CONDITION
Willoughby Park and Lift One Park are already owned by the City. A portion of Lot #1
— Lift One Lodge — is proposed as a public ski and pedestrian easement, more than
meeting this standard. Staff has proposed a condition of approval that an operations
agreement be submitted as part of the final development agreement. Staff believes this
criterion is met.
H. Utilities and Public facilities.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue
burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an
unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated
with the development shall comply with the following:
1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development.
2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by
the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer.
3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided
appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the
additional improvement.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Public infrastructure exists in the area, With improvements made to the infrastructure
by the developers, adequate facilities are available to accommodate the development.
Staff does not see the need for oversizing to accommodate future needs. finds this
criterion met.
I. Access and Circulation.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 14/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P42
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does
not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and
recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed
access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria:
1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a
public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way,
or other area dedicated to public or private use.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, WITH A CONDITION
All structures and all of the units and associated uses have access from public rights -of-
way. A surface easement for skiers, park users, and park maintenance over the portion
of Lot #1 directly south of lift one park is recommended. If additional portions of
Gilbert Street are vacated (more than proposed by the applicant) staff will suggest a
similar access easement over portions of Gilbert. With a condition of approval, staff
fmds this criterion met.
2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do
not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development,
or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the
development.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The transportation study indicates that the area's streets and intersections are currently
operating below capacity and will continue to do so even after the lodge has been built
and are open for business. The report includes other projects that could affect the
overall transportation patterns and found `no perceptible difference' from current traffic
conditions. All parking will be below the buildings. In addition, South Aspen Street
will be reconstructed and use a rougher surface for enhanced winter traction. Staff fmds
this criterion met.
3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or
connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to
significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail
easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance.
4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific
plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation
are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner.
5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under
private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure
appropriate public and emergency access.
6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots
within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? 1 YEs, CONDITIONALLY
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 15/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P43
There are no historic trails through the subject property which would require dedication
or improvement and the AACP does not recommend any additional trails on the
property. Portions of the private property will require surface easements allowing the
ski -back corridor and pedestrian access during the summer. This is proposed as a
condition and can be incorporated into the final plat. No security gates, guard posts are
proposed. With a proposed condition, staff finds these criterion met.
J. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD
applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially com Mete projects do
not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surroundin g property owners and
impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the
development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD
development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following:
1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete
development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases.
2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical,
occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases.
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements
to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -lieu, construction of any
facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required
affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior
to the respective impacts associated with the phase.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES, CONDITIONALLY
The project is not proposed in phases. The City will require the development agreement
(done after approvals and prior to actual development) secure the landowner's
performance and possible site remediation costs. This will ensure the public interest
protected against possible financial burdens of completing public infrastructure, public
amenities, project amenities where a significant public interest exists, and costs for
safety and aesthetic remediation of an incomplete or abandoned development site. With
as a proposed condition, staff believe this criterion is met.
Page 16145
Lift One Lodge Final Review
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P44
STAFF FINDINGS: TIMESHARE LODGE DEVELOPMENT
An applicant for timeshare lodge development shall demonstrate compliance with each of
the following standards, as applicable to the proposed development. These standards are in
addition to those standards applicable to the review of the PUD and Subdivision
applications.
A. Fiscal Impact Analysis and Mitigation. Any applicant proposing to convert an existing
lodge to a timeshare lodge development shall be required to demonstrate that the
proposed conversion will not have a negative tax consequence for the City. In order
to demonstrate the tax consequences of the proposed conversion, the applicant shall
prepare a detailed fiscal impact study as part of the final PUD application. The fiscal
impact study shall contain at least the following comparisons between the existing
lodge operation and the proposed timeshare lodge development:
1. A summary of the sales taxes paid to the City for rental of lodge rooms during the
prior five years of its operation. If the lodge has stopped renting rooms prior to
the time of submission of the application, then the summary shall reflect the fmal
five years the lodge was in operation. The summary of past taxes paid shall be
compared to a projection of the sales taxes the proposed timeshare lodge
development will pay to the City over the first five years of its operation. As part
of this projection, the applicant shall specify the number of nights the applicant
anticipates each timeshare lodge unit will be available for daily rental to visitors
(that is, the annual number of nights when the unit will not be occupied by the
owner or the owner's guests), the expected visitor occupancy rate for these units,
the expected average daily cost to rent the unit, and the resulting amount of sales
tax that will be paid to the City.
2. An estimation of the real estate transfer taxes that would be paid to the City if the
existing lodge were to be sold. If an actual sale of the property has occurred within
the last 12 months, then the real estate taxes paid for that sale shall be used. This
estimation shall be compared to a projection of the real estate transfer taxes the
proposed timeshare lodge development will pay to the City over the first five years
of its operation. This projection shall include a statement of the expected sales
prices for the timeshare estates, and the applicable tax rate that will be applied to
each sale.
3. A summary of the City - portion of the property taxes paid for the lodge for the
prior five years of its operation, and a projection of the property taxes the
proposed timeshare lodge development will pay to the City over the first five
years of its operation. This projection shall include a statement of the expected
value that will be assigned to the property by the Tax Assessor, and the applicable
tax rate.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 17/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P45
The fiscal impact study may also contain such other information that the applicant
believes is relevant to understanding the tax consequences of the proposed
development. For example, the applicant may provide information demonstrating
there will be "secondary", or "indirect" tax benefits to the City from the
occupancy of the timeshare units, in terms of increased retail sales and other
economic activity in the community as compared to the existing lodge
development. The applicant shall be expected to prove definitively why the
timeshare units would cause such economic advantages that would not be
achieved by a traditional lodge development. Any such additional information
provided shall compare the taxes paid during the prior five years of the lodge's
operation to the first five years of the proposed timeshare lodge's operation.
If the fiscal impact study demonstrates there will be an annual tax loss to the City
from the conversion of an existing lodge to a timeshare lodge, then the applicant
shall be required to propose a mitigation program that resolves the problem, to the
satisfaction of the Aspen City Council. The accepted mitigation program shall be
documented in the PUD Agreement for the project that is entered into between the
applicant and the Aspen City Council.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE
The proposal does not include a conversion of existing lodging into a timeshare lodge
development. The redevelopment contemplates development of entirely new lodge
buildings and the former lodging buildings on the site are intended to be relocated and
used as a ski museum and a commercial and affordable housing mixed -use building.
These properties are not in current lodging use. The Holland House has been
demolished and the Skier's Chalet buildings are not being used for nightly rentals.
Neither has been in active lodging operation in close to 10 years. This criterion applies
to the conversion of existing buildings from traditional lodging operations to fractional
ownership. In this case, all new buildings are being developed. This criterion is not
applicable.
B. Upgrading of Existing Proiects. Any existing project that is proposed to be converted to
a timeshare lodge development shall be physically upgraded and modernized. The
extent of the upgrading that is to be accomplished shall be determined as part of the
PUD review, considering the condition of the existing facilities, with the intent being to
make the development compatible in character with surrounding properties and to
extend the useful life of the building.
1. To the extent that it would be practical and reasonable, existing structures shall be
brought into compliance with the City's adopted fire, health, and building codes.
2. No sale of any interest in a timeshare lodge development shall be closed until a
certificate of occupancy has been issued for the upgrading.
Lift One Lodge Final Review
Page 18/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P46
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE
The Applicant is proposing an entirely new project - not a conversion of an existing
project to a timeshare lodge development. This criterion is not applicable. The new
development shall be required to meet the City's adopted fire, health, and building codes
and compliance will be checked at the time of building permit review. This criterion is
not applicable.
C. Preservation of Existing Lodging Inventory. An express purpose of these regulations is
to preserve and enhance Aspen's existing lodging inventory. Therefore, any proposal to
convert an existing lodge or other property that provides short term accommodations to
a timeshare lodge should, at a minimum, replace the existing number of units on the
property in the planned timeshare lodge. If the applicant is unable to replace the
existing number of units, then the timeshare lodge development shall replace the
existing number of bedrooms on the property, or the applicant shall demonstrate how
the proposal complies with the purposes of these regulations, even though the planned
timeshare lodge will not replace either the existing number of units or bedrooms.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE
The Applicant is proposing an entirely new project - not a conversion of an existing
project to a timeshare lodge development. This criterion is not applicable. The project
does, however, propose to add additional beds and rooms which will add to the City's
lodging stock. This criterion is not applicable.
D. Affordable Housing Requirements.
1. Whenever a timeshare lodge development is required to provide affordable housing,
mitigation for the development shall be calculated by applying the standards of the
City's housing designee for lodge uses. The affordable housing requirement shall be
calculated based on the maximum number of proposed lock out rooms in the
development, and shall also take into account any retail, restaurant, conference, or
other functions proposed in the lodge.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The development is providing housing mitigation for 100% of the additional employees
generated by this development. This exceeds the City's requirement more than achieves
compliance with this criterion.
2. The conversion of any multi- family dwelling unit that meets the definition of
residential multi- family housing to timesharing shall comply with the provisions of
Chapter 26.530, Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program, even when there is
no demolition of the existing multi-family dwelling unit.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 19/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P47
The RMF replacement requirement of 1.25 employees is more than met with the
provision of approximately 16 employees to be housed in the Skier Chalet Steakhouse
building. Staff finds this criterion met.
E. Parkins Requirements.
1. The parking requirement for timeshare lodge development shall be calculated by
applying the parking standard for the underlying zone district for lodge uses. The
parking requirement shall be calculated based on the maximum number of proposed
lock out rooms in the development.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The proposal provides off-street parking for all of the uses according to the City's
requirements, plus an additional 50 spaces for public parking. The lodge parking
calculation complies with the maximum number of rentable divisions or "keys," as
required in this standard. Staff finds this criterion met.
2. The timeshare lodge development shall also provide an appropriate level of guest
transportation services, such as vans or other shuttle vehicles, to offer an alternative
to having owners and guests using their own vehicles in Aspen.
3. The owner of a timeshare estate shall be prohibited from storing a vehicle in a
parking space on -site when the owner is not using that estate.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY
The applicant has committed to van/shuttle service and on -site storage of vehicles will
be prohibited in the development agreement and timeshare instruments. With a
condition of approval, staff finds this criterion met.
F. Appropriateness of Marketing and Sales Practices. The marketing and sale of timeshare
estates shall be governed by the real estate laws set forth in Title 12, Article 61, C.R.S.,
as may be amended from time to time. The applicant and licensed marketing entity
shall present to the City a plan for marketing the timeshare development.
1. The following marketing and sales practices for a timeshare development shall not
be permitted:
a. The solicitation of prospective purchasers of timeshare units on any street,
mall, or other public property or facility; and
b. Any unethical sales and marketing practices which would tend to mislead
potential purchasers.
2. Giving of gifts to encourage potential purchasers to attend a sales presentation or to
visit a timeshare development is permitted, provided the gift reflects the local Aspen
economy. For example, gifts for travel to or accommodations in Aspen, restaurants
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 20/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P48
in Aspen, and local attractions (ski passes, concert tickets, rafting trips, etc.) are
permitted. Gifts that have no relationship to the local Aspen economy are not
permitted. The following gifts are also not permitted:
a. Any gift for which an accurate description is not given;
b. Any gift package for which notice is not given to the prospective purchaser that
the purchaser will be required to attend a sales presentation as a condition of
receiving the gifts; and
c. Any gift package for which the printed announcement of the requirement to
attend a sales presentation is in smaller type face than the information on the gift
being offered.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY
The application commits to incorporate these limitations on gifts into the development
agreement and timeshare instruments. With a condition of approval, staff finds this
criterion met.
G. Adequacy of Maintenance and Management Plan. The applicant shall provide
documentation and guarantees that the timeshare lodge development will be
appropriately managed and maintained in an manner that will be both stable and
continuous. This shall include an identification of when and how maintenance will be
provided, and shall also address the following requirements:
1. A fair procedure shall be established for the estate owners to review and approve
any fee increases which may be made throughout the life of the timeshare
development, to provide assurance and protection to timeshare owners that
management/assessment fees will be applied and used appropriately.
2. The applicant shall also demonstrate that there will be a reserve fund to ensure that
the proposed timeshare development will be properly maintained throughout its
lifetime.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY
The application commits to incorporate these maintenance provisions into the
development agreement and timeshare instruments. With a condition of approval, staff
finds this criterion met.
H. Compliance with State Statutes. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed
timeshare lodge development will comply with all applicable requirements of Title 12,
Article 61, C.R.S.; Title 38, Article 33, C.R.S.; and Title 38, Article 33.3, C.R.S.;
including the requirements concerning the five (5) day period for rescission of a sales
contract, and the procedures for holding deposits or down payments in escrow.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 21/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P49
The application commits to comply with State requirements. With a condition of
approval, staff finds this criterion met.
I. Approval By Condominium Owners. If the development that is proposed to be
timeshared is a condominium, the applicant shall submit written proof that the
condominium declaration allows timesharing, that one hundred (100) percent of the
owners of the condominium units have approved the timeshare development, including
any improvements to the common elements that the applicant may propose, that all
mortgagees of the condominium have approved the proposed timeshare development,
and that all condominium units in the timeshare development will be included in the
same sales and marketing program.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE
The project is not currently a condominium and does not proposed a conversion of an
existing condominium. This criterion is not applicable to this project.
J. Prohibited Practices and Uses. Without in any way limiting any requirement contained
in this Chapter, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly engage in any of the
following practices:
1. The creation, operation or sale of a right -to -use interest or any other timeshare
concept which is not specifically allowed and approved pursuant to the requirements
of this section. Right - to-use timeshare concepts (e.g. lease -holds and vacation
clubs) are considered inappropriate in Aspen and are not permitted.
2. Misrepresentation of the facts contained in any application for timeshare approval,
timeshare development instruments, or disclosure statement. application for
3. Failure to comply with any representations contained in any a
timesharing or misrepresenting the substance of any such application to another who
may be a prospective purchaser of a timeshare interest
4. Manage, operate, use, offer for sale or sell a timeshare estate or interest
violation of any requirement of this Chapter or any approval granted pursuant
hereto, or cause or aid and abet another to violate any requirement of this Chapter,
or an approval granted pursuant to this Chapter.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES, CONDITIONALLY
The application states that the timeshare operation will comply with these prohibitions.
With a condition of approval, staff finds this criterion met.
Page 22145
Lift One Lodge Final Review
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P50
STAFF FINDINGS: SUBDIVISION
Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for
Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements.
1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Please see Staff's response to PUD Review Standard A(1). Staff finds this criterion met.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing
land uses in the area.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Please see Staffs response to PUD review standard A(2). Staff finds this criterion met.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Please see Staffs response to PUD review standard A(3). Staff finds this criterion met.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements of this Title.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY
The project is being reviewed for the necessary approvals. If those approvals are
granted, this criterion is met.
13. Suitability of Land for Subdivision
a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,
mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other
natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY
This property is suitable for development with a few technical considerations; particular
attention needs to be paid to drainage and mudflow hazards. The preliminary drainage
recommendations have been reviewed by the City Engineer and accepted. More specific
drainage designs will need to be reviewed and approved and made part of the final plat.
This is proposed as a condition of approval. Likewise, the mudflow analysis has been
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 23/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P51
reviewed by the City Engineer. Specific recommendations for the design of the buildings
have been made and have been proposed as conditions of approval. No other known
natural hazards exist and staff believes, with proposed conditions, that this criterion is
met.
b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to
create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature
extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
This proposed subdivision does not represent a potential for inefficient public services
or unnecessary public costs. Staff fmds this criterion met.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided
for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review
(See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the
subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas,
and/or the goals of the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and
provide justification for each variation request, providing design
recommendations by professional engineers as necessary.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
The applicant has detailed the improvements this project is providing, as required in
Chapter 26.580, and is not requesting any variations. Therefore, the above standards for
reviewing variations are not applicable and staff find this standard met.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision
which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable
housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth
Management Quota System.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The proposed development complies with both requirements of replacement housing and
of new housing. Affordable housing in excess of the City's requirement is being
provided and staff finds this criterion met. (Note: the requirements of Chapter 26.520
were recodified within Chapter 26.470.)
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 24/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P52
E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards
set forth at Chapter 26.630.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY
The residential development within this project requires school land dedication. The
application commits to providing a cash -in -lieu of land dedication. Staff supports the
cash -in -lieu as this site and the amount of land dedication would be an inappropriate
method of meeting the standard. Staff has included a condition of approval that requires
the school land dedication fees be paid prior to building permit issuance. The applicable
schedule will be that in effect at the time of building permit submission. With this
condition, staff believes this standard is met.
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been
granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to
Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned
Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining
growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain
such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal
instrument acceptable to the City Attorney.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY
The proposal requires allotments for lodging, affordable housing, and commercial space.
The allotments have been requested and are available. The request for allotments is
being reviewed concurrently. Staff supports the allotment requests finding the proposal
in compliance with the growth management criteria. If all of the requested growth
management actions are approved, this criterion is met.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 25/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P53
STAFF FINDINGS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT — AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The development of affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the APCHA
Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and
Zoning Commission based on the following criteria (2005 Land Use Code printing):
a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new
units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C, Development Ceiling Levels.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The proposal requires allotments for lodging, affordable housing, and commercial space.
The affordable housing allotments have been requested and are available. The
allotments are from the 2010 growth year as the application for final review was
accepted in December 2010. Staff finds this criterion is met.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
Please see Staff's response to PUD Review Standard A(1). Staff finds this criterion met.
c) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall
be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may
choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, WITH CONDITIONS.
The proposed affordable housing units have been reviewed by APCHA staff and the
board for compliance with the Guidelines. A recommendation of approval with a series
of conditions has been forwarded to the P &Z. Staff has included these as conditions
within the draft resolution and believes this standard is met.
d) Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual
newly built units or buy -down units. Each unit provided shall be designed such that
the finished floor level of fifty percent of more of the unit's net livable square footage
is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher. Off -site units shall be
provided within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be
accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.040.D.2. Provision of
affordable housing through a cash -in -lieu payment shall be at the discretion of the
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 26/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P54
Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from APCHA. Required
affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The on -site affordable housing is being provided in the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse
building. This is an ideal re-use of an historic resource. The units, which are in a
dormitory configuration, have been designed to meet this standard. All units are at grade
or on the second and third floors. The subgrade space of this building is proposed for
mechanical and storage uses.
All mitigation is proposed through on -site units or actual units within the City. This
may include use of housing credits, which is a new program for off -site housing. The
applicant has committed to providing housing mitigation in excess of the requirements.
None of this mitigation is proposed through cash -in -lieu. Staff finds this criterion met.
e) The proposed units shall be deed restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to
qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the
aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority or the City of Aspen to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as
defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority, as amended. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or its
Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, may authorize affordable housing units
owned and associated with a lodging or commercial operation to be rental units if a
legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent
affordability of the units. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, or other similar governmental or quasi -
municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for- sale" provision.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, WITH A CONDIT]ON
The affordable housing is proposed to be owned and operated by the applicant (or
successor). This is appropriate and desirable for both dormitory units and units
associated with a lodging operation. A legal instrument ensuring the permanent
affordability of the units is necessary and staff is proposing a condition of approval.
Staff finds this criterion met.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 27/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P55
STAFF FINDINGS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT — ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY
Pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.3. of the Regulations, the City Council may approve
the development of an essential public facility upon the recommendation of the planning
and Zoning Commission subject to compliance with the following criteria (2005 Land
Use Code):
a) The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or
structure to be an Essential Public Facility. Accessory uses may also be part of an
Essential Public Facility project.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The City defines an Essential Public Facility as "a facility which serves an essential
public purpose is available for use or benefit of the general public and serves the needs
of the community." The Aspen Historic Society is a not - for -profit organization with a
mission of enriching the community through preserving and communicating Aspen's
remarkable history. They are supported through donations, limited fee services, and the
Aspen Historic Park and Recreation District property tax. The facility is proposed to
serve a needs of the community and a public purpose — education — and will be for the
use and benefit of the general public. The Director fmds the facility meets the
definition. Staff fmds this criterion met.
b) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the uses,
pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C, Development Ceiling Levels and Section
26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The proposal requires allotments for lodging, affordable housing, and commercial space.
No specific allocation is required for essential public facilities and no growth ceiling
exists for this type of use. All necessary allotments for the project have been requested
and are available. The allotments are from the 2010 growth year as the application for
final review was accepted in December 2010. Staff fmds this criterion is met.
c) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
I STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Please see Staff's response to PUD review standard A(1). Staff finds this criterion met.
d) A sufficient percentage of the employees expected to be generated by the project are
mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash -in -lieu thereof in a
manner acceptable to the City Council. The Employee Generation Rates may be
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 28/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P56
used as a guideline but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee
needs. The City Council may waive, or partially waive, affordable housing
mitigation requirements as it deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of
promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The applicant is requesting the housing mitigation for the museum be waived in light of
the extensive preservation and rehabilitation work proposed — the relocation and
rehabilitation of two historically significant structures, the rehabilitation of the original
lift one terminal (a National Historic resource), and the redevelopment of Willoughby
Park as park space complimentary of the historic resources.
Staff believes this is an adequate trade -off. The investment in the historic resources
serves a significant community goal — preserving and enhancing the Aspen's skiing
legacy. The employee needs for the museum are expected to be handled through
existing staffing with minimal additional demands (probably 1.5 to 2.5 total additional
employees) and within the operational plan of the Historic Society. In additional, the
project as a whole is exceeding the City's requirements for affordable housing
mitigation. Staff is recommending this waiver be granted. Staff fords this criterion met
e) Free - Market residential floor area on the parcel is accompanied by affordable
housing units or mitigation pursuant to 26.470.040.C.6, unless otherwise restricted in
the zone district. The City Council may waive, partially waive, or establish a
different limitation as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of
promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE
No free- market residential space is proposed for the museum parcel. This standard is
not applicable.
0 The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
The project can be accommodated with existing public infrastructure. Some services are
being upgraded by the applicant to address direct needs. No disproportionate public
service burdens are expected. Staff finds this criterion met.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 29/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P57
STAFF FINDINGS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW — REMODELING OR REPLACEMENT
OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL OR LODGE DEVELOPMENT.
Remodeling or replacement after demolition of existing commercial or hotel/lodge
building and portions thereof shall be exempt from the provisions of growth management,
provided that no additional net leasable square footage or lodge units are created and
there is no change -in -use. If redevelopment involves an expansion of net leasable square
footage or lodge units, only the replacement of existing development shall be exempt and
the expansion shall be subject to Section 26.470.040.C.2 or 3. Existing, prior to
demolition, net leasable square footage and lodge units shall be documented by the City
of Aspen Zoning Officer prior to demolition. Also see Reconstruction Limitations,
Section 26.470.070, and definition of Net Leasable Commercial and Office Space,
Section 26.104.100 (2005 Land Use Code):
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The project involves some replacement of existing development and some new
expansion. Replacement of 20 lodge rooms from the Holland House lodge, 10 lodge
rooms from the Skier's Chalet Lodge, and 8 rooms from the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse
lodging (lodging was upstairs from the steakhouse) is exempt from growth management
while the remaining 46 room (keys) are subject to the requirements for new growth.
