The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.400 E Dean St.1988-PD-01.-I 1400 5 *becAB 4# ase: AM-?Â©- 1 Â¢,A-z_ c'<Ltu- V+04Â£/ QUQ/,-04"4/8 - -.li 4.0- 01&14-_ CO.*:1 9-0.0 99Â» i , - Y *tivyÂ£#1 /k ~ 17--= P U - 4. ./.:.~'F.:'13#:48_. I HADID October 4, 1988 OCT - 4 1988 Aspen 1 Holdings, Inc. Alan Richman Planning Director City of Aspen 130 So. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan: I am in receipt of your letter of September 30 regarding the Blue Spruce site foundation permit. I understand your position, and apologize for the confusion on everyone's part. The only issue in your letter which needs correcting is your reference to completion of foundation work by March 1, 1989 for Hotel Phase I. The PUD Agreement states that the foundation work will be completed on or after march 1, 1989. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Perry A. Harvey, Director HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC. CC: Bob Hughes 600 East Cooper Street Suite 200 Aspen Colorado 81611 (303) 925-4272 FAX: (303) 925-4387 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Rob Weien, Building Department FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office ~~ RE: Ritz-Carlton Hotel DATE: October 1, 1988 I have completed my review of the plans submitted with respect to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. At this time, I am able to issue a certificate of zoning compliance for the purposes of issuing a foundation permit only to this project. My review of the foundation permit drawings has been limited to determining compliance of the project's building footprint, including setbacks and open space, with its approved PUD/Subdivision Plat. I have also looked at the elevations and floor plans to determine that they generally comply with the plat. I have not, however, done a detailed review of the elevations and floor plans to determine compliance with FAR, height and other zoning limitations. Therefore, I am only signing off on the building footprint in issuing the certificate. Conditions upon which this certificate are based include: 1. The applicant owes a fee to the Planning Office for the land use review. A check in the amount of $14,067.50 must be paid to this office before the permit is issued. 2. The First Amended PUD/Subdivision Plat and Agreement must be modified to address those items which I have "red-lined" and must be signed and recorded. 3. Jay Hammond, City Engineer, requests that specific plans and specifications for sidewalk, curb, gutter, lighting and landscaping be submitted for his approval prior to permit issuance for any construction in the public right-of-way. 4. A final Zoning compliance check must be performed by the Planning and Zoning Office, to determine compliance with the approved height, floor area and all other zoning limitations not approved herein, prior to the issuance of the next sequential permit for the project to build above grade. Please do not issue a permit until you have verified with me that items 1 and 2 are complete. Please make sure that items 3 and 4 become conditions of the permit. Please call me if you have any questions. ritzfoundcomply Cut 1 ill tii/tr 7% :,cr\,0\1 "We'll approve your plans if you'll agree not to build the project." (Cartoon: From AE Concepts in Wood Design. Â© 1980 AWPI. Reprinted with permission) - I. T d /7 *429~*.3.r,<f , .d'*416 .3 191'' 9. 31 Aspen/Pitki*%Plrin:ning Office â‚¬,1.2.haftij"4%Â·ff:.1.14,;9,2 130 so*thifgfilin#kstreet ~' ' aspeti>coloradd 81611 .,7.).2 ,Â·*0. 4- September 30, 1988 Mr. Perry Harvey Hadid Aspen Holdings 600 East Cooper, Suite 200 Aspen, Co., 81611 Dear Perry, It has come to my attention that the application submitted to obtain a foundation permit for the Ritz-Carlton Hotel does not contain plans for the so-called "Blue Spruce" site. In the First Amended and Restated PUD Agreement for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision, you have agreed to obtain a foundation permit for Hotel Phase I and to complete the foundation work by March 1, 1989. The apparent inconsistency between these two facts is cause for concern and is the reason for my writing this letter. You have represented to me that you met with the Building Department to inform them that you did not intend to submit plans for the Blue Spruce site and that they approved of this approach. In a conversation today with Rob Weien of the Building Department, I was instead informed that their comments to you were limited to Building Code discussions and in no way indicated compliance with the City's Zoning Regulations. After consulting with the City Attorney and City Manager, I conclude that you have relied for some time on the information provided by the Building Department. I believe that if we had notified you of this problem in a timely manner you would have corrected it, but since we did not, you are unable to cure it within the time limits of the PUD Agreement. I also acknowledge your position that because the units on the Blue Spruce site can be viewed as "replacement units" and not GMQS allotments , the October 3 deadline should not be controlling. Therefore, it is my decision that this situation will not prevent the foundation permit from being issued, subject to the condition that a foundation permit must be obtained for the Blue Spruce site within 45 days of October 3, this being by 5 P.M., November 18. Perry, I think you have worked with the City long enough to realize that it is unacceptable for project representatives to meet with the Building Department and then not inform the Planning Office Of determinations which might affect representations being made in the land use review process. Please recall that last spring's arguments as to the meaning of an excavation versus a foundation permit were also the result of decisions reached with the Building Department which were not confirmed by the Planning Office or City Attorney. Since we did not follow-up the prior situation with specific direction to you, I now put you on notice that you cannot rely on any conversation with the Building Department to determine Zoning Code issues. If, in the future, you neglect to inform us of decisions you reach with the Building Department, no reliance will be assumed by this office. Please let me know if you would like to discuss these matters further. Sincerely, Alan Richman Planning Director CC: Bob Anderson, City Manager Fred Gannett, City Attorney Ron Mitchell, Deputy City Manager Bob Gish, Chief Building Official perryltr929 / it r MEMORANDUM OCT - 3 1988 TO: 'llag Richman. Planning Directod FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineer...~..6Â·~~-- DATE: September 29, 1988 RE: Aspen Mountain Subdivision P.U.D., First Amended Plat Having reviewed the above plat and restated subdivision agreement, I would offer several comments. The following are in no particular order and are produced somewhat in haste. 1. I would generally note the inconsistency of the drawing indices as submitted to this office. Architectural sheets are not numbered in conjunction with the index and comprise 32 sheets rather than the 27 sheets indicated. I further note the need to "fill in the blanks" on various sheets to reference previous ordinances and recordations. 2. Also as a general comment, I observe several items related to parcels not yet approved for any development including: a. The indication on sheet 3/7 that existing utility easements on Lot 3 are "to be relocated." b. The design for "proposed lot 6" showing a curb extension into Durant. c. The site plan for lot 5 showing private parking in the Galena right-of-way. The plat makes some notes that represent that the designs shown for these areas are not approved and are shown for "illustrative purposes only." We would strongly reinforce that fact and suggest the further inclusion of such language on sheet two, perhaps in the City Council approval language. Lots for which approvals have not been granted include lot 3, 5 and proposed 6. 