Likewise, 2,429 square feet of replacement commercial space is exempt from growth
management while the remaining 3,560 square feet are subject to the requirements for
new commercial space. Staff finds this criterion met. Compliance with requirements
for new lodging units and commercial space are addressed in other sections of staff
findings.
Lift One Lodge Final Review
Page 30/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P58
STAFF FINDINGS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW — REPLACEMENT OF DEMOLISHED
MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS
The replacement of demolished multi - family residential units shall be exempt from the
provisions of this Chapter if the requirements of the Multi - Family Housing Replacement
Program are met. (See Chapter 26.530 — Multi - Family Housing Replacement Program.)
Replacement units shall not be deducted from the respective Annual Development
Allotments of Development Ceiling Levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030.
The development of additional residential units, beyond those merely being replaced,
shall be subject to this Chapter. Also see Reconstruction Limitations, Section 26.470.070
(taken from the 2005 printing of the Land Use Code).
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY?
The applicable code (2005 code) requires 50% of the demolished units, bedrooms, and
net livable square footage of free - market residential portion of a building be replaced
with on -site deed restricted affordable housing. The replacement units can be off-site or
provide through a cash -in -lieu if certain conditions exist. The application proposes the
replacement of the one affected unit (a managers apartment within the former Holland
House Lodge) by housing 1.25 employees within the redeveloped Skier Chalet
Steakhouse. Staff considers this on -site replacement as the Steakhouse is part of the
overall project, being relocated and rehabilitated as part of the proposal, and will be
located on a newly created parcel to be known as lot 2 of the Lift One Lodge
subdivision. The amount of replacement housing meets the 50% requirement, which
translates to .5 units, .5 bedrooms, and 489 square feet. The reconstruction credit was
established as part of the Conceptual PUD review. Staff finds the project in
conformance with the Residential Multi- Family Replacement Requirements.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 31/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P59
STAFF FINDINGS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT — INCENTIVE LODGE DEVELOPMENT
The development of new or expansion of existing free - market residential units within a
mixed -use project shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning
and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria (2005 Land Use Code):
a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the
expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The proposal requires allotments for lodging, affordable housing, free - market housing,
and commercial space. All necessary allotments for the project have been requested and
are available. The allotments are from the 2010 growth year as the application for final
review was accepted in December 2010. Staff finds this criterion is met.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Please see Stan's response to PUD review standard Al. Staff fords this criterion is met.
c) The project contains a minimum of one lodge unit per five hundred (500) square
feet of Lot Area and these lodge units average five hundred (500) square feet or less
per unit. These two standards (the density standard and the unit -size standard) may
be varied in some cases according to the limitations of the zone district in which the
project is developed and still meet this criterion. (See zone district requirements.)
Units developed in excess of those necessary to meet the Lot Area standard shall not
be required to meet the average -size standard. For the expansion of a lodge which
is not being demolished/redeveloped and which does not currently meet the Lot
Area standard, only the average unit -size standard of the new units shall be required
in order to meet this criterion. Projects not meeting the density or unit -size standard
shall be reviewed pursuant to 26.470.040.C.2 — Expansion/New Commercial,
Lodge, or Mixed Use Development.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The proposal meets the "density" standard with one lodge key for each 230 s.£ of lot
area and is in compliance with this criterion. The average size of the lodge rooms is 537
s.£, exceeding the 500 s.f. standard. This zone allows for an up to 10% increase in the
average unit size (to 550 s.£) through Special Review. The application seeks special
review approval. Assuming the special review is approved, staff finds this criterion met.
Please see staff comments under Special Review.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 32/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P60
d) Associated free - market residential development, as permitted pursuant to the zone
district in which the lodge is developed, shall be allocated on a unit basis and
attributed to the annual development allotment. Each unit shall require the
provision of affordable housing mitigation by one of the following methods:
i) Providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or a Carriage House for each
residential unit pursuant to Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and
Carriage Houses. The unit need not be detached or entirely above grade to
meet this criterion.
ii) Providing on -site or off -site Affordable Housing Units equal to 30% of the
free - market residential units (on a unit basis). The affordable housing units
shall be one - bedroom or larger and be provided as actual units (not as a cash -
in -lieu payment). Affordable housing units provided shall be approved
pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to
Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines, as amended. Provision of affordable housing mitigation via units
outside of the City of Aspen shall require approval from City Council,
pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower Category designation.
iii) Paying an affordable housing cash -in -lieu fee normally associated with
exempt single - family and duplex development, pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Guidelines.
Notes: The City encourages the affordable housing units required for the
free - market residential development to be associated with the lodge
operation and contributing to the long -term viability of the lodge. An
efficiency or reduction in the number of employees required for a lodge
component of a Incentive Lodge project may be approved as a credit
towards the mitigation requirement for the free - market component of the
project, pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.1 — Employee Generation.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The applicant has committed to meeting this criterion through option ii and the provision
of affordable housing. The applicable requirement translates as a need to provide 1.2
one - bedroom units with each one - bedroom unit housing 1.75 employees. (1.2 one-
bedroom units required x 1.75 FTEs housed per one - bedroom unit = 2.1 FTEs to be
housed.) The proposal exceeds this requirement. The application has committed to
exceeding the 30% affordable housing standard. A portion of the mitigation may be
provided by affordable housing credits. This is a new program not in effect at the time
the application was originally submitted. The credit program is equivalent to a
developer providing built units and is preferred over cash -in -lieu. Staff finds this
criterion met.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 33/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P61
e) Thirty (30) percent of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare
lodge, exempt timeshare units, and associated commercial development, according
Section 26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the
provision of affordable housing or cash -in -lieu thereof. On -site affordable housing
units shall be one - bedroom or larger units. Employee mitigation shall only be
required for additional development and shall not be required for replacement
development. The Planning and Zoning Commission may consider unique
characteristics or efficiencies of the proposed operation and lower the mitigation
requirements pursuant to Section 26.470.050.A.1 — Employee Generation.
Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Section
26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined
in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. Provision
of affordable housing mitigation via units outside of the City of Aspen shall require
approval from City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.D.2. An applicant
may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The additional 46 lodging keys (84 total minus 38 existing) requires the mitigation of
6.9 employees. The 3,560 additional commercial square feet (5,989 s.f. total minus
2,429 s.£ existing) requires mitigation of 3.38 employees. Together, the additional
lodge and commercial space requires the mitigation of 10.28 employees. The project
has committed to house 100% of the additional employees generated by the development
or 34.27 employees, at a Category 4 or lower rate, some of which may utilize the City's
affordable housing credit program. This far exceeds the requirements of the City and the
requirements of this criterion. Staff finds this criterion met.
o The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the
project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage
treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police
protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
The project can be accommodated with existing public infrastructure. Some services are
being upgraded by the applicant to address direct needs. No disproportionate public
service burdens are expected. Staff finds this criterion met.
Page 34/45
Lift One Lodge Final Review
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P62
STAFF FINDINGS: CONDITIONAL USE FOR RESTAURANT/BAR, DORMITORY UNITS, AND
COMMERCIAL PARKING FACILITY
When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as
applicable (the City Council is the final review authority for this Application):
a) The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards
of the Aspen Area Community Plan, with the intent of the zone district in which is
proposed to be located, and complies with all other applicable requirements of this
title.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The restaurant and bar within the lodge, the dormitory affordable housing units, and the
commercial parking facility are conditional uses in the Lodge zone.
The purpose of the Lodge (L) Zone District is to encourage construction, renovation and
operation of lodges, tourist- oriented multi- family buildings, high occupancy timeshare
facilities and ancillary uses compatible with lodging to support and enhance the City's
resort economy. Free - market residential units within this Zone District shall be
permitted, but not required, to be used as short-term tourist accommodations. The City
encourages high- occupancy lodging development in this zone district. Therefore, certain
dimensional incentives are provided in this zone district, as well as other development
incentives in Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). [Land Use
Code section 26.710.190.A.]
The restaurant is a typical amenity of a hotel in this area. It is expected to serve guests
of the lodge as well as the general public, especially during ski season. Staff expects
this amenity of the lodge will enhance the viability of the lodge and Aspen's resort
economy.
In evaluating the potential to lease parking spaces to the general public, Staff feels that
the commercial parking use will alleviate some of the on -street parking pressure in the
area that has been building over the years due to the lack of on -site parking that has been
provided in many of the older condo developments in the vicinity.
Dormitory accommodations are appropriate for housing employees of the lodge on -site.
It has been the City's experience that on -site employee housing, especially for hotel
employees, are typically small units able to accommodate singles or roommate style
living (as opposed to family units). Staff believes dormitory units are compatible with
lodging operations and appropriate for this project. Staff believes this element of the
project supports the resort economy.
Regarding compliance with the AACP, please see Staffs response to PUD review
standard Al. Staff finds this criterion is met.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 35/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P63
b) The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land
uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The base of lift 1 has been used for lodging operations since the inception of skiing in
Aspen. Many of these facilities have had restaurants and/or dormitory housing for
employees within the lodge or in an adjacent building. The restaurant and dormitory
units will enhance the mix of uses in the neighborhood and compliment the existing
lodging, multi - family housing and recreation activities in the neighborhood. Staff finds
this criterion met.
c) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional
use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and
vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on
surrounding properties.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
The lodge is designed to accommodate service needs and deliveries from within the
lodge's subgrade parking. This will minimize or eliminate any adverse effects of the
restaurant use. The restaurant will be required to have modern venting and is not
expected to create any undue smoke, odors, vibration or other adverse impacts on
surrounding properties. Staff believes that the potential commercial parking that is
proposed within the parking garage will not be visible or impact the circulation in the
immediate area. The dormitory units are not expected to create undue adverse impacts
such as vibration, odor, deliveries, etc.) on surrounding properties. Parking for the dorm
units is within the proposed parking garage. Staff finds this criterion met.
d) There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional
ee
including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, a
fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage
systems, and schools
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
The project can be accommodated with existing public infrastructure. Some services are
being upgraded by the applicant to address direct needs. No disproportionate public
service burdens are expected. Staff finds this criterion met.
Page 36/45
Lift One Lodge Final Review
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P64
e) The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need
for increased employees generated by the conditional use.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
The employee housing demands for the restaurant have been factored into the overall
project's housing mitigation requirement. No employee generation is expected from the
dormitory units or the parking. Staff finds this criterion met.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 37145
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P65
STAFF FINDINGS: AMENDMENT TO THE ZONE DISTRICT MAP (REZONING)
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone
district map, the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider
(26.310.040):
Note: There are several rezonings covered in this section. Portions of vacated streets
are proposed for rezoning (Aspen zones property to the midpoint of streets). Those are
Hill Street from Park Historic to Lodge, South Aspen Street adjacent to proposed Lot 2
from Park Historic to Affordable Housing Historic. The two parks are proposed for
rezoning from Park to Public to accommodate the ski museum and underground parking.
Finally, a PUD overlay on the entire project to reflect the PUD approval for the project.
a) Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? [ YES.
None of the proposed rezoning conflict with the Land Use Code. Staff fords this
criterion met.
b) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
Please see Staff's response to PUD review standard Al. Staff fords this criterion is met.
c) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and
land uses, considering the existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? 1 YES.
The surrounding area provides a mix of lodging, multi - family housing most of which is
used for short-term accommodations, affordable housing, recreation uses and facilities,
and active parks use. Most of the area is zoned Lodge. The two parks are zoned Park.
The area south of this site is zoned Conservation, allowing a range of uses including
residential. And, some Affordable Housing zoned land is in the vicinity. About half of
the surrounding land is zoned with a PUD overlay. The proposed zoning will allow
development similar in use and intensity as the surrounding development. Staff
considers the proposed zoning compatible with the surrounding zone districts and
existing land uses. Also see PUD review standard A.2. staff finds this criterion met.
d) The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 38/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P66
This rezoning standard is also covered under PUD review standards. A transportation
study for the project was submitted with the application. The transportation study
indicates that the area's streets and intersections are currently operating below capacity
and will continue to do so even after the lodge has been built and are open for business.
The report includes other projects that could affect the overall transportation patterns
and found `no perceptible difference' from current traffic conditions. All parking will
be below the buildings. In addition, South Aspen Street will be reconstructed and use a
rougher surface for enhanced winter traction. Staff finds this criterion met.
e) Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands
on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to
transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools,
and emergency medical facilities.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
The project can be accommodated with existing public infrastructure. Some services are
being upgraded by the applicant to address direct needs. The project proposes
significant improvements to the area's pedestrian access and parking. Significant
upgrades of the areas storm water system are proposed. No disproportionate public
service burdens are expected. Staff finds this criterion met.
f) Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES.
No adverse effects on the natural environment as a result of this rezoning have been
identified by staff or referral agencies. Upgrades to storm water drainage systems are
expected to minimize adverse effects on the natural environment. Locating lodging
facilities within walking distance of typical tourist attractions (downtown, skiing) and
within walking distance to existing transit makes better use of existing resources and
minimize adverse effects on the natural environment. The project itself is proposed as a
LEEDs Gold project, significantly minimizing energy requirements. Staff finds this
criterion met.
g) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 39/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P67
The rezoning and the project will enhance the neighborhood' s short-term
accommodation history and character. The area has long been a place for tourist
accommodations and this rezoning will allow development consistent with the character
of the community. The area is the original base of Aspen Mountain and contains a
nationally recognized historic resource related to the emergence of skiing in North
America. The area has been planned for a skiing museum for two decades to celebrate
the emergence of Aspen as an international ski resort and this plan will assist in that
vision. Staff believes this criterion is met.
h) Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
A public vote in 1991 supported a ski museum within Willoughby Park. To accomplish
this, the zoning should be changed to a zone permitting museum use. Staff is
recommending Public as it reflects the public ownership and usage of the parcel and
permits the museum. Other rezonings are supported by the adopted Conceptual approval
of the project.
i) Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and
whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Staff does not foresee any conflict with the public interest and believes the requested
zoning changes are in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. Staff
fords this criterion met.
Lift One Lodge Final Review
Page 40/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P68
STAFF FINDINGS: SPECIAL REVIEW
The Planning and Zoning Commission may approve an adjustment of the "density
standard" and the "unit -size standard" and the project shall remain qualified for the
height, Floor Area, and Growth Management incentives associated with these standards.
The review shall be pursuant to the review procedures for Special Review, Chapter
26.430, and the following criteria (taken from the 2005 printing of the Land Use Code,
and City Council is the final review authority for this application):
a) The density standard may be amended by a maximum of 10% to one lodge unit per
550 square feet of Lot Area. The average unit -size standard may be amended by a
maximum of 10% to permit an average unit size of 550 square feet. An adjustment
in excess of these increases may be approved through adoption of a PUD plan, but
the project shall no longer be qualified for associated incentives.
b) The project includes a generous amount of non -unit spaces, amenities, and services
for guests of the lodging operation. This can include both internal and external
amenities..
c) The project provides a range of unit sizes and configurations to be attractive to a
broad segment of potential guests. Flexible units are encouraged.
d) There exists a system or strategy for the project to maximize short-term
occupancies.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES
The proposal meets the density standard with one lodge unit per 230 square feet of lot
area and requests amendment to the unit size standard to permit the average unit size of
537 square feet. The project does include a generous amount of on -site amenity and
services, with a restaurant/bar, fitness facility, business center, public ski lockers, and a
rooftop pool and deck. The project includes a wide range of unit sizes and
configurations, making it more resilient or sustainable through economic and market
changes. The project is proposed as a fractional ownership providing an operational
plan to maximize usage by owners and the general public. Staff believes the project is
very responsive to the standards and finds the project in compliance with these criteria.
The Applicant is also requested an increase to the amount of floor area within the lodge
which is devoted to the individual lodge units and commercial uses. This increase must
receive a Special Review approval based upon the criteria listed in Section 26.430.040.A,
Special Review. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are
subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the
following conditions are met:
e) The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and
setbacks of the proposed development are .designed in a manner which is
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 41/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P69
compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is
consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district.
STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
Staff does believe the project has been designed appropriately with respect to mass,
scale, height, open space, view planes, and landscape treatment. The project provides a
physical presence that will enhance the character of the surrounding land uses consistent
with the purposes of the underlying zone district. Also see staff findings under Planned
Unit Development. Staff finds this criterion met.
0 The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse
impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts including, but not
Limited to, the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the
neighborhood, or blocking of a designated view plane.
STAFF FINDING: 1 DOES IT COMPLY? I YES
The project is being reviewed concurrently for compliance with the Wheeler View Plane
restrictions. Staff believes the project is in compliance with the view plane. Traffic
impacts are apparent as the existing neighborhood has several large parcels sitting
fallow, but those impacts are expected to be negligible according to the traffic report.
Parking availability is addressed through the provision of public parking within the
project. Massing and scale issues of the project are addressed through the Planned Unit
development criteria and staff is supportive of the proposed dimensions. Staff fords the
project in compliance with this criterion.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 42/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P70
STAFF FINDINGS: MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE
The Lift 1 Lodge site is impacted by one of the City of Aspen Mountain View Planes —
the Wheeler Opera House View Plane. This view plane intersects the site at Gilbert
Street. No development shall be permitted within a mountain view plane unless the
Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development
complies with all requirements set forth below (the City Council is the final review
authority for this application):
a) No mountain view plane is infringed upon, except as provided in
Section.435.050.C.2.
When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the
maximum allowable building height otherwise provided for in this title,
development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter 26.445 as a
planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building
design with special consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian
space, and similarly to permit variations in lot area, lot width, yard and building
height requirements, view plane height limitations.
The Planning and Zoning Commission may exempt any developer from the above
enumerated requirements whenever it is determined that the view plan does not so
effect the parcel as to require application of PUD or that the effects of the view
plane may be otherwise accommodated.
When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is
located in front of another development which already blocks the same view plane,
the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether or not the proposed
development will further infringe upon the view plane, and the likelihood that the
redevelopment of the adjacent structure will occur to reopen the view plane. In the
event the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane, and
re- redevelopment to re -open the view plane cannot be anticipated, the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall approve the development.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 43/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P71
The view plane intersects the ground just north of the project site. Development within
designated mountain view planes is subject to heightened review not expressly
prohibited. This particular view plane was arguably created to regulated development in
the foreground so as to preserve views from the Wheeler to the mountain In this
instance, the code requires development to proceed through a PUD review. This is
presumably to allow flexibility in the design to minimize the effects on the view plane
while recognizing the rights of the property owner. The project is being reviewed as a
PUD. hi ever other similar situation where development has been proposed in the
neighborhood above the view plane line, the development has been reviewed as a PUD
and approved after discussing trade -offs of design, program, visual and other
neighborhood or community impacts. In many of those case, the resulting impact on the
view plane has been more substantial than is proposed in this case. Lastly, the actual
impact of the proposal is minimized by intervening development and vegetation such
that the project may not actually be seen from the sidewalk in front of the Wheeler. The
following pictures were taken on a site visit during conceptual review after height flags
and construction equipment were erected demonstrating heights of the proposed
development.
_ " ia - ' - `
N
Considering the history of administering this view plane and the minimal or no actual
affect on the view from the Wheeler sidewalk, staff believes this standard is met.
Page 44/45
Lift One Lodge Final Review
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P72
STAFF FINDINGS: CONDOMINIUMIZATION
Section 26.480.090.A of the City Land Use Code provides technical criteria for
development applications including condiminiumization for the sale of fractional ownership
interests. The criteria in this Section address technical standards and provisions that must
be incorporated on the subdivision plat.
STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, CONDITIONALLY
The plats and submissions for Condomininmi7ation require a substantial portion of the
project be completed. The Applicant will be required submit these documents once this
level of construction has been achieved. Staff is recommending the approval grant the
right to condominiumize the project subject to a condo plat being reviewed and
recorded. With a condition of approval, staff finds this standard met.
Lift One Lodge Final Review Page 45/45
Exhibit G — Review Criteria and Staff Findings
P73
—
Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council July 27, 2009
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 2
CONSENT CALENDAR 4
• Resolution #48, 2009 — Lone Pine Pedestrian Improvements Contract 4
• Resolution #50, 2009 — Contract SCADA System for Electric Department 4
• Board Appointment — Wheeler Opera House Student Representative — Nikolas
Erickson 4
• Minutes — July 13, 2009 4
RESOLUTION #49, 2009 — City Contribution for Meadowood Water System 4
RESOLUTION #51, SERIES OF 2009 — CMAQ Grant 5
ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2009 — 500 Doolittle Drive, City Water Nan SPA
Amendment 5
ORDINANCE #19, SERIES OF 2009 — Aspen Local Marketing District 6
ORDNANCE #15, SERIES OF 2009 — Fee Increase 6
ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2009 — Housing Guideline Amendments 8
RESOLUTION #42, SERIES OF 2009 — 201 N. Mill Extension of Vested Rights Jerome
Professional Building 11
ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2009 — 219 S. Third Historic Lot Split 13
t■RESOLUTION #52, SERIES OF 2009 — Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD 13 —, --
b
64rekmay in4,0403
amariow
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 27, 2009
grant 5 year ves ' • _ to this project unless Counc• • ans to grant 5 to every project.
This will p - I . e construction pacing into • ext boom. M • pointed out in 2014 the
land us • • e may have been changed t. • problems that : 1st today. Myrin requested
Co il deny this request. If Coun pproves it, they ould extend it only 3 ye r • .m
• .. y; to include in the resoluti. -xt to address pac' g of development; inclu. the
esolution text to address e ' • ng problems in th • • d use code; and add so. - text that
the developer states the • 11 be more succe .
Patrick Sagal st• he does not find i ' in the community's benefi • grant vested
rights.
Mayo eland closed the public hearing.
• yor Ireland stated a . operty owner has the right to • • y under the existing code • •
to be considered un• the code at the time of the • • . ation as opposed to Chan_ - • that
are being cons . ated. This may put at risk an a. • ication that the city wo • _et an
application - did not like as opposed to an • • • teation P &Z and Count: orked on
and liked • - result. Councilman Skadron . -. about pacing of devel • .went. Bendon
there is natural pacing and projects can • • ld up and all start at o • -. The city does not
have . ything to address the location • ' • rojects; they can all be • a block or
Tie') borhood at once.
Councilman Romero said = has to be a market pl . to support development.
Councilman Romero sad • • wth for the communi is not necessarily all bad : • ' • • g
checks and controlli. _ mechanisms. Counci •• • Romero agreed there is t. -• • uch
growth and inap • •priate growth and the cit • to control and manage at; however,
each applica; has to be measured on i - • wn and in the context of , - larger AACP.
The city . es to a co- developed op ' • , a partner in developing • town with the
priv: sector. Councilman Rome said this application ex - -• • areas of the land
c• • e and may be a model for 1 • • use code amendments, lik- a e double dippin
All in favor with the ex -- on of Councilman Torre, • on carried.
ORDINANCE # SERIES OF 2009 — 219 S. r • Historic Lot Spli
Mayor aid moved to continue Ordinanc 3, Series of 2009, t August 10; seconded
by Co ilman Torre. All in favor, moti • carried.
te RESOLUTION #52, SERIES OF 2009 — Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD
Councilman Johnson stated he lives within 300 feet of this proposed project and left
Council Chambers. Chris Bendon, community development department, outlined the
property east of South Aspen street and south of Dean street. Bendon said the area is
zoned Lodge, Park and Conservation. This property was part of the Lift One
Neighborhood Master Plan. This application was submitted in 2006 and the applicant
had finished P&Z and HPC for conceptual approvals. The land use application was put
13
P7 6
Regular Meetlne Aspen Citv Council July 27, 2009
on hold for the master planning process, which took up almost all of 2008. Bendon noted
that master plan was not adopted and the process has terminated. Bendon said Council
will need to determine which aspects of the master plan should be included in this
application.
Bendon reminded Council at conceptual review, they are asked if the basic elements of
the project are acceptable. There are further reviews for details; this review is for uses,
the intensity of uses, scale and mass of the project and what changes are necessary to
achieve acceptability of a project. Conceptual review establishes a set of expectations;
conceptual approval does not bind Council to approve a project at final. Bendon said
tonight the 2006 application will be reviewed, the elements of the master plan that could
be incorporated into this project should be enumerated by Council.
Bob Daniel, representing the applicant Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge, said the
fundamental things this area presents for the community is skiing, history and a current
under utilization of the area. Daniel stated the applicants have spent a lot of time
working with neighbors, COWOPs, city boards to understand the issues. Daniel said the
applicants are required to present to Council the application acted on by P&Z in August
2007; the project was put on hold during the COWOP process Daniel said they would
like to hear in what direction Council would like this project to go and how the pieces
and parts might fit together.
Daniel told Council the applicants are long time locals, they build and manage projects
and their projects always have a non -profit component. Daniel said the applicants looked
at the skiing history, the relationship between the city and the Historical Society for the
lease on Willoughby park. Daniel told Council the applicants have worked with the
Historical Society to see how they could help further their goals on this site.
Daniel showed a map of the site, the buildings on site and the surrounding properties.
Daniel said they worked with the city on incorporating the parks and the historic
resources into a master plan for the east side of South Aspen street. Daniel told Council
their planning process the reviewed goals, built up a site plan physically oriented to the
property, socially understanding neighbor issues, how people use the property and the
context for planning in the area. Daniel said the community influences in this area are
self - evident. Both the AACP as it exists and the proposed revisions and the economic
sustainability report, which notes the loss of hot beds, the planning pattern at the base of
Aspen Mountain from east to west all show this is the place that lodging ought to be
located.
Daniel said there is transit tying into Rubey Park with no connectivity to Lift One; there
are no sidewalks on South Aspen street. Daniel noted this area was the inaugural lift for
Aspen skiing. The present condition of the area is a state of disrepair and neglect.
Daniel went over the informal ski patterns that exist on and through the site. Daniel told
Council the applicants met with all neighbors and took into consideration ski access for
those neighbors, public amenities and the impact on those neighbors. Daniel said from
14
P77
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 27, 2009
this came 3 goals, history, accessibility and vitality. These goals were extended to the
COWOP.
Steve Holly, architect, told Council the designers took the goals of history, accessibility
and vitality and used them to create a master plan honoring those goals. Holly said they
tried to create connectivity and to create anchor points. The biggest anchor points are the
ski museum and the lift, high speed quad, ticketing and apeas ski. Holly said the plan
intersperses affordable housing with the ski museum, re -use of the Steak House. There
will be lodge amenities including restaurants. The plan honors and reinforces the role of
skiing in the area. Holly showed slides of the existing conditions. Holly told Council the
application proposes a new ski museum using the Skier's Chalet lodge, relocating it to a
prominent position, bringing the park all the way down, eliminating the surface parking
and putting it underground, giving Lift One predominance on site.
The existing steak house will be made into affordable housing and the asset will be
preserved, active and used. The current accessibility is difficult, steep, no sidewalks, no
sense of destination and dangerous. The applicants propose to do improvements to
Aspen street and the Dean street, including drops offs and elevator service up to the lift,
transit to connect this area to other areas, like the gondola. There will be a public
restaurant and apeas ski, ticketing,
Daniel noted the area currently does not serve Aspen's guests or the community. The
applicant is proposing a public restaurant on the street so it is accessible front the street
and from the ski slope. The applicants have committed to a new high speed lift,
improved World Cup facilities, permanent and improved ski access. Daniel said the
existing buildings are not viable to operate as a lodge without modernization. Daniel told
Council at the height of lodging in this area, there was a total of 38 keys. This
application meets the standards of the lodge incentive zone district and creates hot beds
with fractional units and nightly rentals. The applicants propose units that lock off so that
up to 97 keys will be created and added to the bed base inventory.
Daniel said the lift one area is a neglected area with little connection to the Aspen
community. Daniel said the attempt is to provide an integrated neighborhood approach
looking at all the sites on the east side of South Aspen street incorporating pedestrian,
transit, street improvements, sidewalks, accessibility to the lift, gathering places. Daniel
said this proposes improvements to the parks, creates a historical society museum, a new
high speed lift, below grade parking which allows green space above, on site affordable
housing and lodge beds.
Daniel stated the applicants are asking for vacation of some unused rights -of -way and
alleys with no connectivity. The applicants are asking to rezone some parks land to
public for public facilities and the historical museum; rezoning the lift one base area from
conservation to lodge to increase the bed base and to add amenities. The applicants are
not asking for free market residential units as part of the proposal; they are not asking for
a height variance or setback variance, no increase in FAR no off -site affordable housing.
Daniel reminded Council the HPC granted conceptual approval and a conceptual PUD
15
P78
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Ju ly 27. 2009
and time share approval was granted by P&Z in August 2007. Daniel noted the applicant
established a code compliant project to bring through the process. Daniel reminded
Council this project was in the process when the Lodge at Aspen Mountain was denied
and the community wanted to look at the area as a master plan, which resulted in the Lift
One Neighborhood COWOP beginning in January 2008 and voted two to two in January
2009.
Daniel said the COWOP had 4 goals area, 3 of which are the same as those of Lift One
Lodge — history, accessibility and vitality - and the 4 was sustainability. Daniel noted
an important issue in the COWOP discussions was a balance between resort and
community. The COWOP thought the master plan should mitigate for 65 to 70% of the
employees generated; the Council wanted 100% mitigation. Daniel said downhill skiing
was addressed in their application; the COWOP spent a huge amount of time analyzing
uphill transportation. The solution was a poma lift through the Lift One site. Those
impacted the site plan and Lift One created a corridor for skiing and for lift access
through their site. Daniel pointed out community benefits like the lift access, increased
open space, and increased affordable housing units, made the buildings higher, the floor
area larger, and included free market units. These changes through the COWOP process
were not a part of the conceptual PUD application. Daniel told Council this application is
the conceptual application which received approval from P&Z; however, there are site
plans developed through the COWOP. Daniel said the applicants would like to know
whether Council wants the applicant to continue on in detail with the previously
approved conceptual plan or to look at what was in the COWOP plan to see what can be
blended into the east side of South Aspen street. Daniel stated they are committed to
master planning the area.
Councilman Torre said he would favor amending the PUD to incorporate Council
priorities from the COWOP plan. Councilman Skadron agreed. Councilman Skadron
asked the proposed square footage. Daniel said it is 114,000 square feet. Councilman
Skadron asked what the test for economic viability was. Daniel said they ran pro formas
for the project that made sense based on the proposed program and the costs to create the
project. Councilman Skadron asked if the museum is a critical component to the project
and will it create economic viability to the project. Daniel said it does not create
economic viability and was part of the original PU13 application. Councilman Skadron
asked if the museum in the proposed location is the highest and best use. Daniel
reminded Council in 1991 there was a public vote on whether the city should lease
Willoughby park to the Aspen Historical Society for the purpose of creating a ski
museum.
Councilman Skadron asked if the agricultural maintenance in the area will change as a
result of demands from guests. Daniel told Council they have looked at different options
with the HPC as one of the lift towers is under the purview of them. HPC wanted to
make sure this area did not evolve into a proprietary garden, which was also a concern to
the Open Space and Trails board.
16
P7 9
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council July 27.2009
Councilman Skadron asked if the World Cup races had ever not come to Aspen because
of inadequate facility. Daniel said not to his knowledge. Councilman Skadron said he
would like to know whether the lift and base improvements are community benefit or if
they are a marketing opportunity. Councilman Skadron asked if the lack of dwell space
makes this area special. Daniel said his observation is that most people who go up there
to ski, leave because there is no place to dwell. Daniel said he feels places that create
activity and hold people in the community and create social fabrics are a benefit to the
community. These might also be a benefit to the developer; this is a relationship.
Councilman Skadron asked about the steps up to the lift and are they public. Daniel said
for accessibility, they are public steps; for maintenance, they are the responsibility of Lift
One Lodge. It is not the intent to privatize this area. Daniel noted the 97 keys for the
lodge will not support the restaurant and apres ski area and the applicants want people in
the area. Daniel said the applicants need the community and think this project provides
benefit for the community.
Daniel said the applicants would like direction from Council, whether they want COWOP
components folded into this proposal or to go forward into details of the conceptual PUD.
Councilman Skadron requested information on fractional ownership units and the general
impact these have on the community and how does the community benefit from
fractional units. Bendon told Council at 1/7 ownership interest or smaller, the fractional
units function more like hot beds. Councilman Skadron said he would like to see this
managed so that inclusiveness is a value and is ingrained.
Councilman Romero said he would like to see the better concepts from the COWOP
merged into this application. These included the financial sureties and public protections;
public outreach; public access and expanding a public transportation plan; mass and
scale; improved ski lift served access and integrated affordable housing. Councilman
Romero said he would be willing to look at expanded property lines into city property,
which would take a public vote. Councilman Romero noted the COWOP addressed the
program in this area to make sure it is more of a year round place of activities.
Councilman Romero asked the autonomy of this project to achieve its goals from a
potential project to the west. Daniel told Council this project stood alone and entered into
the COWOP process with interdependency created through that COWOP process.
Daniels stated this project has a land use application, it has goals and wants to proceed
with their land use application; there is nothing in this plan that has a level of
interdependency with any other property owner except the city of Aspen.
Mayor Ireland agreed this application should be amended to include what can be from the
COWOP. Mayor Ireland said he is concerned that the lift is moving further up the
mountain and about the calculation of affordable housing because credits are based on
buying a project that housed few if any workers. Mayor Ireland noted there is a difference
in the number of employees to service a high end operation as opposed to those that
existed on this site. Mayor Ireland noted the parking requirement is 55 spaces and the
applicant proposes to supply 215, which may build in an irrevocable pattern of driving
different than what the city has worked to avoid. Mayor Ireland stated he is concerned
17
P8 0
Reeular Meetine Aspen City Council July 27.2009
about heated sidewalks not using a renewable energy source. Mayor Ireland said there is
mention of affordable rent and he would like more information on how that would be
achieved. Mayor Ireland said this is off to a good start and there will be more detail
coming,
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
Bill Wiener said there is more than one solution to this problem and this solution has
been rejected by Council several times. Wiener noted during the COWOP it was
discovered one thing the public is interested in is a lift into town and mass and scale. The
COWOP did not discuss mass and scale, which has not changed in this application.
Wiener said this application does not include a lift into town. Wiener said the solution
should have a lift, should address history and vitality. Wiener suggested South Aspen
street could be ski down with the lift going over the street.
Leon Fell said the original PUD approval, it was stipulated that the developers have to
replace the volleyball courts located on Willoughby Park. The HPC approved moving
the Skier's Chalet to the parking lot. Fell asked why the building cannot be relocated and
incorporating it with the cabins, building a smaller and more affordable ski museum. Fell
said the developers want to keep vitality and volleyball courts can help keep that vitality.
Fell noted there is no other place to relocate these volleyball courts that allows for
pedestrian flow to the courts.
Phyllis Bronson said people are opposed to the South Aspen street losing its essential
identity, that area is sacred turf to many in the community. Ms. Bronson told Council she
has met with the developer and is convinced of his intention to do the right thing on the
east side of the street. The applicant is concerned about open space, about the Aspen
Area Community Plan and the sense of an alpine feeling on the site. Ms. Bronson said
she supports Council getting the best possible project on this site.
Patrick Sagal said he would like to see vitality at the top of Lift 1A; however, a 3800
square foot deck will not be used at night and will people be able to use that deck without
ordering food. Sagal said he would like to see a broad prospective of options.
Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing,
Councilman Torre moved to continue Resolution #52, Series of 2009, to August 10
seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Torre moved to go into executive session at 10:25 pursuant to C.R.S. 24 -6-
402(4) (b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of
receiving legal advice on specific legal questions; seconded by Councilman Romero. All
in favor, motion carried. All Council present; also present Steve Barwick, Kathryn Koch,
John Worcester, Phil Overeynder, Cindy Covell and Andy Rossello.
18
P 81
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 27, 2009
Councilman Romero moved to come out of executive session at 11:00 p.m.; seconded by
Councilman Skadron. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Torre moved to adjourn at 11:00 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Romero.
All in favor, motion carried.
4 / /
Ka l• . Koch, City Clerk
19
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 10, 2009
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 4
CONSENT CALENDAR 5
• Resolution #53, 2009 – MEAN Appointments 5
• Resolution #54, 2009 – Calling Special Election 5
• Resolution #55, 2009 - Contract – Rocky Mountain Recreation for Harmony Park
Playground 5
• Resolution #56, 2009 – GOCO Grant Agreement 5
• Resolution #57, 2009 - Contract – RA Nelson – Cozy Point Cabin Renovations 5
• Minutes – July 27, August 3, 4, 2009 5
All in favor, motion carried. 5
ORDINANCE #19, SERIES OF 2009 – Aspen Local Marketing District 5
RESOLUTION #58, SERIES OF 2009 – Boomerang Extension of Vested Rights 9
ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2009 – 219 S. Third Historic Lot Split Reconsideration 10 _
.� — RESOLUTION #52, SERIES OF 2009 – Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD 16 ��
P83
Regular Meeting
Aspen Citv Council Aueust 10.2009
an opportunity to work out a solution with staff and with the neighbors after hearing what
Council has to say.
Mayor Ireland said both the applicant and the neighbors have been diligent in pursuing
their ends. Mayor Ireland stated it seems there is a belief if this application is denied,
nothing will be built on this lot. Mayor Ireland said the neighbors would maximize their
control over what happens on this lot by working with the applicant. Mayor Ireland
noted Council approved an ordinance June 8 by which he stands. Mayor Ireland said
this is a modification of the prior approval, which he does not stand by. Mayor Ireland
agreed Ordinance #48 needs standards and a point system to determine how many
benefits an applicant would be eligible for. Mayor Ireland agreed the appeal on the
interpretation ought to proceed before Council makes a decision that is predicated on that
interpretation. Mayor Ireland said Council ought to know whether man made slopes do
not count against FAR; has the city been doing that and under what circumstances. Ms.
Foster stated she is willing to continue this as she would like a defmitive answer on the
FAR. Mayor Ireland said he would like resolution that the setback variance is only
allowable on the historic resource. Jim True, special counsel, reminded Council on June
8` there was an approval and the applicant was given 30 days to decide whether to accept
that. At the next meeting, there was a motion to reconsider and the approval is not
available to the applicant.
Councilman Torre moved to continue Ordinance #13, Series of 2009, to September 14;
seconded by Mayor Ireland. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #52. SERIES OF 2009 — Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD
Councilman Johnson left due to a conflict of interest. Mayor Ireland moved to continue
to Resolution #52, Series of 2009, to August 11, 2009 at 5:15; seconded by Councilman
Torre. All in favor with the exception of Councilman Skadron, motion carried.
Council left chambers at 10:30 p.m.
-/AL -4 Li
. , ooh, City Clerk
16
P8 4
Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 11, 2009
Mayor Ireland called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. with Councilmembers Torre and
Romero present.
A t RESOLUTION #52, SERIES OF 2009 — Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD
4 Chris Bendon, community development department, reminded Council the 2006
application for Lift One Lodge was put on hold while the Lift One Neighborhood Master
Plan COWOP was developed. Bendon said an issue before Council is whether they want
to review the 2006 application or to see the conceptual application move closer to what
came out of the COWOP. Council indicated they were more interested in the COWOP
plan and the applicant would like to know how close and what trade offs the Council is
interested in. Bendon reminded Council a lift corridor through the site was important to
the COWOP task force, mostly for lift access up the hill. The task force spent a lot of
time reviewing the lifts and what would work in this location.
Bendon said the task force decided on a poma lift. The result was to push development
massing away from that corridor. The task force and other reviewing agencies thought
that was a worthwhile tradeoff. This pushed the buildings into the street right -of -way,
moved historic buildings around on the site, accommodated additional mass and scale
and included some free market units to offset some impacts of the lift corridor. The
applicants would like to know if any issue is not negotiable and which items are more
sensitive than others. Bendon said at conceptual PUD discussions, Council is asked how
to make a project meet their expectations before final review.
Bendon told Council a corridor through the project for the lift is a fundamental design
decision for the applicant. It is critical from a physical layout. It is also critical for the
design team to represent whether their project is completely compliant with the zoning
code. Bendon said the importance of skiing and ski lifts in this community is what
propelled this into a COWOP for a neighborhood plan.
Bob Daniel, applicant, reiterated they would like Council to understand the decisions
made by COWOP, how they impact the east side of South Aspen street and establish the
land plan for the Lift One Lodge. Daniel told Council the COWOP was allowed to look
at solutions `outside the box" and some of that thinking made a better site plan for Lift
One Lodge. Daniel reminded Council their original master plan goals were history,
accessibility and vitality, to create "skiing and being" a place that residents and guests
feel comfortable in, a place that is inclusive and that has access.
The initial focus was about skiing; how does one ski through the property; how do
adjacent property owners get to skiing, how do skiers exit the mountain. Daniel showed
the site plan of existing conditions and the buildings on site, the adjacent properties, and
South Aspen street. Daniel told Council the COWOP spent time talking to the Ski
Company and SE Group about ski area planning and how a lift might work on this site.
Daniel noted that regulations regarding lifts have changed in the past 60 years. Daniel
showed a slide superimposed with the required footprint for a lift going through this site.
Daniel said this lift corridor blocks off access to upper South Aspen street, including
1
Continued Meeting
Aspen Citv Council August 11, 2009
Shadow Mountain condominiums. Daniel noted the tramway safety board has a
requirement for an 85' corridor, 35' each side of the lift cable has to be unobstructed.
Daniel said this footprint required for a lift leaves virtually nothing as developable
property.
The COWOP task force looked at different lift technologies that would operate in a
smaller corridor that would provide both uphill and downhill access. The technology
decided upon by the COWOP was a poma lift, which still requires an 85' corridor.
Daniel told Council the applicants went to the tramway board for a variance and were
granted a variance based on the plan as presented and that on a surface lift, one is already
on the ground and in case of an emergency can ski away. Daniel said the applicants feel
this plan maintains a historic visual corridor up lift one and also provides access up
through the property in the summer as well as creates more activity in Willoughby park.
The plan with a lift corridor also breaks up the mass and scale of the original plan.
Daniel pointed out typically one develops a master plan around a fixed object, like a
street. This master plan allows the lift corridor to become the fixed object. Councilman
Torre asked how the COWOP received the poma lift. Bendon told Council it was a good
reception but only because the COWOP went through all alternatives and the negatives
and positives of each alternative. One reason the COWOP liked the poma proposal is
that it was scaled to the actual use. Councilman Torre asked if this is a usable poma.
Daniel said the distance of the poma is about 700 linear feet. Dave Corbin, Aspen Skiing
Company, told Council this would be about a minute ride.
Daniel said this Lift One Lodge plan with a lift corridor also created activities and a sense
of place in Willoughby Park. The Skier's Chalet/Steakhouse would be moved down
closer to the original Lift One, and it will be affordable housing, a local restaurant and ski
lockers. Daniel said the applicants would like to create a better connection between town
and the mountain; this area is less than 2 minutes to Rubey Park. Daniel said another
positive of this design is breaking up the buildings by creating the lift corridor.
Daniel showed the existing conditions base map, the footprints of the proposed buildings.
Daniel noted this proposal had HPC review who felt strongly enough about the ski
corridor and about opening up the views that they supported moving the historic Skier's
Chalet and Steakhouse down the site as a net benefit to the area. Daniel pointed out no
other structures than those currently approved will be located in Willoughby park; no
structures are going into the Lift One park.
Daniel noted a trade off of this plan is putting part of the lodge building into the South
Aspen street right -of -way. The proposed plan with the lift corridor results in increased
square footage, increased heights in some locations and the addition of a free market
element. Daniel said one of the benefits is the view corridor and open space up through
the parcel which includes connectivity to town. Other benefits, which have been
discussed before, are restaurants, street improvements, hot beds, on -site affordable
housing. Daniel said the issue is whether the trade offs are acceptable to Council.
2
P86
Continued Meetin¢ Aspen City Council August 11, 2009
Councilman Torre said he does not favor changing the configuration of South Aspen
street because of the view plane. The city's street grade offers natural views north, south,
east and west. Daniel pointed out that buildings more than streets frame the view
corridors. Daniel said they have not worked out the details of the Centurion property not
being part of this application. Daniel said if the buildings were to be put back onto their
property, the issues would be height, mass and program and how to have a separate sense
of identify for the Skier's Chalet and Steakhouse.
Councilman Torre asked if the original Lift One tower will stay in the same location.
Daniel said the tower will stay. The applicants will have to work on the parking, access
and circulation. Councilman Romero stated, in general, he supports the proposed trade
offs. Councilman Romero said hot beds are one of the purposes of considering
redevelopment in this area. Councilman Romero said "affordable" lodging was discussed
during Council review and he would like to have a conversation to see how that might
work, looking at the physical and fiscal constraints, community's comfort level.
Councilman Romero said honor and respecting skiing and the historic elements on the
property and the development becomes secondary, behind the skiing and history.
Councilman Romero asked how the return ski/apres area at the top of the site will work
with public access. Daniel said this is fully accessible and public restaurant. The
applicants want this space on the front of the development, not buried in the middle of the
hotel. Daniel pointed out a large deck with views up the ski race course. Daniel said
because of Shadow Mountain, they will have to create reasons for people to be on this
part of the development. Daniel said places in Aspen that are most successful have a mix
of local and tourist business. Daniel said a 97 key facility will not support the restaurant
planned for the hotel.
Councilman Romero asked about proposed financial contributions on the public
improvements, the lift, streets, and surface lift. Daniel noted their commitment was for
the upper lift and the poma lift irrespective of what happens on any other parcels of land
in the general facility. Councilman Romero asked about the logistics of the service plan.
Daniel said they need to do a circulation analysis. In the COWOP plan, they had a tunnel
to serve both developments. Daniel said there is a challenge with the Gilbert and
Monarch intersection as a surface point. Daniel said he does not see a viable egress on to
Gilbert.
Mayor Ireland noted the COWOP task force agreed to a goal of preserving view corridors
up the mountain. The COWOP did not want a wall of buildings created between the
town and the mountain. Mayor Ireland said a lot of this will depend on how the
community perceives the height and mass of this project. Mayor Ireland said view
corridors do help the height and mass issue. Mayor Ireland said a larger community issue
is the destiny of Aspen and whether Aspen can continue to ride on a small number of
wealthy persons. Mayor Ireland said he feels resorts that will survive will be more
resilient and have a more mixed guest base.
3
P87
Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 11, 2009
Mayor Ireland asked how one pays for all these improvements and amenities. Mayor
Ireland suggested the city and the applicant look at TIF or other ways to financing.
Mayor Ireland said he is leery of approving projects with amenities that during the project
it is determined they cannot be paid for. Mayor Ireland suggested a way to pay for
capital is to finance them over a life of the improvements. Mayor Ireland said he favors
generations that benefit are the generations that pay; this is a multi- generation project.