3. The plat set makes little attempt to specify the design of streetscape improvements on the project frontages in keeping with improvements constructed this Summer in the district to the south. I request notes on the various site grading plans indicating that specific plans and specifications for sidewalk, curb, gutter, lighting and landscaping within the rights-of-way will be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to permit issuance for any construction in the public way. By way of example, the various site plans show a variety of curb . Page Two Aspen Mountain Subdivision P.U.D., First Amended Plat September 29, 1988 extension designs none of which is entirely acceptable. While this office generally accepts the concept of curb extensions, we reserve the right to specifically approve their design in the future. The "sharp angle" designs shown are not acceptable. Grade differences at Galena Place may require railings. 4. The architectural elevations for the Dean Street bridge continue to indicate a 28 foot span between the piers. This clearance appears unchanged from prior work. The south pier was to be moved 2 feet south to better accommodate turning radii. 5. With regard to the revised agreement, the financial assurances for Galena Place (p. 33 and 34) include changed figures that I need back-up on. I believe the dollar amounts are lower due to the exclusion of guarantees for the excavation. JH/co/Memo127.88 cc: Chuck Roth ASPEN~PITK~1 REGIONAL BUIL-.NG DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Ron Mitchell ~-/8 (~1, 11~ FROM: Bob Gish VÂ¢fe RE: Ritz Carlton Hotel DATE: September 28, 1988 As per our earlier conversations, the Building Department has completed our plan review on the foundation drawings for the Ritz Carlton project. We will require additional information on the soils report to clarify and confirm the allowable soil bearing pressures. This will be a condition on the building permit approval. I talked to Alan Richman this morning and he has problems with the zoning approval. I left it with Alan that we are available at any time to discuss and or issue the permit. RFG:10 â€¢t.cc:~Alai Richman '4%*rer,- 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 September 14, 1988 Mr. Perry Harvey Hadid Aspen Holdings 600 E. Cooper Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Perry, This letter is to inform you that we have calculated the amount owed to the City of Aspen by Hadid Aspen Holdings due to the review of the Hotel Phase I, Galena Place and Summit Place Land Use Applications. Following is a summary of the bill you owe. 1. Hotel Phase I: Applicant paid for 11.5 hours, hours spent by Alan Richman from January thru September, 1988 were 154.5; therefore applicant owes for 143 hours at $85 per hour, for a total due of $12,155. (note: you can ignore the June partial bill for $6,800 which was provided to you as this cost is included in the above total project cost.) 2. Galena Place and Summit Place: You have previously been provided an itemized bill stating that the amount due is $1,912.50. The total amount currently due for your projects is therefore $14,067.50. This amount must be paid prior to October 3, 1988 in order for us to issue a zoning compliance statement to the Chief Building Official for the requested foundation permit. Please let me know if you have any questions or require further documentation before you remit this amount. Sincerely, Alan Richman Planning Director . P - Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 6, 1988 Mayor Stirling called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmember Tuite and Isaac present. ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE PUD AMENDMENTS Mayor Stirling said Council is going to go over the amended PUD agreement, to determine whether this project should be exempted from Ordinance #31, the demolition moratorium, and decide issues of recording the plat, the foundation permit and what period of time will be required for an extension to accomplish this so the final amendment will be in place. Mayor Stirling said Council will then discuss the two ballot issues for the October 11, 1988, election; the initiated petition and the potential land trade on the Thomas property for employee housing. Mayor Stirling said he was disturbed by the decision made by the HPC to move the "Berko" house. Mayor Stirling proposed a joint work session with HPC, P&Z and planning staff to discuss some issues that have been raised. Councilman Isaac asked if there is a mechanism to change the HPC decision. Mayor Stirling said the HPC would have to do this internally. Alan Richman, planning director, told Council the majority of P&Z member expressed the same sentiment and could not believe there was no recourse to the HPC decision. The P&Zis interested in learning was can be determined from this process and what can be done about the process. Council requested staff select some proposed dates for a study session. Mayor Stirling asked if staff got clear enough direction from Council on Ordinance #31. Richman said he has put together the public hearing notice. A lot of ideas and solutions will evolve out of the public hearing process (Councilwoman Fallin came into Council Chambers). Mayor Stirling said this is an opportunity to deal with issues of density, GMP issues related to employee housing. The code does not allow the flexibility that the town may need. (Councilman Gassman came into Council Chambers). City Manager Bob Anderson told Council the school board would like to meet jointly with Council and the BOCC. Anderson suggested starting the scheduled meeting September 19th at 4 p.m. The school board would like to discuss school locations and other issues. This meeting is scheduled to hear from COG. Mayor Stirling said at the last meeting the applicant gave the Ute City Place to be included in the housing plan for phase one of the Ritz Carlton. Mayor Stirling said after the audit is done in two years, the Ute City Place will not be credited to future development. Mayor Stirling said this is a tremendous contribu- tion and is 20 percent beyond what is required under the existing 1 1 T. 7 If <. SFP 2 0 198Â¤ 1 1 '\ r U Ll L _.. _- -= - Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 6, 1988 employee housing regulations. Mayor Stirling acknowledged the response to the employee housing problems in town. Alan Richman, planning director, told Council staff has gone over the PUD agreement and has made many changes. Richman said staff feels comfortable with the agreement. The commitments and representations that have been made through the process are included in the PUD agreement and adequately represent the requirements that should be placed on the project. Richman said the first issue touches on extension of this approval process. Richman pointed out page 6 of the agreement establishes a detailed project construction schedule. The agreement calls for a date by which the applicant shall complete submission and obtain a sequential, i.e. foundation permit. Richman said the applicants have suggested they will be completed by October 3, 1988. Richman said this is a reasonable date for staff to have completed review of the agreement, the plats and to go through foundation review. Richman said there is no possibility this can be completed by September 12. Perry Harvey, representing the applicant, told Council they should have the plats in to staff tomorrow. Harvey said he is a little concerned about the October 3 date because the city has a new chief building inspector and the assistant is on vacation. Harvey told Council staff has been excellent in the timeliness of their response and review. Harvey said the applicants can meet what they need to do for the October 3 deadline. Richman said staff can commit to meeting to October 3 deadline. Councilman Isaac moved to extend the date to October 3 for completion of the review of the foundation permit and whatever else needs to be done; seconded by Councilman Tuite. City Manager Bob Anderson said there has been some contention as to what a building permit means under the law. Anderson asked if staff has reviewed the term "sequential building permit" and is comfortable with this phrase. Richman said staff is comfortable this does not relieve the problem of the continuous process versus the series of incremental permits. Richman said staff has been looking at this as a series of permits. Mayor Stirling said he would hate to have to do another extension and would like this date to be realistic. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Gassman and Mayor Stirling. Motion carried. Richman said in the previous agreement there was a table to indicate approximately when construction would begin and end but it gave the owner the ability to start earlier and end later. Richman said this section tried to be more specific about how 2 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 6, 1988 the phasing would occur. The foundation work will begin after October 1st and will be completed on or about March 1, 1989. Structural work will take place over the next 3 months to the summer of 1989. Exterior facade erection and interior finish will take the project into the remainder of 1989. Richman said these dates are not binding but are to give the city an indica- tion of the phasing and the length of the process. Richman said starting on page 8 there is language which tracks from the prior PUD agreement recognizing all the details of the construction, like barri-cades and entrances, authorizes the city engineer and building inspector to be in charge of those details. There is language stating the staff needs to keep in mind the disruptive activities should be scheduled to minimize activities on adjacent property owners. John Sarpa, representing the applicant, suggested this page also state October 3 for consis- tency. Harvey said this page said he would like to clarify the last sentence to read "structural erection above grade". Mayor Stirling asked the difference between fast track building permit and sequential building permit. Richman said fast track is the colloquial term used in the building department. It is the process when the city has not seen the plan for all phases of construction and an earlier permit is being issued. Anderson told Council there is nothing technically called a fast track building permit; it is taking advantage of the code which allows the sequencing to move along. Harvey said the permit process has already been split, and they wanted to keep that going. Mayor Stirling suggested the term should be sequential throughout the agreement. Council agreed. Councilman Isaac said page 7 discusses Summit Place and Galena place gives the dates of October 1, 1988, for construction to 1 start and completion on or after October 1989. Councilman Isaac said this is not very precise. Harvey said the applicants do not know when these projects will be built. Councilman Isaac asked when the approvals for these projects expire. Richman told Council once these projects receive their building permits, they are under the UBC for expiration, which has to do with a certain amount of progress every 180 days. Harvey said the applicants are concerned about access to Summit Place during construction of the Ritz. Harvey said this agreement acknowledgs that upon submission of a building permit, detailed construction will come in. Richman said these are not large projects and there is not a lot to be learned from being more detailed. Councilman Isaac said he would like a cut off date that these projects would have to come back to the city for another permit. Richman said Galena Place is a growth management project, and they need to have their building permit approved in the next year. Summit Place is reconstruction credits. Richman said the dates are in 3 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 6, 1988 the agreement to put the city on notice for planning purposes. Richman said he is comfortable with the language the way it is. Richman said page 9 sections are the descriptions of the six aspects of the PUD. Page 9 points out the limitations estab- lished in Resolution #11 for number of units and FAR. This also refers specifically to a plat, which will have the elevations as part of the plat document. Richman said pages 10 and 11 are the basic utility, public improvement program associated with phase one. Page 12 has to do with reopening South Mill and guaranteeing it will be open on or before September 1, 1988. The applicant has specified the manner in which it will be open and the way it will be reconstructed and repaved. Richman said the language on pages 13 and 14 on landscaping is from the code and the prior agreement and includes financial assurances. Richman told Council the financial assurances that have already been provided deal with public improvements. These are not assurances that the hotel will be built or that any aspect of the private improvements will be built. These are assurances that the utilities will be in place, the landscaping will be done. Richman said the costs were estimated and the bonds secured before excavation started in April. Richman told Council he noticed that the landscaping was only guaranteed to 100 percent; both the old Code and new Code requires this be 125 percent of the costs. The reason for this is to have money available for replacement. 25 percent above the 100 percent is held by the city for 2 years to cover replacement costs. For public utilities, the city holds 10 percent until one year after the improvements are in place. Richman said because the landsca- ping is increased to 125 percent, additional security will need to be posted by the applicant. Richman said there are some items that were not listed for financial security, and these two will increase the amount of the bond the city is holding. Richman said an item added was guaranteeing the paving of Dean street. Mayor Stirling asked how much the applicant will be posting above the $1,228,000. Harvey said the landscaping is $400,000; an additional 25 percent will be $100,000. Harvey said it is his understanding that the paving on Dean street is an on-site improvement, not an off-site improvement because the street was vacated, and it was not required to be guaranteed. Jay Hammond, city engineer, told Council the rationale for considering Dean street as an item of guarantee is that the city reserved this for pedestrian and emergency access. This should be guaranteed to a basic city standard. 4 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 6, 1988 Councilman Isaac asked if any of the public improvements have been started. Harvey said the applicants have completed about $95,000 for the 12 inch water main on Galena, which was put in in conjunction with the improvement district. Next week the applicants will start work on the storm sewer. Harvey told Council there has been over $500,000 of undergrounding work done. Harvey said there will be $828,000 for off-site improvements and $500,000 to guarantee 125 percent of landscape improvements. Mayor Stirling asked where things stand with loan commitments. Sarpa said the applicants are working through selection of a lender with Morgan Stanley. Specific loan provisions have been offered, and the applicants are negotiating these terms. Sarpa said a bank will want to know that the official zoning process is complete before any disbursements are made. Sarpa said it will take another 3 or 4 months until there is a closed loan. Sarpa said the applicants are prepared to move forward immediately. If they can obtain the foundation permit, they will move toward the next phase. Mayor Stirling asked if the applicants are involved in a project in Scottsdale. Sarpa said they are. Mayor Stirling said he had contact with a realty group in Mesa, Arizona, who indicated that the loans were in default. Mayor Stirling said he talked to Meribank also