Councilman Romero agreed with some public financing and cautioned there are some
costs of ownership limits and adding the financing burden may eliminate people from
purchasing. Councilman Romero said he thinks the community would recognize the
trade offs if public financing could take some burden off the project. Councilman
Romero noted the COWOP was a consistent way for public outreach and he would like to
know that level of outreach will continue.
Councilman Romero asked about transit and pedestrian improvements that will service
the neighborhood. Daniel said there was a Dean street improvement plan undertaken by
the city involving all the property owners along the corridor. Daniel said pedestrian
improvements refer to participating in the Dean street plan by finishing out the west
segment, enhancements along South Aspen street, like a sidewalk. Daniel told Council
they are looking into integrating this into the existing transit, like the Galena street or
cross town shuttle.
Councilman Torre asked if the applicants have looked at moving the ski corridor to the
west or east. Daniel said if it is moved to the west, there are problems interfacing with
the lift further up the mountain. Daniel told Council the existing lift will be moved up the
mountain 200'. Councilman Torre said he agrees about the funding mechanisms.
Councilman Torre said there are a lot of challenges in this application as well as a great
opportunity.
Daniel said the applicants would like to know if the Council is comfortable with these
type of trade offs for them to go back and address the concerns. Mayor Ireland said he
has a level of comfort in looking at these trades offs but would like to know the square
feet proposed as well as the height. Daniel showed a schematic of a code compliant
project submitted earlier as well as a schematic of the more out of the box project. Daniel
told Council the applicants felt like ideas from the COWOP were worth pursuing.
Council agreed they like the form that resulted from the COWOP.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
Toni Kronberg said a solution to this project would require a public vote. Ms. Kronberg
said the community was not looking for a poma but a way to get up the mountain to the
next lift. Ms. Kronberg suggested tramway engineers come in and tell what can actually
be built. Ms. Kronberg said the lift access should be over South Aspen street and the
developer could use the property where the lift was; the scale and mass can be reduced.
This would be a foot passenger corridor.
4
P88
Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 11.2009
knee Kirk said it would be nice to have the lift coming down as least as for as it
currently does. Ms. Kirk said the scale and mass has to be cut back. David Corbin,
Aspen Skiing company, told Council for the COWOP work SE Group was engaged to
study many different lift alternatives. SE Group is the foremost ski area planning group
and their work is grounded in lift science. Corbin told Council the COWOP did look at a
lift alignment up South Aspen street and these were not feasible for reasons like the
location of lower terminal height lift terminal, and the size or length of a mid - mountain
terminal.
Councilman Romero asked about variances from the Tramway board. Corbin said this
board sets the 35' dimension off the lift cable and it is applied to both aerial and cable
lifts. The proximity of the lift to actual buildings is a key in variances including the
length of time a ride is exposed to that proximity, the distance to and from a fire station,
the ability for a lift operator to see up the line are all factored in. Corbin said one can get
a variance for short rides past a structure. Corbin told Council the applicants went to the
tramway board and did get a variance for the poma lift and there was some concern about
this being a surface lift, not an aerial lift, and they may not have granted a variance for an
aerial lift.
Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing.
Councilman Romero moved to continue Resolution #52, Series of 2009, to September
14 seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried.
Mayor Ireland moved to adjourn at 6:45 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Romero. All in
favor, motion carried.
%l
Ka /S. Koch, City Clerk
5
P8 9
Reeular Meetine Aspen City Council September 14, 2009
OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE BONUS AWARDS 2
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 3
CONSENT CALENDAR 4
• Resolution #65, 2009 — Contract Burlingame Ranch Irrigation and Drainage 5
• Resolution #66, 2009 — Contract West Water Treatment Plant Filter Media 5
• Resolution #69, 2009 - 211 W. Hopkins Ordinance No. 48 Negotiation Extension
5
• Resolution #70, 2009 — Contract - ARC Mechanical Penthouse Sealing 5
• Resolution #71, 2009 — Contract — Electric Concrete Vaults 5
• Resolution #72, 2009 — Contract — Yellow Brick Roof Replacement 5
• Minutes — August 24, 2009 5
RESOLUTION #67, 2009 — Purchase Contract 104 W. Cooper 5
RESOLUTION #68. 2009 — Purchase Contact 910 W Hallam #11 5
ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2009 — Red Butte Cemetery PUD 7
ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2009 — 219 South Third Historic Lot Split 8
..„,....----.--°—` RESOLUTION #52, SERIES OF 2009 — Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD 12 e,..1••••••••".
REQUEST FOR FUNDS — Election Commission/Outside Counsel 15
P90
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 14, 2009
questioned if th ' a way to resolve this i • e with a TDR. Ms. Foste - aid the larger
issue is the yard setback request, ch is not supported by the ighbors. Ms.
Foster er request is for 16': .nt yard setback. This w. • . be 25' off the alley
becaus 'th a lot ,split that w. - d be the front yard.
yor Ireland asked i a e suggested 23' roof heigh • an issue. Ms. Foster said the
issue is the setbac ayor Ireland asked if a co • .romise could be reached. Ms ' • ster
stated she wo . ike Ordinance #13 adopted -, presented. Mayor Ireland , - -• if the
applicant • xed on the setback or is ther- • m for compromise. Ms. F. - said she is
fixed . . the setback. Ms. Foster told .until she received no feedb on the setback
fro the neighbors. Young presen ,c to Council drawings sho • • _ what may be a
.mpromise in the setback req and he was agreeable to ... ons 1 and 3 with the
associated roof heights. Ms. • • ster said she is not willin _ • agree to options 1 or 3. Ms.
Foster said she would F - much of the two story e1 ent of the building as close ..• e
alley as it can get, w • will make the project a • typical construction, the
orientation of the • ' tiding toward the mountai s. Foster reiterated withou
preservation s. can put the two -story buil.' g as close to the alley as po • . e. Mayor
Ireland sai. or a difference of 2 or 3 f e would like to reach a c. • .romise. Mayor
Ireton. - ated a compromise is in .plicant's and the comet •' s best interest.
Co . cilman Tone said he is • ..: able to trying to work this • . and to give it more time.
Ms. Foster said the proposal . ' ents 7 months of com y. •• 'se and the ordinance for
adoption and where the pr. ect started are two differe • t 'ngs. Young said what -
been presented at this ' eeting, including the dra • • .- of 3 options for setbac . , is his
compromise positi • .
Councihn • = • dron moved to appro • dinance #13, Series of 2 • , on second
reading; - - .nded by Councilman ' . rre. Roll call vote; Counc' • embers Johnson, no;
S . - • ' no; Romero, no; Tor • o; Mayor Ireland, no. Mo .. n NOT carried.
Councilman Johnson mov • to deny Ordinance #13, 'es of 2009; seconded
Councilman Torre. R. call vote; Councilmemb Mayor Ireland, no; To , yes;
Johnson, yes; Sk: • . n, yes; Romero, yes. M. on carried.
RESOLUTION #52. SERIES OF 2009 — Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD
Councilman Johnson left the meet due to a conflict of living within 300 feet of the
proposed project.
Chris Bendon, community development department, reminded Council at the last review,
Council directed the applicant to work on amendments to the project to have a project
more closely resemble the project that came out of the Lift One Neighborhood COWOP.
Bendon said the applicants have a revised site plan, showing the ski corridor, each of the
5 buildings will be reviewed, the neighborhood issues will be reviewed. Bendon told
Council a site visit has been scheduled for September 22 at 4 p.m.
12
P91
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 14. 2009
Bob Daniel, applicant, said when Council indicated they were interested in looking b this
to include portions of the COWOP plan and how that differs from the PUD app roved y
P&Z and how the COWOP portions can be incorporated. Daniel said the largest item of
the COWOP plan was the ski corridor and the installation of a surface lift. Daniel noted
another part of the COWOP was to create multiple buildings, which is in keeping with
the character of the town. Daniel said the focus in the community regarding development
is mass and scale. This meeting will review site plan changes, building program, general
height information. On September 28 the architecture will be reviewed.
Daniel noted one of the key fixed points in this project design is keeping the western
right -of -way. Daniel showed the existing entitlement on the other side of South Aspen
street and where the points of access tie together. The street scape ties into the approved
project across the street. Daniel noted Council questioned the curve of the street and how
that will affect the view. Daniel said he felt the proposed street pattern fits in well with
the existing patterns. Daniel said Council can look at whether the view up South Aspen
street is intact and respected at the site visit. Daniel noted the key differences between an
entire plan and a segregated plan is access. Daniel pointed out the access off South
Aspen street for this portion. Daniel told Council they did look at using Gilbert street for
access and have determined it is not appropriate for egress. There will be a cul- de-sac at
the top of South Aspen street usable for the hotel, public and Ski Company.
Daniel noted Council does not want this project to create a barrier between town and
Aspen mountain rather to create a sense of being welcomed. Daniel said that is
important to the success of this project, too. Daniel pointed out the service area, which
provides all service undemeath the building. There is access for the public through
garage and at the lodge with valet parking. Daniel said there were 85 parking sp
200 lodge parking spaces; in this proposal there are 50 public spaces and 200 lodge
spaces plus the service area within the underground footprint. Daniel outlined the drop
off area for guests and restaurants; there is also drop off access for the surface lift.
Daniel said this proposal better integrates into town with the surface lift and the
possibility to link an in -town shuttle to the property and to the other hotels along Durant
street. Councilman Torre asked about a skier drop off at the very top of South Aspen
street. Daniel said it can serve that purpose; there could be van or shuttle drop off.
Daniel showed where there would be elevator access to get down to the lift. Daniel
stated this area is not proprietary to the lodge.
Daniel said Council has been concerned whether this site is accessible to the community
and to the guests. Daniel said a safe sidewalk will be installed along South Aspen street.
There are multiple point of access throughout the site on both sides of the site.
Stephen Holly, architect, noted this project contains 5 free market units, 27 lodge suites
equaling 90 keys, affordable housing units in a mix of dorms, studios, one and two
bedrooms housing 40 employees on site. There are public spaces with the ski museum,
the beer and brats, the restaurant in the lodge, commercial areas for the Ski Company
including ticketing and lockers.
13
P9 2
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 14, 2009
Holly showed sectional cuts of each building, starting with the relocated Skier's lodge as
the ski museum and how the building fits into the grade. The sections show each layer
and each floor level. This will be 3 stories. The Steak House building will also be 3
stories, a restaurant and affordable housing on the 2 and 3' floors. Those two buildings
will be 32' to 34'. The next building going uphill has affordable housing at grade level,
free market and lodge units going up the hill.
Holly said the height of the building was increased to meet all the requested program and
benefits from the COWOP. Holly said in the COWOP, absolute height was used in
discussions, rather than height as measured in the code. Holly showed pictures of height
as measured and height as perceived. Holly noted the allowable height by code is 42'
plus allowable overruns. The COWOP used 48' as a base and 90% of the lodge structure
is below 48'. There are protrusions throughout the building above 48' but not a
consistent part of the building.
Holly showed a section of the east lodge building with 2 levels of affordable housing,
lodge units, a free market component, the roof following grade along the ski slope.
Toward the east, the structure has been lowered to allow better visibility throughout the
site. The upper lodge building has two sections; the entry steps back and steps the
building upwards. Along the cul-de -sac, there are ski ticket sales, lockers and the public
restaurant. The upper building has lodge, lodge amenities; the entire structure is under
48'. Councilman Romero asked about lowering the entire building to below 48'. Daniel
said the roof print is about 49,000 square feet. Daniel said the areas that are above 48'
are a pitched roof, which creates a smaller mass and scale. Daniel said the peaks could
be flattened; however, the issue is whether one is trying to meet a number or to deal with
scale and mass. Councilman Skadron asked what the maximum allowable height is in the
lodge zone district. Hendon said it is 42'. For this project, the developers and the
COWOP were looking at absolute heights rather than all the ways in which height is
measured and what is exempt.
Holly showed some different diagrams on how one would have 27 suites to equal 90
keys. The suites are along a central corridor and the bedrooms can be locked off in
different configurations. This provides flexibility and maximum ability to provide hot
beds. Daniel stated it is in the applicant's interest to have as many beds occupied as
possible.
Daniel went over each adjoining property, the outreach from the applicant, the neighbor's
concerns and how these are being addressed.
Mayor Ireland moved to continue the meeting and Resolution #52, Series of 2009, to
September 22 for a site visit seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion
carried.
Bill Wiener said each part of the lodge building is bigger than the front of Wal -Mart.
Wiener suggested with cut and cover, it is possible to take South Aspen street and make it
green circulation and a better project. Toni Kronberg said there have been discussions
14
P93
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 14.2009
about what can be built in the ski corridor area. Ms. Kronberg recommended Council
speaking to the aerial tramway engineer before discussing that issue. The site visit will
tell a lot about the area and the impacts. Ms. Kronberg recommended the ski corridor be
relocated to outside the parcel
Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing.
REQUEST FOR FUN — Election Commission/Outsid - ounsel
Kathryn Koc city clerk and member of the El- • • n Commission, told Council th
election ission has received complain I. .ut the May 2009 election. Th- ection
com ' sion met September 2" and at - • eginning of the meeting, Chris B , an
e lion commission member, state • could not ascertain whether the e ction
commission had the jurisdiction der the City Charter and state st • s, to review these
complaints. Ms. Koch told C • • it Bryan stated he felt the city • • . mey's office has a
conflict of interest becaus - • ey provide counsel to the City C . • cil. The election
commission passed a • • ion to ask Council for funds to h' independent counsel to )
review the Charter . • state statutes to recommend w • : I • e jurisdiction of the election
commission is. • ' . Koch noted there is a letter to • election commission from Lee
Leavenworth - .ting this would cost $5000 to $ - • t initially.
Chris B ••• an stated he believes as a thresh • d matter independent counsel • • necessary to
ans the question what the election •mmission can and cannot do. e previous
. cil appointed the election co • ssion in March 2009. The el- , on commission has
received several complaints and ••• uests involving the election. c . said before he
gets to the substance of the di r - ent complaints, he needs a le: framework for what the
commission can and cane • • o. Bryan said he feels it is ne sary for the election
commission to have a • - ermination of their scope and . + ority.
Bryan said he w • • d like to make sure the electio • • mmission handless these m • =- -
procedurally • •rrectly before the commission 1 sses these issues. This wo • be a
limited fi step for advice to the election c. •• • ission on their powers, j • • • ection,
autho ' and scope. Bryan said this req is not a slight to the city a • ey'ss office but
' • • some of the procedures and poli ' at the core of' the compl presented
election commission were recomm= • ed or put together by the c' attorney's office.
Bryan said he feels it would be ' , pppopriate from the standp•'•• t of legal ethics for the
city attorney's office to give vice to an independent co • ssion.
Bryan noted this bears • ose scrutiny that before the el- tion commission gets to • e
substance of these s. • plaints that they understand • - the procedure is, wh • the extent
of the capabiliti = are. Bryan said getting outside • • unsel to sign off on • - extent of the
capabilities • d alleviate any problems the C Council may have • what the
election • • • ission would do with respect • • w the election commis - on may resolve
any of e issues. Bryan said having a leg. and analytical framew• ' in place would be
a • • idea. Bryan noted there is a l5tter from Lee Leavenworth • sting independent
counsel is appropriate and also he•Klieves that the jurisdictio , d authority of
15
P94
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 29. 2009
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 4
CONSENT CALENDAR 4
• Resolution #72, 2009 — Supporting Ballot Question Local Energy Finance District
5
• Resolution #74, 2009 — Contract Electric Feeder Construction 5
• Resolution #75, 2009 — Contract Electric Feeder Materials 5
• Resolution #76, 2009 — Contract Power Plant Road Guardrail 5
• HPC Appointments — Jason Lassen Jamie Brewster MacLeod 5
• Minutes — September 14, 2009 5
RESOLUTION #78, SERIES OF 2009 — 320 E. Hyman Wheeler Opera House
Conceptual PUD 5
RESOLUTION #73, SERIES OF 2009 — Contract Program Manager Wheeler Opera
House 11
.........e RESOLUTION #52, SERIES OF 2009 — Lift One Lodge conceptual PUD 12
P95
Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council September 29, 2009
degree of arency, as well as to - - . outside expertise to help e city with the
leade p of projects. Bossart no - . this contract is consistent th those
r endations and parallel- .. taining good financial inf. :lion. Bossart said o • f
e program manager's ch:,._es is to get the guaranteed •- imum price to Counci • d to
the community in a tim - • process.
Bossart noted i 118, Council authorized us' : the integrated project d ery, which is
an AIA mo. and brings all parties into th ontract early enough so • eir expertise can
assist in : .'h ering data. Bossart said ha % g a contractor in place .... the beginning
help . e process. This contract coy -. the program manager p . ess from this date until
t. . ginning of construction. • • construction begins, this . • cess will be re-
valuated.
Bossart told Council went through a bid process .. a other party's costs were :.. ut 3
times higher than proposed contractor. Boss - said after the previous dis• • ssion,
staff looked at . scope of work and reco .... ds that a portion of the s .. of work be
continued wi . elping staff to RFP and • elect the contractor and . . the contract so
the disc - •n on costs have a good b. . Bossart suggested rath + :. the proposed
$300,1:1, this contract be cut in ab..• 1/3 and an addendum . added to the contract.
• •
or Ireland said it seems to . -• e sense to get help in : ng costs and the other issues
that have emerged from the cussion on the Wheeler
Mayor Ireland moved . approve Resolution #73 . ith the amendment that s • • 11
negotiate about 1/ :1 . ount in order to get s • ••- d on the costs issues; seco • >• by
Councilman R. ero.
/
Counc' •. an Johnson stated althou: e does not support the en ' - ount, getting
info . : ion in order to better and: - d the costs of the projec s consistent with
Council's discussion about the , . eeler expansion. Council . • Romero said the
definition of the first piece • work should focus ion the -.pe of services that will
support the project • , the next 30 days. Bossart .. inted out the sections 1.2 oject
start up help set up communications between the project team, the finance deg ent
and Council.
All in favor, motion carried.
t RESOLUTION #52. SERIES OF 2009 — Lift One Lodge conceptual PUD
Councilman Johnson recused himself since he lives within 300 feet of the project. Chris
Bendon, community development department, reminded Council there was a meeting
September 22 when Council had a site visit with the applicant. Bendon went through a
series of 25 pictures showing the site visit, the views, some proposed heights, outline of
building footprints, the city's right -of -way and some possible encroachments into that
right -of -way. Bendon noted this amended site plan accommodates the ski back corridor,
the lift corridor. This affects the locations of the buildings, which Council could see
where the buildings would be located and their footprints. Bendon requested Council's
12
P96
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 29.2009
direction on what they have seen to date, the site plan, the architectural character, scale
and mass.
Bob Daniel, representing the Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge Aspen LLC applicants,
reminded Council they have discussed the corridor, how the master plan relates to history
accessibility and vitality and the themes of skiing and being. These all affect the site and
the evolution of the plan for the site and size of the buildings. Daniel noted the
architecture can help address height, mass and scale and this presentation will focus on
architecture. Daniel reminded Council the direction was to look at the COWOP
components part of the prior proposal and the applicants went back to the themes of'
history, accessibility, vitality and sustainability, skiing and being. The applicants looked
at the original architecture and whether those meshed with the themes for the
development.
Daniel said the proposed architecture tries to reflect the community values and the site
values. Daniel noted the original architecture was akin to national park architecture,
which many people found too heavy and dark. The applicants looked at integrating green
roofs and green aspects into the master plan. Council has asked about managing the
property for inclusion rather than exclusion. The applicant looked at the architecture to
make sure the public spaces were obvious and welcoming. The applicants retested the
architecture against the internal and external program to see if they made sense.
The applicants felt good about the residential feel and the tree -lined aspect of the lower
lodge building, its relationship to the street; however, some of the materials could be
lightened up and be less imposing. The applicants liked the east wing for the quality of
the employee housing; for the green roofs; and for work with neighbors to the east to try
and increase setbacks, vary roof lines and modify the forms and massing of the structures.
Daniel said the upper lodge building, the applicants looked at the approach to the
building, the public access space and re- examined the building and how it is incorporated
into the site. The emphasis has been changed from an inward oriented lodge to a building
more set into the landscape and one that uses the green roofs as more than just an
environmental solution. Daniel told Council the applicants have heard from the public
that this upper building should have a more "alpine" feel and they have alternative
designs to address those comments.
Daniel said the ski corridor is a concept that came out of the COWOP and the applicants
looked at how this currently functions and how it might have functioned in the past.
Daniel showed slides looking up from Dean street and historical pictures of when this
was a ski area. Daniel said what is important is how the project feels and how it appears
along South Aspen street; also important is what happens on the east side of the project
and how it interfaces with the neighbors.
Stephen Holly, architect, went through slides of lodge vernacular architecture and some
slides of more open and lighter architecture. Holly showed a slide of the original
architecture for the lower lodge building and a rendering of a lightened lower lodge
13
P97
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 29, 2009
building with more subtle detailing and using the concepts of green roofs and
sustainability and drawing people into the project. Holly showed renderings of how the
buildings move in and how they relate to the street and a sectional of the movement of
the lower lodge building. Holly noted there is no on street parking. Councilman Skadron
asked the height of the floors. Holly said on average these are 11' floors, the floor to
ceiling height is 8' to 9'.
Holly presented a rendering of the east building from the original COWOP with lodge
design elements with a heavy stone base and heavy timbers. Holly showed a rendering of
the east building lightened up with lighter materials and more green roofs. Holly said the
applicants have looked at moving the green roofs down the structure toward the street
scape in order to engage pedestrians. Holly told Council the design of this building is
trying to be sensitive to the buildings to the east; the building is pulled away from the
property line.
Holly told Council the most feedback they have received on this project relates to the
upper lodge building. It is the iconic entry to the slopes; it engages the public. Holly
showed a rendering of the building as seen by the COWOP, which is inward looking and
protective. Holly said the reaction to this building has been that the style of architecture
is stoic and self - important. Holly said the applicants wanted to engage the upper activity
node as an opposite end to the museum to draw people up the hill to the most public area
of the lodge structure. This includes the Ski Company ticketing, the lodge lobby entry
and the public restaurant and apres ski deck. Holly said there are multiple levels of
activity throughout the site and they flow around each other.
Holly pointed out the Lightening up of the materials and a trellis system which creates a
platform to allow the green roof to cascade over and down and provide more interesting
architectural vitality. Holly showed a drawing of how the porte cochere runs back into
the building, the public turn around, which allows access to the ski company and to the
restaurant. Holly said alpine architecture is a more sheltered approach with a big roof
reaching down to the pedestrians. Holly told Council the site has a strong past and a
weak present. The goal of the master plan has been to redefine that and to also seek a
strong future. Holly said the lighter architecture helps to address that goal.
Daniel noted there are 3 different Iodge buildings connected in 2 different places. These
buildings operate as one lodge with a level of distinction between them, which helps to
reduce the overall sense of mass and scale. Daniel pointed out that national park
architecture is seen in a large physical space rather than at the top of a street in town.
Daniel said the flatter roof on the upper building sets it down more into the landscape.
The lower lodge has a more residential feel with street trees, stepping up the hill. The
east building has an extensive green roof system, responding to the adjacent property
owners and it has various shapes. Daniel reiterated there is a public restaurant that is
more open and inviting. Daniel asked Council if they are comfortable with the 5 different
buildings making up the master plan of Lift One Lodge.