and there was some difficultly with the city of Scottsdale and the golf course. Sarpa said there was no techni- cal default. There were extensive interactions with golf course design, hotel and residential designs. The process took longer than anticipated. Sarpa said the project was acquired by them at a time when it was running out of time. Sarpa said they brought Ritz in. Sarpa told Council Hadid Development Company has never had a default, never had a foreclosure from a bank. Sarpa said the hotel in Scottsdale is about 300 rooms; Ritz feels if they are to be successful there, they have to rely on group business. Mayor Stirling asked if the applicants have financing in place for that project. Sarpa said they do not; that project is months behind the one in Aspen. Richman pointed out on page 16 the paragraph that starts, "Any time and from time to time", this is a provision that allows the owner to substitute the form of the financial guarantee from one form to another as long as that form meets the requirements of the code. Mayor Stirling asked if the code requires Council approval. Taddune said the code requires that the city attorney approve it as to form as well as the city manager. Taddune said this has been referred to the Council as information items. Councilwoman Fallin moved to add the words, "and with Council approval"; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. 5 Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council September 6, 1988 Richman told Council the applicants posted $650,000 for the excavation of the hotel site. This is separate from the $1,228,000. The owner is requesting when a foundation permit is issued and construction begins on the foundation that they will have the right to obtain that $650,000 back. Richman said this language was anticipated in the escrow instructions associated with the $650,000. Richman said he is concerned that the construction work will stop and not commence again and the city is without protection to fill that hole back up. Richman suggested until this project is above grade, that the city retains the money. Council agreed. Sarpa told Council this was not required as part of the PUD or the Code at the time. Sarpa said it was suggested by staff that the applicants might make a gesture to the city about protecting it. As part of these negotiations, it was committed that the $650,000 would be posted until the foundation permit was pulled. This is how the current escrow agreement reads. This was confirmed in resolution #11. Sarpa said this is a change in the original agreement. Sarpa said the applicants recognize staff has a valid point. The applicants would like to address that gap. Sarpa said there are questions about the 4 or 5 month period if the applicants get a foundation permit, how far does this go until permanent financing is in place, and what happens if permanent financing takes longer. Sarpa said it is difficult for the applicants to get a partial bond. The applicants will have in place a guarantee from the contractor to do that portion of the work. The applicants will be willing to commit to building up to grade so the city's risk is nothing more than filling the hole. The applicants will only come up to grade until they have full and permanent financing in place. Harvey said if the applicants get a bridge loan to do the foundation, they want to assure the city they would not do just that work. Sarpa said the applicants will leave the $650,000 guarantee in place through that period. The applicants will agree to amend the escrow agreement to bring the construction to grade. Council agreed with that amendment. Sarpa said in consideration for the 25 percent on top of the total $1,800,000 the applicants currently have posted, they would like to be able to use some of that $650,000 to offset that extra 25 percent. Sarpa said when the city finds that they do not need the $650,000 in place, the applicants could use that to cover the 125 percent for landscaping. Mayor Stirling said that seems fair. Richman said he has no problem with that and will add it to the agreement. 6 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council . September 6, 1988 Richman said the next section on page 18 is employee housing. The commitment is to 198.5 employees; 161.5 that are required plus the 37 at Ute City Place. Harvey said the commitment is to provide 161.5; the applicants are providing 198.5. The PUD agreement is all right as stated. Richman said the agreement goes through all the employee housing components as described in the original agreement. The units at the Grand Aspen are new, and the Ute City Place is back into the agreement. Mayor Stirling asked if there is any intention to upgrade the Alpina Haus or Copper Horse. Harvey said in the prior PUD there was inspection by the building department with upgrades required. These have all been accomplished with the exception of one exit stairway at the Alpina Haus. Harvey told Council at the time these are required for housing, the applicants will look at the properties to see what is required. Sarpa said the applicants do not own these properties and part of the problem is the extent of making investments on behalf of another owner. These are deed restricted and the applicants have the requisite to maintain them at certain levels. Saul Barnett asked what the employee housing requirement is and how it differs from the Roberts PUD phase one. Richman said during this amendment process, the staff recalculated the employee housing requirements based on the current program for this project, looking at hotel rooms, residential units and commercial space. Richman said the restaurants space in the Ritz is significantly less than in the Roberts program. This reduced the employee housing generation significantly. Richman said when the applicants went to P & Z, they did not have to replace the Ute City Place because the employee generation was much lower. Ute City Place has been re-introduced, although not required. Barnett said the total number of employees housed under the Roberts PUD is less than in this agreement and how much less is it. Harvey said it is a matter of a few employees. The appli- cants have reduced phase two by 105 hotel rooms so there should be a decline in the impact of phases one and two. Mary Martin asked how many employee units were required of the Ski Company hotel and the Hotel Jerome. Richman said 7 units were required for Little Nell and 19 employees at the Hotel Jerome. Ms. Martin asked why there is such a wide discrepancy. Richman said the Hotel Jerome was not under the growth management system but under exemption for a historic structure. Richman said today a project like that would be required to provide substantially more housing. The Little Nell project is much smaller. The applicants did an analysis of employees required, which was presented to the staff and it was accepted as reason- able. The Skiing Company's commitment was to provide 35 percent 7 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 6, 1988 of employees generated, which was the minimum at the time. The requirement is now 60. This applicant was required to meet the 35 percent, and they provided 60 percent. Richman pointed out page 20 of the agreement. Richman said this is the first time there is a major off-site development of employee housing going along with a new development project. Richman told Council the owner suggested language that if Ute City Place is started but not completed, they want to be able to obtain a c/o on the Ritz. The applicant is providing rooms at the Grand Aspen as security to be provided as employee housing. Richman said the agreement recognizes that the applicants has not closed on Ute City Place yet and is not able to file the deed restrictions. Richman said page 24 refers to the audit and the language is as positive as it can be for the city's interest. This recognizes that 198.5 employees are being provided with housing. Richman said the city talked about if the audit shows there were less employees than were being provided with housing, the owner would receive a credit. Richman said he assumed the credit would come in at less than 161.5 employees and Ute City Place will never provide the owner with any additional credit. Richman said the language is written if there are more employees than 198.5, the owner is required to provide for 60 percent of those employees. If the requirement goes below that, the employee units remain as they are. Richman said the applicants have gone beyond what their earlier commitment was during the review process. Richman said he is pleased with the language in this section. The applicants have also agreed that the auditors can be chosen by the housing authority. Councilman Isaac brought up the issue of smaller parking places. Harvey told Council the applicants are initiating a code amend- ment on that. Richman said staff preferred not to have this addressed in the agreement but to indicate the city is encoura- ging a code amendment. Harvey told Council the applicants submitted a parking plan showing 220 full size parking spaces so they are meeting the terms of the agreement. Richman pointed out on page 36 regarding phase two, the commit- ments made earlier regarding the number of rooms and the square footage is committed to. Councilwoman Fallin said if ownership for phase two changes, does this PUD run with the land and not the owner. Gannett said the agreement runs with the land. Hughes said anyone who buys this property, buys lots with these constraints. Richman said most of the language regarding phase two is premature; answers of financial, housing and site improve- ments are not known. 8 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 6, 1988 Richman said page 38 identifies the requirements for the proposed ice rink and addresses the rezoning. This clarifies that the owner will apply for rezoning within 90 after receiving the full building permit for phase one or no later than April 1, 1989. If by April 1, the owner has not fulfilled his obligation, the planning office will initiate that rezoning. The applicants have agreed to pay for administrative costs. Richman brought up #3 on page 41 has new language regarding demolition of the Grand Aspen hotel. The applicants have agreed to demolish the Grand Aspen within 3 years of the date of the c/o on the Ritz. Richman said the agreement says if the owner has not demolished and the city sees fit, the city can demolish and the applicant will pay for it. Richman reminded Council at the last meeting, they wanted to look at the automobile disincentives, particularly as they applied to employee housing, and audit them at the same time when the employee housing audit takes place. This is addressed on page 42. Richman said #9 is the commitment towards the Aspen Ski Club replacement building and has not changed from the last agreement. Richman said #10 on page 43 is the commitment to fund $250,000 towards drainage improvements, including drainage study and obtaining easements. The language has to do with how the city can draw down on that money. Taddune said there is a notice and provision section in this language, if the city engineers intends to draw down for specific purpose and the applicants do not think it is within the spirit of the plan, it goes to Council for resolution. Jay Hammond, city engineer, told Council the city will not begin a study until spring or summer of 1989. Council agreed to put April 1, 1989, in the agreement. Richman said page 46 replaces the original language regarding the old lodge improvement district. This language commits the owner to provide improvements which correspond to the improvements being built on South Galena and South Mill and to construct one portion of those improvements with money the district is transf- erring back to the applicant. The language needs to tightened up so that the improvements are completed. Taddune said there should be a schedule indicating that the applicants are commit- ting to certain level of improvements. Hammond said he has this in the form of a deduct change order from the contractor, which would be the appropriate exhibit to this agreement. Richman said page 48, reconstruction, is a repetition of the earlier agreement. This refers to schedule 8 of the attachments. Richman told Council there are 275 hotel units and 42 residential units that either have been or are intended to be reconstructed during the course of the PUD construction schedule. Richman reminded Council the code sets a 5 year time table from which 9 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 6, 1988 demolition occurs to when reconstruction can occur to make sure that there is not construction unanticipated by the city and service shortfalls occur. Richman said 116 previously demolished are mostly Blue Spruce and Aspen Inn units. Many of the residential units still stand. Some of the residential units have been demolished more than 5 years ago, and this was extended by Council in an earlier process. The applicant is asking for a 5 year period of reconstruction of the hotel units commencing on the date of recordation. Richman said he fails to see the need for this because once a foundation permit is obtained for reconstruction, these units are vested and the reconstruction provision of the code is irrelevant. Richman said some of the residential units may not be demolished for several years. Richman said he can see the rationale for paragraph (b) but not for paragraph (a). Richman reminded Council the demolition of the Grand Aspen is scheduled for 3 years after the c/o on the Ritz. Harvey said when the applicants install the park, they will tear down the units. The applicants want to tie the reconstruction of those to the demolition permit on the Grand Aspen. Harvey said these date should jive. Harvey said there are people living in units where the park will be. Mayor Stirling said the time for the hotel units is too long. Mayor Stirling suggested substitut- ing the 5 year period for 2 years after demolition of the Grand Aspen. Richman said for the lodge units, the code covers the issue and it does not need to be addressed in this agreement. For the residential units, the applicants are asking for some- thing that goes beyond the length of the code. Richman recom- mended deleting paragraph (a). Richman said the reconstruction units will all be used in the development of the Ritz. Harvey said the applicants want some verification that these are existing units because it corresponds with the growth management allotment. Richman said this update verifies these units. Council agreed to delete (a) and makes (b) (a), leaving it as it reads. There will be a schedule 9 attachment. Richman said staff needs to verify the park dedication fees; this will be done at the foundation permit stage. Councilman Tuite moved to direct staff to make the changes on the PUD agreement and bring the final corrections to the September 12 meeting; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Harvey said the applicants have requested to be exempt from Ordinance #31, the demolition moratorium. Harvey told Council the PUD agreement is an integrally related agreement and each portion relates to another. The applicants are required to process submission on phase two and the ice rink. The applicants 10 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 6, 1988 have made agreement on the employee housing units. Harvey pointed much of the acceptance and negotiations by the applicants has been on reliance that for the applicants to look at a new set of rules, throws the negotiations into limbo. Harvey said the essence of the administrative delay is to examine and create a reconstruction requirement and on-site requirement for sub- division. Harvey noted the applicants have a reconstruction requirement in the overall employee housing schedule for 161.5 employees. Councilman Isaac moved to exempt the Aspen