14
P98
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 29, 2009
Councilman Skadron asked the average room sizes. Daniel said that will be presented at
the next meeting. Councilman Skadron said the applicant has done a good job
responding to Council concerns. Councilman Skadron pointed out the applicant stated
they were reducing the sense of scale; he would rather that the building scale actually be
reduced. Councilman Skadron said larger lodge rooms are producing really large
buildings. Councilman Skadron said discussions have been around returning vitality to
this area and capturing the historic presence. Councilman Skadron pointed out what was
historic was the mass and scale of buildings like the Skier's Chalet. Councilman Skadron
stated it is difficult agree this is capturing the historic sense when what is presented is
such a departure from what was there previously.
Councilman Torre said these are positive steps forward; however, these are large
buildings. Councilman Torre said he is struggling with the size of the buildings.
Councilman Torre noted the ski lift down the middle of the property is driving the
buildings to the edge of the property and without the lift there would be more flexibility
on the site. Councilman Torre said originally he was in favor of a lift, not a rope tow,
coming all the way down the property toward town. Councihnan Torre asked whether
the lift could be moved to the street side of the property. Councilman Torre said he needs
more information, lot size, FAR, building sizes, rooms sizes and the programs within the
building to assess whether the trade off is worth it to the community. Councilman Torre
agreed the directions of these changes are positive.
Councilman Romero said he is also positive about these changes and believes it is going
in the right direction. Councilman Romero said he likes the scaling down and lightening
up of the buildings. Councilman Romero said he feels the east building is the least
impressive in terms of the architecture of the whole project. Councilman Romero noted
using architecture as an appropriate tool for openness and invitedness, this proposal is
going in the right direction.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
Patrick Sagal thanked the applicant for accepting and hearing public input and each
iteration has gotten better. Sagal noted cut and cover over Aspen street may be a way to
move the ski area to the west. Chris Bendon entered a letter from Bruce Carlson into the
record. Georgia Hanson, Aspen Historical Society, told Council the COWOP spent much
time talking about the lift and the process started with the opinion of bringing the lift to
Durant no matter what. Ms. Hanson pointed out for the amount of time the lift is used,
using all that real estate did not make sense and the poma can go away when not being
used instead of dominating the entire project. Ms. Hanson said the COWOP ended up
with the original site line as an homage to the history; moving the lift to the street does
not maintain the historical connection of the town to the mountain.
Phyllis Bronson said using the lighter materials makes a big difference in the appearance.
The sense of accessibility is different; there is a sense of open space. Ms. Bronson said
this is moving in the right direction, although she shares the concerns expressed by
Councilmembers Torre and Skadron about the size. Ms. Bronson said true alpine lodge
15
P99
Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council September 29.2009
feeling would have smaller rooms. David Schoenberger stated he likes the way these
building look. Schoenberger said maybe the lift corridor needs to be sacrificed for
smaller buildings and maybe there are better ways to utilize both sides of the street. Lisa
Markalunas supported maintaining the historic integrity of the ski lift; this is an important
historic part of the community and it is not worth sacrificing that history for any purpose.
Junee Kirk said she is concerned about the density, height mass and scale. Ms. Kirk said
this has not been reduced more than 7% from the original master plan. This project will
cause a canyon going up the street. There is too much density and why not reduce it by
50%. The project should be kept in the alpine character of the existing neighborhood.
Councilman Romero asked if using the original lift one was looked at during the previous
COWOP. Daniel told Council the Ski Company talked to a lift engineer about its
feasibility and potential to pass a safety inspection and it was determined it was not
feasible. Hendon said new towers would have to be added. Daniel said when they was
presented to the HPC, they indicated strong feelings about the ski corridor. Historic
assets is on the list of topics for the next meeting.
Mayor Ireland said the city needs to keep focused on the larger picture, which includes
how to sustain Aspen's economy in the post -boom era. Mayor Ireland said hotel rooms,
places for people to stay temporarily, is important. Mayor Ireland noted it is important
this design not go east/west across the hill to wall off the hill from the town. Mayor
Ireland said having two corridors has a value allowing one to look through the project up
to the mountain. Mayor Ireland said he feels height is a lesser evil than sprawl. Mayor
Ireland said history does not mean re- creation; there has to be some allowance for
change. Small lodges will not create vitality. Mayor Ireland agreed a critical question is
about the room sizes and there may be combinations of different sizes for a less driving
demand for volume. Mayor Ireland said this architecture is brilliant; the national park
architecture was too dark, too like a fortress and too imposing. Council has to wrestle
with height versus volume versus a project trying to create a feeling of welcomeness and
lodge accommodations geared toward the market. Mayor Ireland said he does not think
narrow streets are bad. Mayor Ireland reiterated he likes being able to view through the
project up the mountain. Mayor Ireland said he also likes the green roofs.
Councilman Torre moved to continue Resolution #52, Series of 2009, Lift One Lodge to
October 13; seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion carried.
Mayor Ireland moved to adjourn at 10:15; seconded by Councilman Romero. All in
favor, motion carried.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
16
P100
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 13. 2009
PROCLAMATION — Day of Climate Action 2
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 2
CONSENT CALENDAR 3
• Resolution #81, 2009 - Contract Caterpillar Motor Grader 3
• Resolution #82, 2009 = Amendments to Burlingame Covenants 3
• Resolution #83, 2009 — IGA City /County Community Development Department 3
• Resolution #80, 2009 — Day of Climate Action October 24th 3
• Minutes — September 28, 2009 3
RESOLUTION #77, 2009 - Contract AABC City Affordable Housing Part 2 3
RESOLUTION #84, 2009 - Aspen Walk Extension of Conceptual Approval 5
ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2009 — Opt into Local Improvement District 6
RESOLUTION #85, SERIES OF 2009 — Temporary Use Aspen Art Museum Installation
7
RESOLUTION #86, SERIES OF 2009 — Temporary Use Dark Horse Alley Coffee Cart 8
.��• RESOLUTION #52, SERIES OF 2009 — Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD 8 ae
P101
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 13.2009
not emit a lot light. It is being designed to s - ve outside and as a silent r - • • nder that
this area populated by a different peopl
Co ilman Torre asked if this is to . - • 24 hours a day. Ms. Jacob • said that is the
p erence. Councilman Torre • , if the heat from the neon • eep the snow off the/
iece. Ms. Jacobson said it is tvered and the challenge is le - . out snow than abo + e
temperature variation. C... Gilman Skadron said unfette : - access to Aspen's ni ii sky
should not be affected - • neon signs are prohibited. . Gilman Skadron ere is a
higher standard in •• taining individual's right to tar filled sky and ould be
upheld. Ms. Jaco • n said the installation is ve • contained and it is • • ely it will
reflect into the ght sky.
Mayor > • d opened the public he • g. -
Bi • iener noted he has sugge -. that the town hono , e Utes 7 and have an annu to
y. Wiener said this piece • uld be the beginning • paying homage to the Ut .
Wiener stated he is in fav • of this.
Mayor Ireland clo , the public hearing.
All in favor th the exception of •• ilman Skadron. Moti n carried.
RES ► UTION : • SERI • - OF 2009 — Temporary Dark Horse Alley Co Cart
Councilman Torre • ., ed to continue Resolutio 6, Series of 2009, to Oc er 26;
seconded by Cou • timan Skadron. All in fav , motion carried.
Councilm • • omero stated he should have voted on Aspen extension as he
owns p.. " y within 300 feet.
e
RESOLUTION #52. SERIES OF 2009 — Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD
Councilman Johnson left due to a conflict of interest. Mayor Ireland opened the public
hearing.
Chris Bendon, community development department, reminded Council at the last
meeting, scale and mass were discussed The applicants will present their sustainability
plan, talk about room sizes, pedestrian movement and how the fractional ownership
program works. Bendon reminded Council conceptual approval sets out expectations for
the final application. Mayor Ireland said his concerns are financing mechanisms to
complete the public improvements and to restore the parcel or to complete the lodge.
Bob Daniel, representing the applicants, noted this is the sixth meeting with Council on
this project, using the COWOP plan from 2008 for the east side of South Aspen street
and what could be incorporated into this PUD. One idea from the COWOP was the ski
8
P10 -_ —_
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 13. 2009
corridor through the site. There was a site visit to look at building footprints and heights.
The revised architecture has been presented.
Daniel presented a slide orienting the project, South Aspen street, the proposed platter
lift, Aspen mountain, relocated Skier's Chalet and Steakhouse, parking and the proposed
Historical Society museum. Daniel told Council the applicants brought in experts on
sustainable development. Daniel said the applicants tried to balance development,
preservation, building social and environmental capital. Daniel noted their development
addresses macro and micro considerations and sustainability. Daniel said sustainability
needs to be considered in architecture, design, operation, accessibility and flexibility to
be able to respond to changing market conditions. Daniel noted there are many programs
that give guidance for sustainable development and the applicants need to bring those
guidelines to a project in Aspen. The applicants have defined sustainability locally as
"skiing and being ".
Daniel told Council the applicants looked at economic sustainability of the Lift One
Lodge project and the project as presented meets that. Daniel pointed out this project
does not rely solely on one economic base for its viability; it has free market residences,
shared ownership, and diverse property offerings. Daniel said the suites have a flexible
configuration to appeal to a broader market. Daniel stated there is a demand for new and
redeveloped properties in the Aspen market.
Daniel said Lift One Lodge offers part time owners a central location with a density of 8
owners/unit. Daniel told Council studies have been done on second homes on Pitkin
County in terms of CO2 generated on an annualized basis. A second home carbon
footprint produces 44 tons of CO2/year and adding staff adds another 2 or 3 tons/year.
An average Aspen condominium has a 16 ton impact of CO2. The concept of shared
ownership is a more sustainable model economically and for environmental footprint.
Daniel noted with the proximity to town and to transportation and the shared ownership
of these units, it is sustainable.
Daniel noted the national average use of a second home is 28 days/year and the model for
Lift One Lodge provides a higher level of occupancy, which works for the customer and
for the community. Daniel said the city's time share ordinance provides accessibility for
greater opportunity for occupancy of shared ownership units, which is an important
community benefit. Daniel stated community benefits include the skiing improvements,
rejuvenation of the neighborhood and upgrades to the street. Daniel pointed out the
applicants are making investments in the historical structures on site as well as providing
a museum space for the historical society.
Daniel told Council room sizes vary from 275 square feet to 882 square feet; the average
is 526 square feet and 87% of the rooms are less than 600 square feet. This mixture helps
with the diversity of the project. Daniel presented plans of how lock off rooms would
operate and which offer a myriad of permutations. Daniel noted there is no study on
local occupancy of fractional fee units. The national data for shared ownership in resorts
is around 65 %. Lift One Lodge hopes their lock off program will provide a higher
9
P 103
•
Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council October 13.2009
occupancy. Daniel went over the ways in which their shared ownership will work.
Daniel said there will be up to 20 keys available for public rental during winter and
summer seasons in this type of ownership model. Daniel told Council they will offer
these rooms through Stay Aspen Snowmass.
Daniel stated the applicants are committed to housing 100% of employees generated by
this development rather than 60% required by the land use code. Daniel said they will
commit to a post - completion audit to verify the number of employees and if there is a
short fall in units provided to house employees, they have the obligation to fulfill the
shortfall. Daniel told Council applicants and staff are still working on the number of
employees that will be generated; however, it will be between 55 and 65 employees.
Daniel proposed to house 40% of their employees on site.
Daniel went over accessibility for pedestrians, for skiers, and a potential transit stop at the
north end of the project. Daniel told Council City staff looks at quality of service in
traffic and creates a sustainable approach to development. Daniel said traffic analysis is a
part of any development review in the city. Daniel pointed out this plan gives priority to
pedestrians over vehicles up South Aspen street. Daniel showed projected peak hour
trips to the project, 2 vehicles/minute, which is not a significant impact.
Daniel told Council the applicants feel redevelopment of an existing site and repurposing
existing structures is smart growth. Daniel reminded Council the city has an aggressive
green building program. Daniel said the applicants are trying to achieve a LEED gold
and are committing to testing the building operations in a green standard. The applicants
are committed to environmental design goals and will explain at final submittal how this
will be accomplished, like green roofs and ground source heat exchange. Daniel said the
applicants do not feel the ground source heat exchange will work for snow melt and will
look at a combination of alternatives.
Daniel said the Lift One Neighborhood COWOP looked at lift technology, looked at lay
outs, and received advice from Snow Engineering, which were referred to Council in
2008. Daniel noted the applicants went to EPC and received comments from them about
the importance of the view corridor up Aspen mountain. Daniel said the sustainability of
Lift One has also to do with skiing and ski racing. Daniel said there will be improved ski
lifts and operations. The applicants have met with the ski company and have observed
winter events to see how they operate.
Councilman Romero asked the parking allocations for the development. Daniel said
there are 200 parking spaces; 50 are available to the public, 150 parking spaces are for
free market, lodging and affordable housing. Councilman Romero said honing in on the
exact number of parking space for final, given transportation and the acceptability of not
having rental cars, will be an issue for him. Councilman Romero agreed with the concept
of landing as much affordable housing on site as possible, which would increase the
vitality and make it feel like a neighborhood. Councilman Romero stated he appreciated
the review of goals for the community and how this project fits into those. Councilman
Romero said the varied room sizes will match the guests' requirement of flexibility.
10
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 13, 2009
Councilman Romero asked if any studies have been done of recently completed fractional
ownership projects. Daniel said he understands that the Grand Hyatt is renting lock off
rooms and there is availability. Daniel told Council at other projects they encourage
owners to occupy units that fit their need rather than take up an entire 3 bedroom unit for
a couple. Daniel pointed out there is a restaurant proposed along South Aspen street and
it is important to have occupancy in the lodge to drive the other commercial enterprises.
Councilman Romero said there were lessons learned at the 2008 review of the lodge and
the protection mechanisms for the city and those should be included. Councilman
Romero asked about a metro district. Daniel noted the COWOP ordinance was designed
as a final vesting document. This resolution has conditions for approval and the applicant
will use the 2008 COWOP as guidance for the financial issues. Daniel said the proposed
metro district is still a possibility; there are components of this master plan that would be
suitable for a metro district. Councilman Romero asked about outreach with the neighbor
to the west. Daniel told Council the applicants have had no conversations with Centurion
Partners. This application is fully independent and has nothing to do with any other
developments around them.
Councilman Skadron asked what the applicants means by "being comfortable on the
site"; the challenge is to be appropriately "Aspen" and how is that captured. Councilman
Skadron said what is important to him is that the essence of the Lift One skiing
experience is maintained. Daniel said this project is some infill and there is character and
fiber in the neighborhood. Daniel noted there are historic structures that are being
reutilized and incorporated in the plan. Daniel said the proposed architecture is different
than other projects and brings in green features.
Councilman Skadron asked how room prices are established. Daniel said room prices are
based on yield management, remembering that occupancy and revenue is important to
any hotel operator. Councilman Skadron said he would like to know that the rooms are
priced to insure vitality in this neighborhood. Daniel noted small lodges and the
sustainability of them is important to Aspen so forcing a lower price point to a brand new
hotel when the small lodges are struggling for occupancy may not be the wisest course
for the community. Councilman Skadron said important to him is accessibility and that
the applicant fulfills the verbal representations made in front of Council when the project
is built. Councilman Skadron said he feels on site affordable housing is valuable.
Bendon agreed 40% housing on site is a strong number. Councilman Skadron said he
feels the world looking at an authentic historically relevant space is more compelling than
a space with a familiar - looking 5 star hotel.
Councilman Torre agreed this is a trade off between community character. Councilman
Torre said he is concerned that the applicant is asking more from this space than can be
handled on this site. Councilman Torre questioned the location of the beer and brats
restaurant at the bottom of the hill and who will gather there in the winter. Councilman
Torre said the northern end of the east lodge building might be tucked in to follow more
of the street grid pattern. Councilman Torre said he has issues with the lower lodge and
the size and massing of it and without the beer and brats building, the lodge could be
11
P 105
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council October 13, 2009
more spread out and lowered. Councilman Torre said he feels the rooms are larger than
the community needs. Councilman Torre noted he likes the on site affordable housing.
Councilman Torre said he would like this project to be more than comfortable, and to be
what the community wants Aspen to be rather than what it has become. Councilman
Torre agreed there may be some economies by decreasing the parking spaces.
Mayor Ireland asked if owners will be prohibited from owning more than one unit.
Daniel said they will not. Mayor Ireland said he would like a provision for an audit to
see whether this project succeeds in creating hot beds. Mayor Ireland said he feels 526
square feet is a lot of space and the perceived need for that size room drives the size of
the whole project. Mayor Ireland said if there is off site affordable housing, he would
like to see it on this side of the roundabout. Mayor Ireland said he does not want
subsequent owners of the project to get out of their affordable housing mitigation by
using contract labor. Mayor Ireland said he wants to know more about the traffic analysis
and also the energy use.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
Bill Wiener said there is an opportunity for this site by closing south Aspen street and
using two roads on each side of South Aspen, which would make the street available as a
ski run all the way to town. Wiener suggested the buildings be set back 35' from South
Aspen. This configuration with a run into town will change the look of the entire project.
Wiener showed a power point with a site plan. Wiener noted these could be underground
motor lobbies with light access.
Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing.
Mayor Ireland moved to continue Resolution #52, Series of 2009, to October 26
seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried.
Counciman Torre moved to go into executive session at 8:55 p.m. pursuant to C.R.S. 24-
6- 402(4) (a) The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or
other property interest and (f) personnel matters and the person is aware of this executive
session; seconded by Councilman Skadron. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Torre moved to come out of executive session at 9:50 p.m.; seconded by
Councilman Skadron. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Skadron moved to adjourn at 9:50 p.m.; seconded by Mayor Ireland. All in
favor, motion carried.
/
Ka At Koch, City Clerk
12
P106
Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council October 26, 2009
PROCLAMATION – Aspen Middle School Football Team 2
HISTORIC PRESERVATION TASK FORCE REPORT 2
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION AWARD for Public Involvement 3
CITIZEN COMMENTS 3
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 4
CONSENT CALENDAR 5
• Resolution #87, 2009 - Contract – Ozone Monitoring System 5
• Minutes – October 13, 2009 5
RESOLUTION #88, 2009 – World Cup Banners on Main Street 5
RESOLUTION #91, SERIES OF 2009 – Withdrawal of Local Marketing District Ballot
Question 6
RESOLUTION #86, SERIES OF 2009 – Temporary Use Dark Horse Alley Coffee Cart 7
ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2009 – Opt Into Local Energy Improvement District 8
ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2009 – Red Butte Cemetery PUC 8
-- RESOLUTION #52, SERIES OF 2009 – Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD 8'—
RESOLUTION #78, SERIES OF 2009 – Wheeler Opera House, 320 East Hyman,
Conceptual PUD 12
RESOLUTION #89, SERIES OF 2009 – Code Interpretation Appeal – Man-made
landforms 17
RESOLUTION #78, SERIES OF 2009 – Wheeler Opera House, 320 East Hyman,
Conceptual PUD 17
•
P107
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 26, 2009
ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2009 — Opt Into Local Energy Improvement District
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. Mayor Ireland explained this issue would
allow homeowners to borrow money and make energy improvements to their property
and tax themselves.
Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing.
Councilman Romero asked if there is a limit on the homeowner's loan and what is the
maximum term of that loan. Dylan Hoffman, energy program manager Pitkin County,
told Council those details will be determined once the bonding authority is given to the
county. The county will meet with stakeholders to have a program that works for
everyone. Councilman Johnson asked how the administration of this program will work;
will it overburden the existing county staff. Hoffman told Council 3 counties have ballot
measures to create an energy smart program. If all are successful, an intergovernmental
agreement will be entered into to house the administration centrally. Hoffman noted
there is some money from the governor's office to get this program going. Hoffman said
there will be significant staff time needed to get the program implemented. Mayor
Ireland asked how the program will work between bond issuance and requests for loans.
Hoffman said all interested parties will submit applications for loans, these will be
aggregated into one amount and a bond sale will be run on that amount. Mayor Ireland
asked if each applicant pays their share of administrative cost for the loan. Hoffman said
that is included.
Councilman Skadron moved to adopt Ordinance #22, Series of 2009, on second reading;
seconded by Councilman Johnson. Roll call vote; Councihnembers Romero, yes;
Skadron, yes; Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2009 — Red Butte Cemetery PUC
Councilman Skadron moved to continue Ordinance #21, Series of 2009, to November 9,
2009; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried.
44 ., RESOLUTION #52, SERIES OF 2009 — Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD
Councilman Johnson left the room due to a conflict of interest. Chris Bendon,
community development department, reviewed the resolution for Council. The resolution
4 describes the components of the project and the types of uses on each of the parcel. The
Whereases describe the process the project has been through. Section 1 refers to an
exhibit describing the conceptual PUD which will concisely describe the conceptual
approval with text and graphics. Section 2 describes all things the city would like to see
in the final application, it sets out the expectations for final review. Section 2(d) requires
a street vacation and right -of -way dedication plat to list all the actions on one plat.
Section 2(e) describes a development agreement typical of any planned unit development
in an agreement between the property owner and the city. The notable items in 2(e) are
the proposed improvements to lift 1A; public locker facilities, most of the other items are
8
P108
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 26, 2009
routine for a development agreement. The final application requires a detailed time share
and membership operation plan on a day to day basis.
Bendon noted an architectural plan, landscape plan, drainage plan are routine for final
applications. A draft construction schedule and construction mitigation plan will be
required. Bendon went over Section 3, which is the financial assurances and requires a
draft agreement between the developer and the city to protect the city. Section 4
addresses the accessibility to the apres ski deck to assure continued public access to that
area. Bendon pointed out a desire to have greater setbacks on the east lodge, which has
been incorporated into the plans and the resolution memorializes that.
There are some specifics about Willoughby Park and a request from the city's parks
maintenance staff to have a storage area within the parking garage to store maintenance
vehicles. Section 7 has more detail on the maintenance agreement between the Ski
Company, the applicant and the city for the sld back corridor. Bendon said there is a
reference to an agreement for the treatment of the Deep Powder cabins; the Ski Company
will take and use the cabins on mountain for their operations.
Bendon noted some detail about the maintenance of the Skier's Chalet buildings during
this period of planning is referred to in the resolution. Bendon said staff would like more
detail and assurance from Winternational representatives about the operation of
Winternational during and after construction. Section 11 addresses energy usage.
Section 12 discuses a special improvement district for this area and details for final
review. Section 13 outlines the ways in which this project is being measured for heights
for floor area. Bendon reminded Council for this project absolute heights have been
used, and these should be used and detailed for the final application. For floor area, what
is above grade and what is below grade are what should be shown on the application.
Section 14 goes over reconstruction credits for the entire property. Section 15 goes into
employee generation and affordable housing requirements. The applicant has committed
to 100% mitigation. The application has the components of employee generation from
lodging uses, commercial uses, and free market residential spaces. This section also
captures the commitment to house at least 40% of the employees on site and the
remaining will be housed within the Aspen growth boundary.
Bendon pointed out Section 16 is requirement for monitoring of ground stability, which is
important at the base of Aspen mountain to determine if there is movement and to
pinpoint if this construction is responsible for that movement. There is pro forma
language addressing the school dedication and other fees. Bendon noted this addresses
the meaning of conceptual; that this is not a final application, it authorizes the submission
of a final application. Councilman Romero asked about the two year vesting request.