Mountain PUD from the administrative delay of Ordinance #31; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Mayor Stirling said Council tried to establish criteria for the exemptions heard last week. Mayor Stirling said he feels this project meets the threshold and it would be fair to grant an exemption. All in favor, motion carried. Saul Barnett said in the PUD agreement there are a significant number of items to be done by the applicant following construe- tion and an issuance of certificate of occupancy of phase one. Barnett asked what is the city's position if things that are supposed to occur do not and what remedies does the city have. Richman said the city has tried to collateralize some of the requirements like demolition of the Grand Aspen, provision of housing at Ute City Place. Richman told Council staff spent a lot of time on these commitments. Barnett said he would like to be sure there are remedies the city has and that whatever assurances are given are adequately secured. Richman said the ultimate remedy is not to permit occupancy of the building if the conditions of the PUD agreement are not met. Barnett said if the city wants to collateralize this, perhaps they should have a mortgage on the property to secure the financial obligations. Sarpa said the applicants have spent an inordinate amount of time looking at all the assurances. Sarpa said the assurances in the agreement and those already done are very strong. Barnett said when he ready the Roberts agreement, he was not sure there is any effective enforcement the city has to make sure that the require- ments that are supposed to be accomplished after phase one is completed are anything other than the right to sue the applicant for damages under a breach of contract. Hughes pointed out this is a five-lot planned unit development. The city does have some approvals they can withhold from the applicants. Hughes said the applicant cannot walk away from the remaining 4 lots of the PUD. 11 Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council September 6, 1988 Paul Hamwi said if the city spends money or performs work on property owned by someone else, they would have some lien right. Taddune said the agreement could be amended to provide for lien right that would be superior to any existing financing. Hamwi said this would mean a lending institution would be taking a second position. Taddune said this would require that the financier would have to satisfy the condition in order to maintain a security interest. Sarpa told Council the applicants plan to make as part of the construction loan a line item of the financial assurances already given. Taddune ask if the lender would commit to the city. Sarpa said this is asking the appl- icant to increase the funding for the project. Hughes said the city can always withdraw the c/o on the Ritz. Richman told Council he will present a resolution for Council's action on the September 12 meeting. RESOLUTION #28, SERIES OF 1988 - Special Election Ballot Ques- tions Fred Gannett, city attorney's officer told Council he tried to put in language that was more neutral that addressed the concept of what this question deals with. Gannett said the inserted language has the Ritz Carlton in it. Councilwoman Fallin said she does not like the language. Councilwoman Fallin said this question should be a separate issue and not a yes or no vote specifically on the Ritz Carlton. The question carries an implication for land use that is far beyond what happens with the Ritz. Councilwoman Fallin said she feels the question should be on the ballot without any editorial comment. Councilwoman Fallin said it is up to both sides to campaign prior to the election to make their case before the election. John Sarpa told Council the reason they suggested this language was that after the petition was circulated the applicant had a lot of people comment that they were confused and did not under- stand what it's impact is. Sarpa said this is a confusing ballot and there were attempting to clarify its impact. Mayor Stirling said he does not like the idea of legislating by ballot except by electing the people who are elected to legislate. Mayor Stirling said this petition exemplifies that people are expressing a lack of confidence in the elected officials. Mayor Stirling said the people who circulated the petition feel time is of the essence. Mayor Stirling agreed this ballot issue has long term conse- quences for the city. Mayor Stirling said he does not support the additional language. Mayor Stirling moved to pass Resolution #28, striking the underlined portion in question #1; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. 12 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 6, 1988 Councilman Isaac stated he does not feel question #2 should have to go to the voters and this decision should be made by Council. Mayor Stirling amended his motion to not have the underlined language in question #1 and deal with the entire resolution separately; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. Mayor Stirling read the underlined language; "Said ordinance is intended to apply to all proposals within the Aspen city limits for hotels or other multi-family dwellings meeting the definition of a hotel for which approval may be or has been sought under the planned unit development limitations and guidelines of the Aspen Municipal Code, including the proposed Ritz Carlton hotel and ice rink and park". Mayor Stirling said this is a generic ordinance that deals with long range consequences. Mayor Stirling said it is inappropriate to put a separate paragraph in a generic ballot issue. Wainwright Dawson said if there is going to be an ordinance that came about because of the Ritz, then the Ritz should be in the question. Dawson said if this is going to be a generic ordi- nance, it should be a generic ordinance for the future and explain to the voters how it will effect the town and its future. Councilman Tuite asked what the city is going to do for the election. Councilman Tuite said he would like some explanation to the voters so that this is a coherent ballot issue. Mayor Stirling said the Council can determine what they want to do for the election. Councilman Isaac said the planning office was to give Council an analysis of what this will do to the land use code, the parcels effected and the ramifications. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Stirling said question #2 is a proposed ballot question to deal with the use of the western portion of lot 4 of the Thomas subdivision by the Aspen Valley hospital for employee housing. Fred Gannett, city attorney's office, said this piece of property is almost an island. Gannett told Council the Thomas property was purchased in 1972. The city is asking for a small piece to be sold or transferred to the hospital or the housing authority. The property is not deed restricted by sixth penny funds nor by use. This property was annexed in 1979 and was subdivided in 1982. This ballot is for one portion of lot 4. The third issue on the ballot is to ask that the right-of-way be replatted so that it conforms with the construction. Gannett said this is currently zoned public and will have to be rezoned to RMF. Councilwoman Fallin said she wants to make sure this gets public hearings. Walter Ganz, hospital board, pointed out this is a technical issue and would be hard to explain. This 13 4 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 6, 1988 is 1/3 of an acre. This is not land that was ever dedicated for public or park purposes. Ganz said the city has authority to transfer this land without going to a vote of the people. Mayor Stirling said the city recently had an election and asked for permission to transfer about 1/4 acre. The voters turned this down. Mayor Stirling said he is very sensitive to the issues of open space and feels it is prudent to ask the voter to dispose of land owned by the city. Ganz said this will not effect major issues of the community. Jane Ellen Hamilton, representing the hospital, reminded Council this is not a transfer to a private party but is something that is going to benefit the public. The units will be available to the public. Ms. Hamilton said this is not asking the city to give the property away but to work in conjunction with the hospital. Councilman Isaac said there will be public hearings on this project. The city will participate in the process. Councilman Isaac said the city is asking private businesses to take care of their housing needs yet the city is not addressing the needs of the city staff. Mayor Stirling said he never feels issues are too technical for the voters. Councilman Tuite said this is not going solely for the hospital; units will be available to the general employees. Councilwoman Fallin moved to adopt Resolution #28; seconded by Mayor Stirling. Councilwoman Fallin and Mayor Stirling in favor; Councilmembers Tuite, Gassman and Isaac opposed. Motion NOT carried. Councilman Gassman moved to adopt Resolution #28, Series of 1988, without questions 2 and 3; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman Fallin and Mayor Stirling. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. 20=Efuk-uu.~0 1 -20 U- Kathryn #. Koch, City Clerk 14 .i, 1-1164'. CITY+OFI _SPEN *Li $ 4'~Â·1â€¢Â·jiÂ¥Â¥.*b 130 AjahialfAAreet aspen 2% btora d.4 381611 303-925â‚¬20'20 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 26, 1988 TO: City Manager Building Department Water Department Housing Office FROM: Paul J. Taddune RE: Aspen Mountain Project: Restated and Amended PUD/Subdivision Agreement for Aspen Mountain Subdivision Forwarded herewith for your immediate review please find a copy of the "First Draft" of the Amended and Restated PUD/Subdivision Agreement presented by representatives for the Aspen Mountain Lodge Project. Given the controversy over this particular project, we request that you scrutinize all the provisions and provide us with comments no later than August 31. PJT/mc Attachment CC: Planning Director Engineering Department li [4 1.[ f l.ch ? 4 11 5 27 i-9 1-91 AUG 2 g 1988 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 1988 Mayor Stirling called the meeting to order at with Councilmembers Fallin, Isaac, and Tuite present. ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE PUD AMENDMENTS Mayor Stirling said Council needs to finish the last condition in the P&Z resolution, the last paragraph in the P&Z resolution about granting an extension to the project, and whether there has to be an ordinance to complete this process. Fred Gannett, city attorney's office, told Council their approval may be by motion, resolution or ordinance. Alan Richman, planning director, said staff will bring to Council the amended PUD agreement. Council may approve this either by motion or resolution. Richman said the terms of P& Z's resolution are embodied in the PUD agree- ment. Mayor Stirling said the purpose of an ordinance is to signal a public hearing. Mayor Stirling said he has opened this throughout the process of continued meetings so that the public was able to speak, but these meetings were technically not required to be public meetings. Mayor Stirling said there also is a memorandum received by Council from Joe Edwards. Richman told Council staff has received the PUD agreement, which establishes the condition of how the Ute City Place will be addressed. Richman told Council the applicant is committing that Ute City Place will be built and occupiable in conjunction of construction of phase one. The 37 employees are not being placed up against any required credit for the hotel. The 161.5 employees housed are required outside the Ute City Place. The language in the agreement speaks to if the audit should demons- trate the need for additional employees, then Ute City Place units may be used to accomplish the needed crediting. The agreement does not require that Ute City Place be the project used to credit. Perry Harvey, representing the applicant, said the applicants do not know if this project will be acceptable to the city or whether there would be other projects that might be needed. When the result of that audit comes in, the applicants will go through it with Council. Bob Hughes, representing the applicant, said if there is a shortfall in the audit, the applicants will be protected. The housing may come from that source or another source acceptable to Council. Hughes said the applicants are committing to the number of employees housed. Richman pointed out the language recognizes if the audit shows a need for additional employee housing, there will be planning time and construction time and provides a 24 month period from the audit to actually have housing occupiable. Richman said Ute City Place would provide immediately occupiable housing. Richman told Council they will need to schedule some time to go over the PUD agreement. 1 4 Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council August 24, 1988 Richman told Council if the PUD agreement is presented on the September 12 agenda, it will be difficult for Council to take final action. Richman said staff has just seen the PUD agreement and until staff reviews it, he will not know the extent of the issues. Richman said this will replace the PUD agreement adopted for the Roberts plan. Councilman Isaac said he assumed the only changes made to the PUD agreement are the ones already discussed by Council. Council scheduled another continued meeting for September 6 at 5 p.m. and to have the city manager evaluation at 7 p.m. Council requested staff circulate the PUD agreement before that meeting. Mayor Stirling moved to reconsider condition #2 of the P&Z resolution; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Mayor Stirling said his notion is to add that Ute City Place be required in this particular 292 room Ritz hotel as an additional requirement. Mayor Stirling said the city needs more housing and not part of an audit done in 2 years. Mayor Stirling said the applicants would have had to pay over $1,000,000 in a cash-in- lieu situation. Mayor Stirling said the city needs the addi- tional units for the impact this will have on the valley and these units need to be in town and need to be part of phase one and not a credit in the future. Councilman Tuite said there is a moral issue on employee housing in this community. Any project should supply 100 percent. Councilman Tuite said the other moral issue is that the prior group had an agreement; for $250,000 they would get credit for so many employee units. Mayor Stirling said one of the purposes of a growth management plan quota and having dates to re-evaluate it are to see what the changed circumstances are. Mayor Stirling said the circumstances for housing in town are much more dramatic than when the PUD was originally adopted 3 years ago. Mayor Stirling said he feels it is imperative the city requires these housing units. John Sarpa, representing the applicant, told Council the appli- cants have worked hard to come up with creative new ideas and have put cash on the table to commit to build housing. Sarpa said the city has not had a lot of people offer to build new housing for the community. Sarpa said the applicant bought the employee units at Hunter Longhouse. Sarpa said the applicants went through the process with P&Z and they changed the formula which had been applied to every other applicant up to then. The P & Z changed the formula, reduced the credit for housing the applicants were to receive to increase the housing requirements. Sarpa reminded Council they were not comfortable with the housing commitment from P & Z. The applicants discussed what they could 2 Continued Meeting Aspen Cit, Council August 24, 1988 do to provide employee housing right now, not in the future. The applicants came back with Ute City Place, a $2,000,000 offer. Council also made it clear they were not comfortable with giving all future credits for Ute City Place. The