Bendon noted one -year vesting is typical; however, this has a requirement for two -year of
submission of final application. Bendon said the property descriptions have not been
added to the resolution. Bob Daniel, applicant, told Council the request for two -year
vesting is from the applicant because of the complexity of the project; because there is a
pending COWOP application for a project across the street which may affect this
9
P10
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 26, 2009
conceptual approval requiring more time to address. Councilman Romero told Council
the Obenneyer had a one -year vesting from conceptual and it was too short for that
project. Councilman Romero said he could support two -year vesting.
Councilman Skadron asked how Council might expect the forthcoming revisions of the
AACP to affect the land use code in the incentive lodge provisions of the L zone district.
Bendon told Council he does not have a grasp of how the land use code may be changed
as a result of the AACP update process. Bendon reminded Council lodge development at
the base of the mountain is encouraged and the struggle is how to accept the impacts of
development. Councilman Skadron asked about the graduated scale and room size
incentives for lodge in the land use code. Councilman Skadron asked if there is a
concern about allowing this application to move forward if it does not meet the goals.
Bendon said the AACP does not get to the level of detail of room sizes. The community
plan has broader statements not detail like contained in actual code amendments. Bendon
noted this project has the right to rely on the codes under which it was submitted.
Councilman Skadron said if the AACP is sufficiently revised, the community may end up
with a project that does not meet community goals. Councilman Skadron said mass and
scale is an issue with this project, mass is driven by room size. The proposed room sizes
are allowed under the current land use code because of the graduated scale. Councilman
Skadron asked about variations from the underlying zone district and what is driving
those variations, mitigation necessities, business plan, and community goals. Bendon
said all requested variations can be detailed by the next meeting.
Councilman Skadron said he would like to know in what ways the current zone district
regulations, specifically Conservation, lodge and park, differ from the zone district
regulations in effect when the original application was submitted.
Councilman Torre said the only concept with which he is comfortable is that there will
and shall be some development in this location. Councilman Torre said he will have an
issue with approving this conceptual review. Councilman Torre said this has gone to
COWOP, back to Council, there has been a multi-week review, dividing the project in
pieces. Bendon said staffs purpose is to give an overview of the resolution and will
polish it up for final review.
Councilman Romero said the draft resolution has been helpful. Staff and the applicant
have reviewed piece by piece, program by program, what is intended with the project and
to refer to visions and values of the AACP. Councilman Romero said during the new
weeks of review, tying this project to the AACP and the community goals, values and
visions statements, achieves community interest while achieving private benefit.
Councilman Romero stated the treatment of historic resources, the management and
mitigation of traffic and congestion, the acknowledgment of employee generation and the
appropriate handling of that, the offering of financial assurances, and a review of scale
and mass, and the purpose and use of lodge and how that, if applied correctly, matches up
and satisfies vision statement of the community and how the tourism business in the
future will be a re- emergence of the primary business of Aspen. Councilman Romero
10
P110
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 26, 2009
noted this project could help the city to re -affirm the azimuth towards tourism.
Councilman Romero stated as a family the idea of being able to stay at the base of Aspen
mountain with flexible unit size and number of bedrooms helps strengthen the tourism
industry.
Councilman Skadron said the applicant for the lodge property to the west that is currently
in a COWOP has reduced room sizes as one means to reduce scale and massing.
Councilman Skadron said this application results in average rooms sizes of over 500
square feet. Councilman Skadron noted the market desire for large rooms might change
and this might be an opportunity to create room sizes more applicable to the tastes of the
market place. Councilman Skadron stated conceptual approval signals accepting the
basic parameters of the project, one of which is massing and scale, and he has
reservations about conceptually approving this mass and scale.
Mayor Ireland agreed there are community goals relating to friendly size and scale and
community goals relating to more lodge rooms at the base of Aspen mountain as well as
flexibility. Mayor Ireland stated he is concerned this may be building for the last market,
more luxury, rather than people downscaling their expectations. Mayor Ireland said he
does like the flexibility. Mayor Ireland said he is concemed with over parking or with
encouraging the idea that one needs a car in Aspen. Mayor Ireland stated Council needs
to think long term, to think about the future of tourism as Aspen's economy. Mayor
Ireland said the financial assurances have to include the ability to fund restoration of the
site if the project fails.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
Toni Kronberg noted the applicant has stated that approval of the conceptual PUD will
allow them to develop the detailed technical information and agreements required for
final with significant investment of human and financial resources. Ms. Kronberg said
the applicant is asking for 2 years to return with final. Ms. Kronberg said it is not fair to
have this conceptual plan approved only to have the final plan approved by Council or
through a public vote. Ms. Kronberg said she would like to see the entire project
presented to Council at the next Council meeting. Mayor Ireland pointed out there is an
at risk provision and the applicants understand two years from now will be a different
Council and maybe a different economic conditions.
Bill Wiener said one aspect of the project that bothers him is that one building is over the
property line into the city right -of -way, which reduces the right -of -way and reduces the
open space and creates too much of a canyon. Wiener said he does not like the idea of
giving up public right -of -way to make a building larger. Wiener said each of the
proposed buildings is wider than the Wal -mart in GIenwood Springs. Wiener said this
building is too big. Wiener said he feels this is a marginal project. Wiener said he is
afraid the project will be converted to condominiums, sold and taken out of the rental
market.
11
P111
Reaular Meeting Aspen City Council October 26. 2009
Junee Kirk said this project is the same mass and scale of the last project and the historic
integrity of the neighborhood is not being preserved and the historic grid is being
diminished by at least half.
Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing.
Mayor Ireland moved to continue Resolution #52, Series of 2009, to November 9
seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOL r . #78 SERIES OF 2009 — Wheeler Opera House, 320 % -t Hyman,
Cone-- • PUT)
ouncilman Torre left the • . m due to conflict of interest. 's Bendon, community
development departm -. went over conceptual revie = ving examples of past projects
of different sizes : • • intensities; some projects h. - a joint conceptuaUfmal PUT) review
and the type • eview and how involved are • - isions made between the applicant and
the city s • ' . Bendon noted the reason f• conceptual review is to have foundational
issues ' solved and to set forth the ex • = tations for the final review. Bendon said the
• ler Opera house expansion is • imple project from a planning perspective, • re
as a desire to have a conceptua -view to set out the parameters for the pr.' . .
Bendon said there is an issue •.' whether there is enough information in • s conceptual
application. Bendon reite -• there are no major questions about • zoning, about the
access; it is a massin: • •estion. Bendon noted the applicants w,, ed to have an answer
about the massin• • estion first then enter into an architec 'z• discussion on final
review.
Ben. . reminded Council there were a lot of • ons about financing • • the project
•• - , first review. Financial information . • - planning approvals can . separated and
• dled independently. One issue of • ceptual review is a comfo • evel with the
massing; amendments do happen . nal review. Bendon told C • cil for the Truscott
project, a lot of the financial r ing occurred post conceptu • • • proval. Conceptual
approvals can accomm • • - later decisions about financin •
Sam Adams, co • unity development departmen .: d conceptual review defines
size of the bo ather than focusing on the deta' - with the intention that once th assing
is correct f• the site, staff will work on the • -tails of the skin of the buildin: s.
Adam • d Council during P&Z and 1' review, the discussions were ered away
details; these are more approp . • to for fmal review. Ms. Adam aid conceptual
view should not be so restrict - - hat HPC does not have the op . _ 'ty to use their
expertise and to apply their delines during final review.
Ms. Adams noted - - are 3 different facades includ -• the packet; all have the same
massing and the same box. These facades can be • ged with materials and detailing.
Ms. Adams t d Council staff is not convin - • • 's is the best architecture to enhan e
Wheeler. taff does think the massing is . , •ropriate at conceptual. Staff has co ence
in the nal review process which inv. -s HPC, P &Z and Council and will elop the
12
P112
Reeuler Meeting Aspen City Council November 9, 2009
PROCLAMATION – Genocide in Darfur 2
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 5
CONSENT CALENDAR 5
RESOLUTION #92, SERIES OF 2009 – Contract Aspen Ice Garden Improvements 5
RESOLUTION #93 AND 93 -A, SERIES OF 2009 – REMP Expenditures 6
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2009 – General Obligation Housing Refunding Bonds 7
ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 2009 – Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds 7
ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 2009 – Supplemental Appropriation 7
RESOLUTION #94. SERIES OF 2009 – Adoption of 2010 Budget 8
RESOLUTION #95, SERIES OF 2009 – Mill Levy 2010 8
ORDNANCE #31, SERIES OF 2009 – Red Butte Cemetery PUD 9
RESOLUTION #52, SERIES OF 2009 – Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD 13
RESOLUTION #96, SERIES OF 2009 – Extension of Vested Rights South Aspen Street
18
RESOLUTION #52, SERIES OF 2009 – Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD 18 — -
P113
Reeular Meetine Aspen City Council November 9, 2009
assurance on that. Mayo, • - land asked if the numbers of deterioration of the bed base
includes conversion • ; condominiums to second homes. • -, yor Ireland said Aspen has
lost moderate in . Z e rental units but maybe not high • rental units. Mayor Ireland
said he 1ik= , <• e multi - generational idea. People . • ike to vacation that way. Mayor
Ireland - _• • one of his biggest concerns is the .. cter of projects not workin: • d then
th .;plicants wanting to condominiumi = +n a project and not meet the •,, cial
assurances to the city. Mayor Irelan. +: 'd this may be designing - or an era that is
gone. People are more frugal n • and may be offended by lar: -, igh -end projects.
Mayor Ireland said he wou ;- e to see the financial plan t.. •rake sure the improvements
get paid. -
Councilman S • n moved to suspend the ru - /and extend the meeting to 12: •
seconded • Councilman Torre. All in fav• with the exception of Mayor d.
Mono , - 'ed.
;r SOLUTION #96 SERIES P 2009 — Extension of Vested ghts South Aspen
treet
Councilman Torre ed to continue Resolution #96, eries of 2009, to Tu ay
November 17 at 4 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favo otion carriecj/
4 RESOLUTION #52, SERIES OF 2009 — Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD ��
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
1 Dave Corbin, Aspen Skiing Company, told Council he supports this project. This is an
J/ area that is in need of refurbishment and is an underutilized area. Corbin said he feels the
ski experience can be improved. Corbin said this plan incorporates the most popular .
elements of the first COWOP. Peter King, Aspen Mountain manager, stated he endorses
the ski operation aspects of this project which will enhance the guest's experiences on
Aspen mountain. King said he feels the poma will attract more people to the west part of
the mountain. This will also provide egress off the mountain. King told Council on busy
days, the gondola can be overcrowded. King reiterated this will improve the guest's
experience.
Jeff Kai, Alpine director, Aspen Valley Ski Club, said it is important to keep ski race
events come back to Aspen mountain. Kai told Council he is putting on a NorAm in
February and it is important to keep the mountain viable for people participating in the
race and for spectators. Skiing and tourism are big issues for Aspen. John Rigney,
Aspen Ski Company, told Council that 100 million people watched the world Cup ski
races on television. That is a great marketing tool. Rigney said in order to keep
attracting races, the mountain has to keep up with the time. Rigney said the existing lift
1A is getting to be second class.
Mike Maple said the character of this area currently is dilapidated and there is need to
make this part of town vital and useful. Maple noted only 3% of people access Aspen
18
P114
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9.2009
mountain on lift 1 A and what is the trouble with tripling that number to 9 %. This side of
the mountain needs facilities that will support a World Cup. Maple encouraged Council
to allow this project to move forward. Maple said lift 1 brought Aspen up as a ski town.
The community has the opportunity to get the re -use of two post WWII structures in this
proposal. Cliff Weiss said business is off; however, this country has bounced back from
recessions. The tourism industry will return along with it upscale guests. Weiss said
there are two major industries in aspen — Development/real estate and tourism, The city
P&Z feels that tourism is the only sustainable industry and the economy needs to be
bolstered with more accommodations, especially upscale rooms.
Patrick Sagal said he feels this project has been moving in the right direction. Sagal
stated the loss of beds has been in the moderate category. Sagal noted an important issue
is how Aspen street will be dealt with. Segal said he does not feel the poma lift will be
used by locals; the poma lift should be taken out and the mass and scale of the buildings
could be lowered. Junee Kirk noted this building has not changed at all in 8 weeks. The
community has lost moderately priced lodging. Ms. Kirk said the city should not give up
right -of -way in Aspen street because there is too much inequity and not parallel to what
the community is gaining. Ms. Kirk said the project should be half its current size. The
lift is going to be a problem because the mountain will have to be resculpted. The
historic feel of this area should be kept.
Tim Clark, Aspen lodging association, said he favors this project and is glad City Council
is contemplating the importance of lodging in Aspen. The lift one site has been in a
continued state of decline since the 1970's. This project will provide an opportunity to
change direction and to provide for the future. Clark said a shift in focus to tourism and
updating the bed base is a great way to start. Clark noted the lock off rooms provide
flexibility for owners and guests. New lodge rooms will help keep Aspen competitive.
Toni Kronberg said the goals and elements of the AACP are based on standards like
transportation, managing growth and design quality. Ms. Kronberg pointed out the trees
and the views of the mountain will be eliminated and replaced with big buildings. Ms.
Kronberg noted the quit claim deed of 1969 stated the easement is for a cable ski chair
lift and a poma lift is not consistent with that. Ms. Kronberg said open space is to be
incorporated into the design and the open space will be voided by new buildings.
Councilman Torre moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 1:30 a.m.;
seconded by Mayor Ireland. All in favor with the exception of Councilman Romero.
Motion carried.
Councilman Torre stated he does not find this to be in compliance with the Aspen Area
Community Plan or for the benefit of the community. Daniel noted he reviewed the
provisions of the AACP and how this project matches those. Daniel said Councilman
Torre listed several specifics where he objects to this project. Daniel said there is not
time to address those comments this evening.
Councilman Skadron stated this project is a big deal and he has concerns about impacts
on the west side of Aspen mountain, the room size, some AACP issues, demand for the
19
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9.2009
proposed product, mass and scale issues and site design issues. Councilman Skadron
stated in order to fully vet the project, it should move beyond conceptual and he would
approve it to go forward. Councilman Skadron emphasized that conceptual approval is
not an endorsement of the final plan but an opportunity to get the project right. Bendon
pointed out there is a section of the resolution that states that conceptual approval is
conceptual and does not bind the Council.
Mayor Ireland said he, too, would be willing to approve conceptual; however, he would
not approve this as a fmal project. Mayor Ireland agreed tourism is Aspen's only
sustainable industry but the future is not luxury high end condominiums that depend on
an artificial economy. Mayor Ireland noted people are exercising frugality and projects
should be aware of that and design for that. Mayor Ireland said developers tell Council
they cannot make their projects smaller. The community keeps indicating they want to
keep their character and part of that character is that Aspen does not have giant
mountainside buildings. Mayor Ireland said he would like to see lodging built here and
in a way the public can support it. Mayor Ireland said he would like to see something of
a lesser scale and would like financial assurance settled. Mayor Ireland said for final
approval, this project will need to pass muster with the community, something the
community embraces. Mayor Ireland said the applicant should have a chance to respond
to these comments and for staff to draft a resolution that addresses these concerns and
addresses the AACP and community character
Councilman Torre moved to continue Resolution #52, Series of 2009, to November 23;
seconded by Councilman Romero:
Daniel said philosophically he does not believe it makes sense to get approval for a
project that Council has indicated they do not want to see at final. Daniel said the
applicants do not want to be addressing fundamental issues like site planning, mass and
scale. The detail process should be for details. Mayor Ireland said for him the current
mass and scale is too large. Daniel said he needs much more specific details about the
objections to the project before he would go forward.
All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Romero moved to adjourn at 12:25 a.m.; seconded by Councilman Skadron.
All in favor, motion carried.
L sat ✓.i_
Kathryn". och, City Clerk
20
P11
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 23, 2009
COUNCIL MEETING 2
CITIZEN COMMENTS 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 3
CONSENT CALENDAR 3
• Appointment to Kids' First Board — Richard Nedlin 4
• Resolution #98, 2009 — Gymnastics Agreement 4
• Resolution #99, 2009 — Amendments to Burlingame Covenants 4
• Minutes — November 9, 2009 4
ORDINANCE #26, Series of 2009 — 630 E. Hyman Landmark Ordinance 48 Negotiation
4
ELECTION COMMISSION 5
ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 2009 — Supplemental Appropriations 6
RESOLUTION #94, SERIES OF 2009 — ADOPTION OF 2010 BUDGET 6
RESOLUTION #95, SERIES OF 2009 — Adoption of 2010 Mil Levy 9
ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 2009 — Sales Tax Revenue Bonds 9
RESOLUTON #52, SERIES OF 2009 — Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD 9 samat
RESOLUTION #100, SERIES OF 2009 — 980 Gibson Code Interpretation Appeal 16
•
1
P117
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 23, 2009
RESOL ON #95 SERIES s 2009 — Adoption of • 1 Mil Levy
As. y Ememann, fin. • - department, noted this ' - the last year of collecting f. ds for
- : OR project so • temporary credit to the •: levy will be reduced. , storm water
fund can collect - it entire mil. The general d mil levy is 3.533 and e storm water
mill is .492 fo . total of 4.025 to collect $..8 million. Council agree. + 's is what they
directed star to do.
Mayo eland opened the public earing. There were no c• ents. Mayor Ireland
cle public hearing.
Mayor Ireland moved t• adopt Resolution #95, Se ' - of 2009, a mil levy of 4.025;
seconded by Counci . an Skadron. All in favor otion carried.
ORDINANC '24 SERIES OF 2009 — . +es Tax Revenue Bonds
Don Ta • r, finance director, noted . e bond counsel sent some • .• - dments to this
prop.... sales tax refunding bo ordinance. Mayor Ireland n• ed this will save the city
up .• $500,000. The amend.• nts provide wording to allow ..e city to execute the i ent
to refinance existing bon. - at a lower rate. Section 37 an. 8 are also being am ed.
o r
Mayor Ireland mo • to adopt Ordinance #24, Seri: • of 2009, as amended include
above language d sections 37 and 38; seconde' .y Councilman Rom . Roll c
vote; Counci embers Johnson, yes; Torre, y ; Skadron, yes; Rom , yes; Mayor
Ireland, y = -. Motion carried.
RESOLUTON #52, SERIES OF 2009 — Lift One Lodge Conceptual PUD
Jennifer Phelan, community development department, noted this is a proposed time share
lodge development, free market and affordable housing and commercial component. The
resolution addresses issues that came up at the last public hearing. One of those issues is
financial assurances and that the plan will provide a mechanism to guarantee the city's
ability to secure the land owner's performance of obligations. Council brought up a
concern abut the conversion of time share units and the resolution states the plan is
required to go through a substantial amendment review upon conversion of units to whole
ownership. Ms. Phelan pointed out that the Skier's Chalet Lodge and Skier's Chalet
steakhouse may be used as worker housing during the PUD process rather than having
them empty.
Bob Daniel, representing the Lift One Lodge, said using the Skier's Chalet for temporary
affordable housing has been going on since the process started and this was included in
the resolution so that the units would not be subject to replacement credit. Jim Light,
partner in Lift One Lodge, said the applicants feel like they have shared values and
commitments with residents of the area of the proposed lodge. Light told Council their
developments have community livability, environmental sustainability and a healthy
economy as common interests. Light told Council in their projects when things go
9
P118
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 23, 2009
wrong, it is their commitment to try and clean things up. Light said when they developed
the Roaring Fork Club in Basalt, they set up a real estate transfer assessment on initial
and resales to support the Roaring Fork Conservancy. Light said they also have
volunteer work for the nonprofit and are helping on a capital campaign; they also raise
money for other non - profits. Light said the company has been involved in Anderson
Ranch at Snowmass and human services in the mid - valley.
Light said the partners submitted a project complaint with the city code. This project
went through the P&Z and HPC process for conceptual approval. The applicants were
asked to put that project on hold in order to be part of a COWOP process. That process
redesigned the project around a ski corridor. When the COWOP was not approved by
Council, the previous application was reactivated. The applicants met with adjacent
neighbors and with the Council and heard that the earlier project should be revised to be
more like that from the COWOP, to maintain the community benefits. The applicants
have redesigned the lodge to be lighter and more contemporary with accented public
access.
Light said the shared ownership suite product is designed with high occupancy and
around the needs of the community. The applicants have tried to balance the community
objectives and their market. Light said the applicants do not feel that the room size can
be reduced significantly. Light said the applicants want to create spaces that are inviting
to the owners, to guests and to the community. Light said he does not feel second homes
are necessarily efficient and this project is designed for 8 owners sharing a space, which
has the benefits of a second home with lower costs and lower environmental impacts.
Light said the project proposes a range of unit sizes, not just one size fits all.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
Toni Kronberg noted the resolution states approval of the conceptual development plan
authorizes the applicant to submit an application for a final PUD in accordance with the
resolution granting conceptual approval. Ms. Kronberg said the public has not been
involved in this land use application except in public hearings in front of Council. Ms.
Kronberg stated none of her comments have been taken into consideration. Ms.
Kronberg said she is concemed about shifting development over into South Aspen street.
Ms. Kronberg said the poma lift is not an adequate community benefit. Ms. Kronberg
pointed out the Ski Company will create snow at the beginning of the year but at their
discretion, they can shut that down. Ms. Kronberg said the applicant should not spend
two years on this project only to have to go to referendum.
June Kirk said she feels Council should give the applicant direction on where to go. Ms.
Kirk said she does not support vacating South Aspen street. There are avenues that have
not been explored; a 75' right -of -way so that there is a view corridor of the mountain.
The applicants should be encouraged to move the mass to the east. Ms. Kirk said the
historic Lift One should be used in the development.
10
P11
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 23, 2009
Georgia Hansen, Aspen Historical Society, said this is a great opportunity to honor the
connection between town and the mountain and the opportunity to bring this side of the
mountain alive again. Ms. Hansen said if not here for lodge development, then where in
the community would be more appropriate.
Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing.
Councilman Torre said after the last meeting, he listed details of his objections which
were passed on to the developer. Councilman Torre said those concerns both written and
verbal have not been addressed. Councilman Torre noted that the Aspen Ski Company is
not an applicant in this and the applicant is representing the Ski Company and moving the
lift up the hill 200 feet, which necessitates some lower lift. Councilman Torre said he
does not see that upper lift integrated at all. Councilman Torre said he feels there is a
better solution for this side of the mountain and he cannot support the project.
Councilman Torre stated he cannot support the vacation of right -of -way and allowing
construction in the right -of -way. Councilman Torre said he feels the poma lift in the
middle of the project is driving problems he has with the project. Councilman Torre said
he does not feel the time share and lock off capability is enough for community trade off
or any concessions in mass and scale. Councilman Torre said he would prefer something
like the gondola plaza on this side of the mountain and something that brings the
community back in touch with its slci heritage. Councilman Torre said the idea of a ski
museum on this site connected to ski runs and lifts was exciting. Councilman Torre
asked the plan for the museum, is it local or partnered with other ski organizations. Ms.
Hansen said there is preliminary programming which has a ski aspect, but the museum
will be the story of modern Aspen.
Councilman Skadron said conceptually he agrees this is the right place for a project like
this. Councilman Skadron said to support this project at final, he would need
modifications along the lines of those concerns listed by Councilman Torre. Councilman
Skadron noted the applicants alluded to designing a code compliant project. Councilman
Skadron said several weeks ago, he asked about the variations requested, one of which
the building encroaching into the city's right -of -way. Councilman Skadron asked if the
project can be compliant with the city's code and also achieve a ski corridor.
Bob Daniel reminded Council, the applicants asked Council whether they should move
forward with the COWOP concept which included the ski corridor. Daniel said in order
to have a project that meets the community goals, the project has to go into the right -of-
way, which the COWOP members supported. Daniel said if the city abandons the right -
of -way and the right -of -way is included in the project area, the project is code compliant.
Daniel noted the U -shape project, the original application, is the code compliant project.
Daniel said taking into consideration the opening of the ski corridor, which was in
response to the 27- member COWOP and pushed the building into the city's right -of -way.
Daniel said there are some setback variances requested and some height variances
requested. The project is compliant with the lodge zone district FAR.
11
P120
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 23, 2009
Councilman Skadron asked what is meant by "the lift is wrong ". The previous COWOP
reviewed this project, met with the Colorado Tramway Board on what would be allowed.
Councilman Torre said one issue is snow coverage in the corridor will be difficult and
this is being maintained by the Ski Company. This is a surface lift which requires snow
coverage. Councilman Torre said his big concem is who will use this lift and how much
of the community it will serve. Councilman Torre said he like the return skiing aspect of
the plan. Councilman Torre said he feels the poma lift will be a duplication in
transportation. People will be driving up to the circle to be dropped off. Councilman
Torre asked about bringing the lift down the west side of the project and taking the
project out of the right -of -way.
Councilman Skadron asked about the impact of this development on the character of the
lower ski mountain. Councilman Skadron reiterated that he feels the lift is more of a
marketing vehicle for the project than a community benefit. Stephen Holly, architect,
said the ski way down honors the original lift alignment. This is to ski back, not for
repeat skiing. Holly said in the past, there was less building in the area. The project is
honoring the past with the museum with the existing structure remaining and by using the
corridor to honor skiing. Closing that corridor off does not honor skiing. Holly said
there is no effect on the historical aspect from moving the upper lift. Holly pointed out
that lift IA is a different lift from the historical lift 1.
Daniel told Council the Ski Company has been involved in every aspect of the planning
for this project. The Ski Company has given consent as part of this application. Daniel
said one of the tenets from the Ski Company on this redesign was maintenance of
Norway, not to impact the skiable terrain and not to take the lift up so far as to diminish
the ski terrain. Daniel noted the poma lift is about a one minute ride. Daniel said Section
7 of the resolution indicates the Ski Company has committed to provide a specific
operating plan on the land in Lift One park and Willoughby Park. Daniel said the Ski
Company has no plans to put snow making guns in this corridor because of the
community impact but has said once the ski race course is taken care of, they will push
snow into the corridor.
Councilman Skadron said he struggles with community objectives versus market needs.
Councilman Skadron said he feels like community objectives are being leveraged in order
to gain mass and scale. Councilman Skadron asked what objectives the community
would have to give up in order to get a smaller project. Daniel agreed the difficult thing
for a city is to balance the benefits versus the end product. Daniel said the applicants
grapple with the term mass and scale and what specifically is objected to. Daniel said the
overall density on this project is less than that mandated by the code; what is less density
40% or 5 %. Daniel said because of the community benefits the project is proposing,
there is not a lot of wiggle room. Daniel said creating the lift corridor in order to get a
tramway variance pushed the project out to the west, necessitating an increase in height
in the middle part of the project. Daniel stated they originally presented a code compliant
that worked for the developer. Daniel pointed out all the program, except for the
restaurant and the rooms, are below grade.
12
P121
Reuular Meeting Aspen City Council November 23, 2009
Councilman Romero said using the Aspen Area Community Plan as a guide, areas that
are important are lodging and the reinvestment in lodging in this area; historic resources
and the reutilization of historic resources; the effort towards affordable housing; the effort
towards environmental stewardship; managing transportation; and architectural character
and design, which touches on mass and scale, height, density, and contextual fit within
the neighborhood.
Councilman Romero said scoring on these 6 areas, the application achieves high marks.
The affordable housing at 100% with 60% on site scores high for housing. Councilman
Romero noted lodging is a vital vision and value statement in the AACP. Councilman
Romero pointed out there has been an over - reliance on one industry, development and
real estate, and a failure to focus on the resort. Councilman Romero said some not so
successful projects serve as a good lesson and point a way to join forces to makes a better
neighborhood. Councilman Romero reminded Council two years ago they denied the
Lodge at Aspen Mountain and the community sentiment was, take the time and look at a
broader master plan approach to apply the lessons teamed. Councilman Romero said
although the outcome was not positive, it was a Teaming experience.
Councilman Romero noted when this applicant came back to Council, they asked if they
should incorporate portions from the citizens' COWOP, to which Council agreed.
Councilman Romero stated he would like to move this application forward, recognizing
the lessons Teamed and recognizing that it will improve between conceptual and final.
Conceptual approval does not give permission to build anything. Councilman Romero
said he feels this conceptual application adheres to and achieves many of the core
principles in the AACP. Councilman Romero said the financial assurances have to come
back at final and the policies at this point are sufficiently broad in order to give the city
latitude and the applicant has to run the financial gauntlet to gain Council approval.
Councilman Romero said there will be recourses and mechanisms that the city can pick
up the pieces should the project get stymied.
Councilman Skadron noted at the last meeting the applicant stated they did not want the
project approved at conceptual just to be denied at final and Councilman Romero just
stated the applicant had "miles to go ". Daniel said he understands the vagaries around
the financial assurances and will work with staff to get a road map. Daniel said he would
like more definitive direction on things like mass and scale. Daniel said he would like
Council to express what the goal is.
Mayor Ireland said he wants to avoid half built buildings and under financed projects.
Mayor Ireland said there are some flaws in this project and these can be fixed. Mayor
Ireland stated he is appreciative of what the applicant has tried to do on this project.
Mayor Ireland said he appreciates the architectural previews and there is beauty in the
structures as presented. Mayor Ireland said 75' wide streets are not the epitome of
community character; many towns have streets that are too wide and promote the
automobile and to minimize pedestrian activity. Mayor Ireland said the project benefits
from the fact it is not built across the mountain making a wall between town and the
mountain.
13
P122
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 23, 2009
Mayor Ireland said this project is not visionary. From the beginning, undergrounding the
street has been discussed rather than having an automobile entrance above grade, which
drives a lot of the design and scale issues. Mayor Ireland said his specific concerns are
there is no assurance that the rooms will actually be rented out. Mayor Ireland said when
fractional units are approved, the city loses sales tax, which is the city's lifeblood. Mayor
Ireland said tourists have to pay for the services that make Aspen a place where people
want to visit. Mayor Ireland said the financial assurances are not final; however, the city
needs to be able to restore the site if things go bad. There is a disruptive effect of
abandoned buildings in neighborhoods. Mayor Ireland said he feels the lack of snow in
the ski corridor could be addressed by trucking snow in. Mayor Ireland said the previous
COWOP did have the opportunity to put their project on the ballot and chose not to.
Mayor Ireland said Council needs to make sure that the approved mass and scale is
something appropriate for this site into the future. Mayor Ireland said Council should not
vote in favor of this project if they feel it will not work. Mayor Ireland said he feels the
project can be redeemed that answers the issues he has brought up. Mayor Ireland said
he has to protect the community from developers trying to renege on their commitments.
Daniel pointed out Section 3 financial assurances and is the resolution for conceptual
approval okay as a structure to address this at final. Mayor Ireland said this language is a
start. Daniel noted section (f) talks about a detailed plan for time share operation plan
where the applicant includes representations about optimum occupancy and reporting
occupancy rates, including a limitation agreement that the rooms will not be priced in
such a manner to prevent rental to the general public. Mayor Ireland said he is concerned
about owners that do not want renters in their units.
Daniel said the language states "the final application shall include an implementation
agreement that assures the city that lodge rooms will not be priced in a manner to prevent
rental to the general public ". Mayor Ireland said he would like a solution included about
owners not wanting to rent their units. Aspen has only a small amount of ground for
rental units. Councilman Romero said these will be shared ownership units and owners
will participate in a portion of the rental income. Daniel said that is how they plan to
structure the project. Councilman Romero stated it seems there would be a community
benefit by occupancy of these units as well as a benefit to the owner of cost offsets by
renting the units. Daniel agreed owners of fractional units do generally not have fear of
renting their units because they already share it with 7 other owners.
Councilman Torre asked the average size of the fractional units. Daniel said the bedroom
size is 525 to 540 square feet, and variety of size is important to the program. The units
vary in size and the average size of a suite is 2400 square feet. Councilman Torre said he
does not agree with the statement that owners will be willing to rent out their units
because the units are owned by 7 other people.
Councilman Torre noted the section discussing the lift corridor says ASC shall make,
move, spread, groom and prepare a base of artificial snow in the surface lift corridor in
the beginning of each ski season in accord with its annual snowmaking and terrain
14
_ — P123
Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council November 23, 2009
opening plan. Mayor Ireland agreed there should be some snow coverage guarantee as
part of this. Councilman Tone said he would like that included in section 7.
Councilman Torre asked about moving the porte cochere closer to the entrance to the
garage; these might be co joined some where in the project for better management.
Councilman Torre asked about walk out from units, which would add vitality and
enlivens the street.
Daniel noted there is walkout access. Daniel told Council they have tried to design in
drop down corridors so people do not have to go through the lobby to access one's unit
for more liveliness. Daniel said the cul -de -sac design is driven by emergency access and
the need for turn around and to serve other properties at the top of the mountain. Daniel
noted there is a requirement for the Ski Company to do what they do at all their base
facilities, make early season snow, pack it and it remains throughout the year. Daniel
said the Ski Company does have some water rights restrictions on when they can make
snow.
Daniel said the applicants believe the market is moving towards shared ownership
concept rather than owning a second home. Daniel said concerns about mass and scale
are the crux of the applicant's goal. Daniel said he would like a good sense what
Council's target for mass and scale is. Daniel said in order to make any changes, he
needs to know where Council's goal if is there is a target goal; if it is not 116,797 square
feet on lot 1, what is it. Councilman Torre said he would like to see less mass and scale.
Councilman Romero moved to approve Resolution #52, Series of 2009; seconded by
Councilman Skadron.
Councilman Skadron said he has heard good arguments pro and con; however, there is
enough to move towards a project that can satisfy all of Council's concerns. Councilman
Skadron said he will support this at conceptual. Councilman Torre said he feels if this is
approved at conceptual, Council is giving up its ability to negotiate the project into
something that is a community benefit. Councilman Torre said he feels the protracted
process has damaged Council's ability to get the community what they would like in this
area. Councilman Torre said he does have great hopes for this side of the mountain and
he would like the developer to be prosperous in this area. Councilman Torre said this is
an appropriate area for lodge development but there are parts of the project that can be
made better.
Councilman Romero said this is about lodging, which is a strong piece of the vision for
the base of the mountain. Councilman Romero noted citizens have talked to him about
the need for revitalization and reinvestment in this side of the mountain and to fortify
Aspen's lodging base. Councilman Romero suggested the applicant look at the
commercial square footage, the free market square footage and the affordable housing to
see if any of these could be reduced or tweaked. Councilman Romero said there has been
progress on this application and he will approve it and hope to see more improvements by
final.
15
P124
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 23, 2009
Mayor Ireland said it is pretty clear that conceptual does not mean final approval and his
final vote will depend on overcoming the concern that this project not become a large
empty space blocking the views of the mountain.
Roll call vote; Councihnembers Torre, no; Romero, yes; Skadron, yes; Mayor Ireland,
yes. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION - 00 SERIES OF 2009 ' 80 Gibson Code Interp ation Appeal
Jennifer P • - Ian, community develop. ent department, told C• • cil this is an appeal of
code • • - .retation regarding dev- .pment rights and flos ea associated with an a of
1... gained through a quiet • action. Ms. Phelan to • Council this is bounded
atchless Drive and G' • =.n Avenue; it is the nort. ' ly parcel. Ms. Phelan no 4d the
community develo • - t director is required to , • vide interpretations of • - and use
code. The appli •A t requested an interprets • - about this parcel of land • hich was
acquired thro '.1 quiet title action. In th7 terpretation, staff noted this 5600 square
foot parcel : oes not have any floor nor any development right : sociated with it.
Ms. P - lan pointed out the ape,.: asked 3 things; an answer . all of the 5 questions
pa- "'. in initial request; rev al of the determination th • e northerly parcel has no floor
a; and that the prop . is considered to have a dev - opment right and to be reviewed
through growth .. • ,- ; ement administratively. . • helan said regarding not answe. ng
questions 1, 2, . - , staff felt those were hyp.: etical and interrogatory question they
than providin: arity around the text in the ode. Ms. Phelan said regarding t
determina ' . n of no floor area for the no •• erly parcel, the land use code sa • 7 at certain
things a deducted from a lot area in " .lculating floor area. One of th, is proposed
ded.' " -ted rights -of -way. Ms. Phe said this area of land gained / ugh quiet title
ion was a proposed right-of- .y and dedicated by the subdiv • er of the Alpine Acres
subdivision, which was 5 lo and 2 streets. Ms. Phelan said staff determined this was a
proposed right -of -way could not be counted tow. • e definition of lot area . •
there is no associate. `oor area.
/
Ms. Phelan sai ✓ere was a request to go thro administrative growt • anagement.
Ms Phelan -' inded Council all lots withi• 1 e city are required to through growth
manage. - nt review. This has not and . ,, ff does not believe this . meets the criteria to
be r ewed administratively. Thi , of land was platted as •ght of -way and
e . ected to be a right -of -way. • is is part of a 5 lot subdivi • .n; there are other lots in
is subdivision that have • e through additional subdiv' on review and this property
has not. Ms. Phelan s.'. this is no different than an ad rse possession claim wher e
beneficiary cannot 's'elop land gained through adve •e possession. Ms. Phelan inted
out there are 3 c eria for overturning a code inte . - tation; lack of due proces excess
of jurisdictio • or abuse of discretion. Ms. Phel • • stated staff met the due pro ess by
notice req,:+ ements. The community develop • ent director is required by th land use
code to •cue interpretations of the title oft • code so the jurisdiction was t abused. /
Ms. • elan said in interpreting the land - e code, some discretion has e used;
h • ever, staff does not feel there w. - - abuse of discretion.
16
X13 MO WI Mi'
c a
7173 o � o I,',1I �I �'��:1
• in El m
T 111 2l0n
" — Ala3doad 1 �ry cirE
3NIl r
H I ■It 1 M
.o-.9Z I MI II
411. 1.11 Mali
"O Jeanie.
AAAHiI
,�anlllm�L F f�
Z7) I Ij: i : :i ■:
i at'i1 s
J 1 IIL '
A '1 mil
o
ww tic,'
1
I
I 1
1
1
1
I
I
1
6/14/2011
ExN►B►r
Honoring Aspen's Past
Embracing Aspen's Future
Lift One Lodge Final PUD
06.14.11
pass 1
Meeting Goals
meeting une.
What is the vision?
Where did the vision come from?
How has it changed?
Meeting Two:
How do you get there?
What do you do there?
How does it fit there?
Meeting Three:
Respond to P & Z Information Requests
How does the community benefit?
How does it meet PUD standards?
06.14.11
pOss "" Ell31 Uft One Lodge Final PUD 2'
1
6/14/2011
How Do You Get There ?
Connectivity
06.14.11
pOSS CO Lift One Lodge Final PUD i$
Connectivity: Pedestrian
as
0 y , ,_ 1
'"''' 1.?" ' ',„, 2:1. ) .
1 I _ _ 5 _ -- t .: .;;; ',-; 4 , ,, t ,, , T.. - :.„ 10 ,
il , t mil 1 :I it, - . ...),
Jr i 'I.
4 I *':i il . - 4 it \
Il r w
w' ;Ct 1 ■ - y io* 1 /4 Mile Radius!
1 1
r , 1 :Co : gk
!7 06.14
i "S Lift One Lodge Final PUD 4
2
6/14/2011
Connectivity: Pedestrian
• Deane Street
T 6 yr . . ,,, .e , .,
. .
-- -- - ,
-
■ South Aspen Street .
pOSS El Lift One Lodge Final PUD it
Connectivity: Pedestrian
, Yj
-, ,, ■ Build sidewalk
• Snowmelt sidewalk
pG<NE STf 0 /GPOTT,e/AN NAY
• Safe crossings
• Connect to transit center
06. 14.11
pOSS ID Lift One Lodge Final PUD IQ
1 3
id
6/14/2011
Connectivity: Quality of Service
Considerations Level of Service
Existing Proposed
Automobi ,, i ,
• Corridor Travel Times
• Intersection Delay A & B A & B
.. 1 00r
n . '`
• Queue Length ^�.
I r
Pedestrian
• Presence, Connectivity & Sidewalk 1 I
Width 7 } .i....^. ,
• Lateral Separation of Traffic
• Barriers & Buffers from traffic E A "__--
• Crossing Opportunities m
• Delays at Intersections
• Driveway Frequency & Volume
• Visitor Experience
06.14.11
POSS III Lift One Lodge Final PUD IZI
4
Connectivity: Quality of Service
Considerations Level of Service
Existing Proposed
Bicycle t
• Presence of Dedicated Facility
�t ,..
• Network Connectivity
d • Number & Width of Travel Lanes . ,w
Adjacent to Route C B "" ' • • •
• Volume & Speed of Traffic �� / i f I pit ,
• Percent of Trucks & Buses I fit"
.� fi s
Encountered - r ;,.
�� 1
• Pavement Conditions I ,,
Transit . -. iw g:..
• Frequency & Hours of Service 4 -' d':
• Reliability of Service '"
• Passenger Loads E B
• Travel Times
• Proximity
06.14.11
POSS El Lift One Lodge Final PUD le
4
6/14/2011
Connectivity: Transportation Demand Management
Employees Lodge Members /
Guests
Pedestrian Pedestrian
Improvements Improvements
1 /2 Price Bus Passes Regular Shuttle A
Service + FAST, FUN. FREQUE
lam -10 pm
Carpool On Call
R r
Emergency Rides On Site Bike Fleet • G O •
Home
Bike Fleet Electric Car Charging
06.14.11
JOSS ® Lift One Lodge Final PUD i9
Connectivity: Transportation Demand Management
No change in LOS at affected intersections
Lift One Lodge, restaurants, museum, ski drop
off generates net total of 60 trips on Aspen St. S.
of Durant during am peak. 74 during pm peak.
1.2 vehicles per minute in am ave.
1.4 vehicles per minute in pm ave.
06.14.11
JOSS 171 Lift One Lodge Final PUD ILO
5
6/14/2011
Parking: Service
) -... `c. - .7 F , T , ., , , "? . 1 ,.. i r d _an -
__ _.rte. +A. F'` _ , I c
' �` .,��* te r: :1,.,., � ° � �" � � r `
r. �t to :mo t ,....
+ fry n
__ , ' r r r �� ��GJJ __' - 11.11 IN7111N"II'iL'W~ r ' .,, .
,. . .
__�� I_ cc
't[{ I
i• \\ ._ I / I " - -- 1(Wl74Fli1"MII"Iti V
. • _ i
* S i
1 v 1 Ili
_ _ - _ __ _ _ _ __ 06.14.11
pOSS Lift One Lodge Final PUD 1
Parking: Service
r ..
_
y y 1. 11
. I -
� ll i l
_. _ _ _ - _ 06.14.11
id o s. Lift One Lodge Final PUD 1.3
6
6/14/2011
Parking: Access
4 .. , ....c.,,,,,,,,,..4.o..,..w.0 0 4., $
4.i.
1 1 ' 1 ::' 1 . • ; 4k. ------- :,
, .... „„t , ,,,,,or ■ ; . / • _. del , islia
• ‘ ', • i F. 1 '
. ■ ' ..,„--:... ,L,:......_ ,:....":.-.. - - ' -
.;
i ' /.......,
.
1
,.:
.,‘ "....
06 14 11
OSS Lift One Lodge Final PUD 3
[J
Guest Entry
4.
..:,
I ,
,.. .
k43
,
11, .
4
AP '
ti
..;: V.
--- — 11
-.-....,t,,...„- ,„_. . , .., .„,..._- mulmilulogr p-- • ^
... .,. ,. '
. ' -'''- -, , , ',$:4 L .•
I
,.. ,
4., "- 1 t , -'t 1, ..,. , .- ----- ' tAt
i ' ' L. \i'L-- , .
.,..,.
1 . _. . , 'f 4.1 j „I-0 ,. _-,
-- .. , : .- 4 ii 1 , ,, ,
■-; '',;
4si
•
06 14 11
oss
Lift One Lodge Final PUD a4
p El
7
6/14/2011
Guest Entry
u r
,..... it
.I
._ ___. yea � l
06.14.11
FOSS LJ Lift One Lodge Final PUD 1B
Guest Entry
ri,� ` c
k .
- --- _ - -_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 06.14.11
pOSS i Lift One Lodge Final PUD 0
I 8
6/14/2011
Street: Safety Focus
• Narrower road with
sidewalks increases
pedestrian safety
• Lack of street parking
t improves vehicle safety
and snow removal
- `° _ • Turn - around at top for
-- emergency vehicles and
mountain event access
� S i✓. . # to i'
4 k M A - ff «�3r 14 ►
tilrn•uF
u
06.14.11
JOSS ® Lift One Lodge Final PUD la
Safety
II E , 1 _ 3:•,.-,...' � • Sidewalks: 14, r
E ,
r " Streets:
rc tl xr4' •i " T _ , y • Salt
rF t! g e� 9g 11, ;' r y
�. _ d • Deicer
F , t • Result:
-in i yy r r • Rougher Surface
N r - F • Larger Sand
`fit , 1 et • Vaults to Collect Material
" 7 � ' as
- - z v.
06.14.11
PDSS�" ''' ff3!ti Lift One Lodge Final PUD to
i 9
6/14/2011
;
a
What Do You Do There ?
Vitality
06.14.11
posy Ilm Lift One Lodge Final PUD h3
Interpretive Museum and Park , i .�
F
A
• AHSmuseum& '[ ' `' I
gathering place „ . _
• Stabilized historic �' r •� .,. ' ', r' -'1
assets with _
interpretation "r' ' °�``�
• More park -like " ''' 0 ASPEN SOCIETY
setting . / - - - � _ � } , k it. •• •••
• Deane St. Corridor �.°• "
Master Plan ` f
» r
06.14.11
posy ® Lift One Lodge Final PUD PD
10
li■IIIIIMIENINIII=MNIII■Illorft.
6/14/2011
Restaurant & Apres Ski
.._
....._ —....11111, ...
_ __, . ., — 1,
. .
00 7 „, A.
- .
01 r - ' P
4 AsPE —2- ' — AL i! "- W9 - ' t t' • " ‘...,
- k , nr, p
--
1 4 ......„ ,...4 .‘ I i ..... ,.
---e,
x ( t 1 - - „
i , ' Au — ■;■ . '. , a4
' .‘,,,
P
■P'
• 5,950 sf public dining SKI LOD( ,
& bar facility '
- ' 1 ,it ,
, _„..._ 4 ,_
r. 1--1) , \ -11 "1
• 2,680 sf outdoor decks ., i , ,
1
1 : 4...,1 - .
,i ,,,,- - .
• 900+ sf free public lockers •., . . ,
• 50 space public garage , 1 li ' .-
06.14 11
pOSS Eci Lift One Lodge Final PUD MI
Ski-In / Ski-Out Living
rignilrfinwirilitqf MilIPPIHIllinge rig" Viii -.
ii Free Market 5 Units 1
I
—.1 -..,..–flit
I
– ------T
1 6
Affordable /-'\-
Employees
. , f',1 1
, - _
, ,' ./: • -- \\,'S4ipif ,„ ,..,, .,
,,, . .,. ; , -, 1 ------- 4 _' 40
ip ,
11
1 ,
1 •
•
/..-'
--
(4 ' -------. •
- ; ,_
I , ,
--_-__::, ., . .
- . 1 'IP -,-,=,:... ' -, Ao'n'tS110 • 1, , - =WV- tr.r•
._..- ,
i
— /
_____
4
Er'1 E ,
0614 11
pOSS Lift One Lodge Final PUDP
11
6/14/2011
Ski -In / Ski -Out Living
Free Market 5 Units yc '
Project Element Employee Housing
Mitigation
Affordable Employees Total Code Required 13.63 Employees
Mitigation
r; �- Total Mitigation
Provided 37.62 Employees
On Site Housing 16 Employees
4.
/ \ _ i ( f f s r^'= ''�.'^ 1 ' _ I ,
` `'-! I.
1\ I : 1% -- in I t i " '' 4 } - I I I
,_ >. �, , . 1,
..‘ :-: - - ----e- '.....1 a� , .
= °Ivy r
06.14.11
pOSS E Lift One Lodge Final PUD la
il
11 High Occupancy Lodging
Lodge Membership:
• 8 interests per suite= 176
(' — r - ,
I
• 21 nights in summer (5/1 - 10/31)
1 182 nights
• 21 nights in winter (11/1 - 4/30; ori ::
i
183 nights)
f • Rent unoccupied keys and unused
1 - J nights
- ""j --1 : - I rri—, -ti...Q. ilt. •
t ,
06.1411
pOSS Erl Lift One Lodge Final PUD IO
12
6/14/2011
High Occupancy Lodging
Public Availability:
Key- nights not reserved by owners
�—
I-- r- I i + Key- nights not used by owners*
sue' Total key- nights available to public
i _ 5 1 IP
af."..- Ill
CO
1i, * ARDA Statistics show 80 -85% usage by
Owners
r
ir ,,,. , ate.
•....® .
06.14 11
pOSS El Lift One Lodge Final PUD n
High Occupancy Lodging
Public Availability:
• Use Plan means 17.5 keys will be
-- -- - - - -- r ---._..., — 1 available for public rental on a typical
I I night during winter and summer
season
r I I • ■ Will be listed with Stay Aspen
- e I Snowmass, etc.
r -.--_,.. �� • All parties have a financial interest in
I �f1- . f '�, renting those rooms
•w R
to *f , ‘ it
, ri c li
� I ` J P '111rf
06.14.11
pOSS Lift One Lodge Final PUD 10
13
6/14/2011
Lodging That Fits Life: Suite Configuration
--11 V , 1.-- 1 I , r_.
r.
. 1 , L, ...
. ., 1-_---1 I , I
` I 1iIII
---d .,.
-- - f 11111' I
. 06.14.11
MOSS E0 Lift One Lodge Final PUD 03
Lodging That Fits Life: Suite Configuration
El _ 1 1
IR? . — - _ ter
c i
te_r—r-4.4"—'"—lim r- --`.'N
- \ t
I itt l A
_._ -._-_ -__ 06.14.11
(IOSS Lift One Lodge Final PUD
14
6/14/2011
Lodging That Fits Life: Suite Configuration
1 j
_AI-- Li_ Li
0 ������
'� Vin , 4 � \ ,./
N
- ..,,r . ' ) IV* NW/ A
06.14.11
p=..S Li Lift One Lodge Final PUD is
Lodging That Fits Life: Suite Configuration
' ' L _ r r'ir --
.. .7 — 11
J
a — ilkihill 111
. j . i r, -, -44- .' * �
w ' 1
r 41 11. L.t •
: .i lb 4 :War /
p
_ ___ 06.14.11
(J OSS LIft One Lodge Final PUD pa
15
6/14/2011
Lodging That Fits Life: Suite Configuration
I I
I rill
4 19 III . r ....._ i.
1
.,... 1 i ,
_ _,.. j _ j
_..._..._
- --1 1 ....1=..
___ 1
____ . inilliill 1
,.....
j
3
- 11-1 1 - r 1
„,'0
4 1
,:.......,:,.
.,..7_,,
06.14.11
pOSS ® Lift One Lodge Final PUD i8J
Lodging That Fits Life: Room Size
—
i
I
t
r` - P l
1 [I w - I
R
i
Gross Area 484 s.f.
-__- _ -_ --- 06.14.11
E1OSS ET! Lift One Lodge Final PUD {]
16
6/14/2011
Lodging That Fits Life: Room Size
Structure & Mechanical 59 s.f.
Circulation 46 s.f. C —J
Closet 10 s.f.
Bathroom 104 s.f.
Bedroom
Gross Area 484 s.f.
06.14.11
(1055 Lift One Lodge Final PUD IJ
1
How Does it Fit There?
Character in Response to Site
Skiing, Mountain, Community,
and the Future
Sustainability
06.14.11
pass Lift One Lodge Final PUD to
17
6/14/2011
Character: Honoring Aspen's Past
ASPE • ISTORI SOCIEI1
v ..,
..... + .4,
06 14 11
poss El Lift One Lodge Final PUD 133
I
Skiing
4 1 ..,.:._
'..
-oil c t= , - ___ .
,, _ ,..„.._
• 1 i * -T-
kik -
. -• • -
,,, 1 - , - -011.4 ••••• . ..:••,..
...X... ,,,
i ' !AI laja .>" • ,.-.
- %%
•••:. • ),„.. *. 1 -
- -
i4,iZtr ■3 • '1. 1V - 1 , .. '‘' .
t r.4 i (,,,, i st... .. •
-- ...
— -
rtcx„.• Ft, I. , r ( NM, ..;*,-.......,
06 14 11
JOSS E Lift One Lodge Final PUD 80
18
6/14/2011
Skiing: Existing Conditions
I. r '1
, ......___....
....-1, 44,,,,,,,..„,, 7- - ---., ' 4,,, ' . , =;;-- s ! ' ! : ,,, _ . _ _ _____
.., ..'' . 1 ,,,.,;:=..,,
r
)
‘,01.
-+,..e : „ ilt 1 ,,, ,,,,,,,1 0 115 . • , W, k 7
; 4 ,,„ .
.• :,...,:14 4..P. itti
:,,
. • - .0/ i' , . ::, l-:-=----- _
' 1; t• - . -'''.., NO, . .:, 40 ... ,,- .." , '-.' ' ,.. 35 - 7 - 1,. - i- - .' i
, .....,,,,,1--... ■ " ' I " " :,',..1 .,,-,„il I , ' • " " , r' . - .,!...; ,. ---- ,,,...
- ',:, r...,, ,., .,,,,.. Ali) . ,... ,. .
.
,, . s, zeli- a ..,: is --:, A - ' ik- 1 , _ ..------/----
..---
----
-.- - " ---. 7 .--
400016, .
. .
. .
, . .
';,.. .
... .
. , i '1.,.........._ , .
...
.......,..
1
ti,414 ••• , .... ' , , . 1 .1
- ""■;,....' ".. -..•-•-. - '''''" -,,, 11C
...,,,
• - ' :,1K ., *, :, '
__ ,_ ., - .. ..r , ...:1-4,.. sa
' ',- i. ' ' " l ..Lk'Z.if..Mgre.12i: - , - '
, 06 14 11
JOSS Lift One Lodge Final PUD 7
Skiing: Proposed Dedicated Ski Corridor
• .
- • MP! .E1P
..,
.,.,._,,..,....„..„...1.
,,- :44, • tr 1 .,.. t __ 1
1
• , ,.,' ',. ''
# t q-- = ". 1 i• 1 ---- I { 1
ii 1 ( 51' ---'.-- ' r!/ ;•:.'
, .....i
-75 1,
-,.---, ,
i it . :' , ....1 . ), , ..„.
" . ' i II I -- - -;, ...)-,'"ii
4
• . - ,„ , . , ,- '1 -
, , 4 4-
_, _
_____,--- -
4- 4400., -4- --- - --z,------- ...._ _ „..,,..,-- -,.,,,,., ,,,,,„•,,,,:i .., -,.... „ . ,, • ... ..._ .
/ -, ------- - •. :11
...,. , ..
, 7_•,,,,-,,,
' 1
* --__. ', 2,' , ” —, ,, ' ' ' *"..•
i i— , •
• t % 1 1 ix
HIFI ,
,,,,.., ....J.-6- ...... ,-- 4 - ,., , a■itto.!"*Trox...;,__ __ ._ • .•,'
1 6"
>1;
_ ,.:... ..;... ..... ,.., feho.r _•... v .77.4,6 ''
11 ...t
__ ..s. 11
--
- r
• .,,,„ .,,„-;1; .....
06 14 11
puss Lift One Lodge Final PUD Be
19
6/14/2011
Skiing: Proposed Dedicated Ski Corridor
" W
Z
'i ` ., k� 4 � _ J _. . I n .sty e „ Y ) CO CC
z ,i4 _ x 1 I _( r cn
_ s
( c cn
I
SOUTH ASPEN STREET
06 14.11
POSS ® Lift One Lodge Final PUD 39
Skiing: Existing Zoning
i w C. CONSERVd
W L, LODGE
ce
rn
I
¢
r r
w — i ' P, (H) PARK. HISTORIC I W I w
w
cc
N J� W
N
¢ P, (H) HISTORIC I w a g
, CO
W
J
p J 1
Z.3 cn
SOUTH ASPEN STREET
06.14 11
pOSS Lift One Lodge Final PUD #d
20
6/14/2011
Skiing: Proposed Zoning
^ r
I L, LODGE C, CONSERVE
• I L ,- -_ _ PUB. (N). (PUD) I I I
— PUBLIC, HISTORIC.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT I
I PUB, (H), (PUD) I 1 — LOT 3 _ — PUBLIC, HISTORIC,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
L, (PUD)
LODGE,
LOT 4 I PUNNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT I
LOT 1 •
__ — — I — LOT 2 1
.r .-- •
—
•
._... __ I I — - — - — — AH, (PUDI
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
06.14.1i
-. Lift One Lodge Final PUD41
Skiing: Proposed ROW Vacations
,.
_. — — _ — /"
I- r w I C, CONSERV/
w
L,LODGE I
I ¢ w
I-
y w
4 N _
•
D CC PUB. IH), IPUDI
w I L — ,^ PUBLIC, HISTORIC, I w
w - I PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT I L I w
w m
N I PUB, P1, IPUDI • C 3 4 LOT 3 ...... J W
w PUBLIC. HISTORIC. - I
y I ....I /
Z PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT `�'k ! ., I d Q
LL I � ' a L. (PUD)
1
A - LODGE. y
LOT 4 ' ;;` PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
LOT 1 I
I 1 LOT 2 I
AH, (PUD)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SOUTH ASPEN STREET
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
• . • • . .
•
06.14 11
Lift One Lodge Final PUD 4;2,
21
6/14/2011
Skiing: Proposed ROW Vacations
t C,CONSEkVr
w L, LODGE
W 1 • � r
I– w •
L- PU8. (HI. (PUDI
` L.. -� �_ -� -- to PUBLIC. HISTORIC. 9
w FLANNEO UNIT DEVELOPMENT 'J •
N
I
FY
PUB, (H), (PUD) LOT 3 • ': ))) W co
CC
L.( PUBLIC, HISTORIC, I 1 -- j i 1 N J H
Q PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - i, J 1 <
ti I L. (PUD) _
1
LODGE, co
LOT 4 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT T. , ,1
i LOT 1 •
- -� _LOT2 I 1
AH, (PUD) . _ . _ - ..^— •
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SOUTH ASPEN STREET
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
_ __ 06.14.11
JOSS ri Lift One Lodge Final PUD 43
Skiing: Proposed ROW Vacations
(— — — — — n — — — —
C, CONSERVE
w L, LODGE [ 1 i
CC
I— 1
I N K
Z � < N — _
M ~ PUB. (HI. (PUD) r
W L. ,��„ W PUBLIC, HISTORIC. 1
r
w m PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT I W I w
cc
In PUB, (6), (PUD) I `?._ -- LOT - LOT 3 F W N Ce
L-I PUBLIC. HISTORIC. �~ N I-
G PLANNED NE UNIT DEVELOPMENT 1 J I d
G L (PUD) _
LODGE. to
LOT 4 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 1 J
•
AB. (PUD)
AFrORDABLE HOUSING. SOUTH ASPEN STREET
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
0614':
r 0 Lift One Lodge Final PUD 44
22
6/14/2011
Skiing: Proposed Dedicated Ski Corridor
r — — — __ .
L;
n I
N c.
z H
L w
W W
c
W .. . N ,
Z J G r L
- J
0 • _ m
cz
SOUTH ASPEN STREET
06.14.11
pOSS 110 Lift One Lodge Final PUD la
i
II The Community
Outreach & Input:
• COWOP
• Neighbor Outreach
THE CITY OF ASPEN • Aspen Historical Society
li `" Lift One Neighborhood • • ACRA
• Master Plan
_ _ _ _ • Historic Preservation Commission
fit ,, • Planning and Zoning Commission
• City Council
Mrw•er
1
RMw •I� n•.p� ..
—°"' a F::< IMINIMIII
i
06.14.11
pass ED Lift One Lodge Final PUD la
1
23
6/14/2011
The Community: Listening "Yes, but"
I. al f 1 16 ,far} ~ , ■
i � JR Il m �
� "" '-'� ,oar —, ,LAS I.i
• or- 06.14.11
poss Ell Lift One Lodge Final PUDO
The Community: Listening "Yes, but"
t___r r
06.14.11
['' •'' a Lift One Lodge Final PUD 4a
' 24
6/14/2011
The Community: Response
• West Building 47% reduction
from 497' to 264'
-.1
R 1 11i 11 i� 1! / ' i J =j s' .
: f t 0'
06.14.11
QOSS ® Lift One Lodge Final PUD le
The Community: Listening "Yes, but"
a '
7'R g A' ' ' e ;
II nor
East Wing from Monarch St. ('� �� t Syr
06.14.11
POSS Lift One Lodge Final PUD i
25
}
6/14/2011
The Community: Listening "Yes, but"
"---,).
1
it East Wing from Monarch St.
li 06.14.11
+ POSS ED Lift One Lodge Final PUD 0
1
1
The Community: Response
• East Building 54% reduction from
335' to 155'
I
s'
,I
L_ `! l R I r
06
POSS iim Lift One Lodge Final PUD 0
i 26
6/14/2011
The Community: Accessible to PubTic i
-- --- .- 1 \--i
- •. Na -lift relocation
I • Public restaurant /bar
— J I 1 -
—111 - I • Public ski lockers
el 0 0 I 0
.te. 3 • Public parking
•
w
' ' et, • ■ Improved skiing
Tom ' _
3 py ��� �' e
gi �1 i tt . I . • Funding for Town Lift
.40 - ! " 041...--- 4 y — — y�� '4 { -- • AHS museum
06.14.11
pOSS ® Lift One Lodge Final PUD F3
1
The Mountain
I „ A be., ..
1 y AA l y:
�"� � - .. ... � _ \ x. 1 - . -
06.14.11
POSS El Lift One Lodge Final PUD is
1
El 27
dr
6/14/2011
The Mountain: Existing Conditions `
_ -o
1
1
AZ',V -
• ; has
pOSS Lift One Lodge Final PUD 55
The Mountain: Slope
�
1.,
r„
+ Y t +r a
,. i 4 ," w`,.:41:: . .;';Ifiglig '; Y.,0 .
a- ' r r r ,
4 , r i
Lip :It _; *40 ____ _ ____ .• :,
.....:,, , ^ � . 4 ,, - '-use . , .
06.14.11
BOSS Lift One Lodge Final PUD VQ
28
6/14/2011
The Mountain: Slope
Hotel Jerome
4' it 1111
- 4 1 /2 Stories ,,,
a■
i
a IN i I
I.
D6.14. 11
p0$5 ® Lift One Lodge Final PUD F7
The Mountain: Slope
4' x: ' "i '"101
4
� ~ _4.= a.. , ., , u . l
..
.4 ,1 .i.., 4
1! r___3 ' ___t ,_
4 f! 1., s 1 Js » 11
ii.!, ' ,- . ,..e= - , i '''' 75 rte
•
`) }1 ` €` Fe et o�
_ / ,, I \ __ ' 1 - INNNIhMI�11 _ , ! .
f1 J l
10 1 , I.1 / r
06.14.11
0 Lift One Lodge Final PUD 58
29
6/14/2011
i
The Mountain: Slope
.
-
isy
/1, ,r ___ , -7.- -;-W-7 • - r
? RI , .
r se, 064° !-- Free Market
se ge 6t3d°'t -
/0
...:, ,
,,
., .. I II
______--------,---- .1 „._.- -7---te!,,r,I;i.„...., , ,...__.
. ... ., .... ,...,
, , ,-,„ ; „ ,
i 16 il
. L
I 1 ....,==
• 1 '`,.x. • • ------- - -4,- —'.--.
' '. - ---- n• - •' - '71 . 01 , 104414111.7 - __: ■ 1. ., 1
71U I—
( , 14 11
poss L Lift One Lodge Final PUD 159
1 The Mountain: Slope
....j . J ,, J.4. ,:,.... J1,
. , .... 1
.... ,
, . _
■
I • V ' .4 41.1,1., . 1
14 _ 0 .
..,1111 11 — 4.T. - .1. T+ III E, .77,i
Y . 1, ' ,i6o •"
1 ■, I - . .
1 .$,, , • b.
II I ...
•• - „__ - - ___ 7 ,
■ , ,- __,,, , I 1 vr
, ..
. ,.
:... 11 '',._,
, - -, , . 1 , •-: 1
,,
II i) ..4 Ea5.
g 1 ;•=d .)
.,
iiminuio-- ,. m 0
"...._ ' -- -- ''' ' ' --''. .^ '' ' a _,P' ,o, . ' ,._- j • # -
i
, ai-
._ ,,..
.1
$
06 14 11
--
.1--- Lift One Lodge Final PUD r:4
30
6/14/2011
The Mountain: Slope
. + 0 \�
, � 4 ... - ) ^\() ��0<
! — C ...'d —.. yR
` I
I
t i p ple j., <t . , ;11111
14 Ob. 14.11
JOSS CI Lift One Lodge Final PUD fr,
The Mountain: Slope
Grand Hyatt St. Regis
i
. A
e r
M ountain
\; Chalet
,, ,..,, \ 06.14.11
JOSS En Lift One Lodge Final PUD 02
31
6/14/2011
•
Model Review
. __
,,.., -,,,,,,,..,„,1 _ , . , , -,...,..... ,._._--._," _. ;ni_____
r •
W AGE, ! '; � F�.�, IT 1
1 7 Y' Ub.14.11
FOSS GI Lift One Lodge Final PUD ra
The Future
HOC ,,\ � �,
m / �
r 1
N 0
4 hjNaO �".1 \ ■
O
\ 0/. \ '0
You can't see the future by only
looking in your rear view mirror
06. 14.11
i rj " ' Lift One Lodge Final PUD 03
32
6/14/2011
The Future
di , I. ,
4 _ —
• \. -1 it
si
v
4 i 4 -
r l■
_ _ _
I .
, ,i ..
;i rk- . jam , ,
lam s.;t
. _ ....... 06.14.11
JOSS CI Lift One Lodge Final PUD 03
I
The Future: Sustainability
Humanity has the ability to `
make development sustainable � .t i .i
to ensure that it meets the .../�1.
needs of the present without
compromising the ability of
future generations to meet
their own needs.
i PEN B Vi � -0;- h N. :..,-
r.' t GOVer7107'S
> > 'a - Energy Off
RESORT COMMON ;� r i
w,
C QUNC‘
4
*
0 ") l
Sustainability
On Of ASPEN
CANARY INMAiIVE
06.14.11
JOSS �" Lift One Lodge Final PUD 66
33
6/14/2011
c,i ,ti T 1 pi., The Future: Sustainability N a°,
O .,
•
� � ' � ' ' o A • Redevelopment of infill site °, �N c.\\- ,
Of
d � I
• Repurposing existing structures
SKIING EEING • Ground Source Heat Pump System
• LEED Gold
• Commissioning, Measurement &
Verification
Economic
• Green Roofs
06.14.11
JOSS ® Lift One Lodge Final PUD
Realization of Goals
Get There Do There Fit There
Pedestrian Apres Ski Gathering Adaptive Reuse
Improvements Place
Connect to Transit Public Restaurant Sustainable Design
Street Improvements Public Ski Lockers Character Honors Past
& Looks to Future
Safe Public Parking Lodging: Hot Beds Massing Follows Slope
Dedicated Ski Access Historical Society View & Ski Corridor
Museum
Deane Street Ski Walk On -Site Affordable Onsite AH
Housing
Improved Emergency Park Improvements Pedestrian Access
Access
06.14.11
POSS ® Lift One Lodge Final PUD
34
6/14/2011
Next Steps
Other Questions?
Next Meeting- Standards and Staff
Recommendations
1
1�i I - A
1^ 1 t
j. �.ti -.� t t S yY ' _
_ / � i�
I \ ofig Y /
t if or
06.14.
pOSS Lift One Lodge Final PUD 69
Honoring Aspen's Past
Embracing Aspen's Future
Lift One Lodge Final PUD
06.14.11
70
35
EXHIBIT �{�
1 � Y ►{
All photographs were taken at the June 14, 2011 Lift One Lodge public hearing with the Planning
and Zoning Commission. The meeting was held in Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S Galena St.,
Aspen, CO 81611 at 4:30 p.m.
MI Pel
F
IIIIV _.
Image 1
1
■
. 1 4110
r
1G
1
1 mage 2
.._ -.,, ..11 —. •
., .,
4 /1
1 R.
. ,...i...._-:.ek-FH,4-......c.
,.,-...,-- ....
.„..
4:-
If,' ' - .. • 4 , ,- .,,
.,.
. ,.
;• ,.
' ., •
! J
. 4. , .., v
. ,.
.-t. , ..,:,-, + -- ' - • • . ' • 1 VI 1 ' .....-!.
il ...
' ..: , . ... . .
,., , il"..:j . 7.5 , 1.7.riLl 1. .:, , •-:,::: ,
_..
.
f5=' :.
-1
• 1
■;., t.
ft";
at
1111;.1.A2 ]‘
. ,
' --,-.
. •
. .
. it..'% '-' • ::,-
ii
r -,i f•N -
l
i!.,.
-....,_,..-,.,...... 1-..„1:-..
„... .,..
. _
..,..
-1 , .„: .,,;. _ ,..,_ - ,
'
. ., ... ,. ' • ;
. , .
7: ' 1 "
A
V ,
,.... . il . .
Mi
. •
,..
...
Image 4
3 ! F
•
■
Image 5
r r
N