applicants have agreed to let the audit determine that and to build the units right now. In the future, because of the audit, this all may be required for the Ritz. Sarpa said the applicants are working with the community to come up with more employee housing. Councilman Isaac said he received a letter on Ritz Carlton Laguna Nigel hotel which has 391 rooms. The stationery quotes a staff of 750 employees. Councilman Isaac asked when this goes through the audit process what is being counted as an employee. Harvey said full time equivalent employees will be counted. Sarpa said the facility of Laguna Nigel is a special facility with many, many acres. Sarpa said this stationery is issued by each hotel and is to help lure customers by feeling they are going to be pampered. Sarpa told Council Laguna Nigel has valet parking with 40 or 50 employees doing that and 40 or 50 grounds keepers. Sarpa said the Ritz and the applicant have done an analysis of the employees needed and they both feel comfortable with a 1 to 1 ratio. The number will be higher in full season and when there are a lot of functions at the hotel. Councilman Isaac asked if the audit will show what the real employee impact is. Richman said this is a 2,080 hour person as opposed to a 9 month employee. Richman told Council he has visited the Laguna Nigel property; the grounds are extensive and incredibly kept up. Councilwoman Fallin and Mayor Stirling in favor; Councilmembers Tuite and Isaac opposed. Motion NOT carried. Mayor Stirling said after the audit is complete, there will be an evaluation of how many workers there are. Mayor Stirling said the city has also talked about this being adjusted upward. Harvey said if the audit shows 161.5 does not equal 60 percent of the full time equivalent employees, they will provide additional housing. If the 161.5 is greater than 60 percent of the full time employees, the applicants received a credit. Sarpa told Council the applicants and P&Z had an extensive review of parking in the project. Sarpa told Council the project is providing more than is required by P & Z. Harvey told Council the P&Z recommendation was 220 parking spaces provided in the parking structure. Harvey told Council the applicants came in with 235 spaces, but of that 42 spaces are compact size. The applicants have requested a code amendment to allow for 20 percent of the spaces to be compact at 7-1/2 by 16 feet. Richman said this was to enable the applicants to provide more than just the minimum spaces. Harvey said the code amendment has not gone through the process, so the applicants will provide 220 full 3 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 1988 parking spaces. Harvey submitted a copy of the parking plan to the record. This plan shows 220 full standard size spaces plus an additional 13 compact spaces. Harvey said there are 2-1/2 levels of parking. Richman said this plan meets the staff's objection that P&Z was approving parking spaces that did not meet code specifications. Mayor Stirling asked how many spaces are designated for employees. Richman said the formula only requires 10 spaces, the PUD agreement requires 30 spaces be set aside for employees. Richman told Council all the transit disincentives, like van service, are listed in the agreement. Mayor Stirling asked what plans are being made for workers transportation. Harvey said there is an agreement in the PUD to provide bus passes, shuttle service. All the employee housing projects are within in walking distance or on transportation routes of the hotel. Councilman Isaac asked if would be possible for the city to audit the shuttle service at the same time the employees are audited to see how it is going to make sure the applicants are providing the services represented in the PUD and that they are working. Richman said he will add this to the agreement. Richman pointed out when the units are deed restricted, they will not necessarily be occupied by employees of the hotel. These units may be occupied by employees of the community in general, since this is the philosophy of the housing program. The applicants agreed this can be added to the agreement. Harvey said he would like the parking program to read, "a minimum of" so if the code amendment passes they can change the parking configuration. Richman said the agreement should read "there shall be a minimum of 220 parking spaces provided". Councilwoman Fallin moved to approve condition #6; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Mayor Stirling said the city and applicant have discussed utilization of parking spaces by people who are not hotel guests. Sarpa said the applicants are hoping to work with staff on the availability of parking spaces which will be empty. Sarpa told Council the Ritz's best guess is that they will use about 35 percent of the 220 spaces in the winter. All in favor, motion carried. Richman told Council P&Z spent a lot of time on the issue of community use of the parking spaces. Richman said P&Z encouraged the applicant to submit a code amendment to allow commercial use of parking in this zone district. Richman told Council staff does not support this code amendment as the city's transportation plan talks about parking provided on the other side of Durant. Harvey said the parking study says not to 4 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 1988 provide a parking structure on that end of town as it will encourage traffic to go to it. Harvey told Council an initial proposal was to monitor the daily guest requirements and use the daily ski report to give how many spaces are available for daily skier parking. Council indicated they are interested in discuss- ing a code amendment like this. Richman told Council the LTR zone prohibits this usage. Councilwoman Fallin said she would be hesitant to allow this as a permitted use. This is a special case. Harvey said it is the applicant's intention to use the unused spaces for daily skier parking. Councilman Isaac asked if the performance bonding is adequate to protect the city. Richman said the bond the city has deals with the excavation and guarantees public improvements. Richman said the code is silent on bonding for private improvements except for landscaping. Richman said if the building were to go under construction and for some reason was stopped, the city would not have anything to tear down or to complete construction. Sarpa said the city has $1,000,000 cash and $800,000 letter of credit. These only go to when there is full funding in place; when there is full funding in place, allocations will be made out of that funding for those purposes. Bob Hughes said there will be a mortgage lender who has every incentive of getting the project completed. Mayor Stirling asked if the financing is officially in place. Sarpa said the applicants have not closed the financing; the applicants are in the final phases of negotiations. Councilwoman Fallin asked when the permanent financing will come. Sarpa said 45 to 60 days from about now. Harvey said a loan commitment is conditioned on approval for the project, a building permit. Sarpa said the applicant's construction firm will be required to bond their completion. Sarpa said a lender will not lend money without that kind of bonding. Sarpa told Council their contrac- tors, PCL, have no problems obtaining a bond of this size and are prepared to issue that bond immediately. Councilwoman Fallin said there are no guarantees on what will happen on lot 6 and in phase two. Councilwoman Fallin asked if the applicant can sell parcels which could be developed separ- ately. Richman said the Aspen Mountain PUD covers all the individual lots. Any lots separated or sold would be bound by the PUD and the PUD agreement, which runs with the land and not with the owner. Hughes said all the parameters for lot 6 that have been discussed are incorporated in the PUD agreement. Councilwoman Fallin each parcel could be sold to individuals and asked if each representation for each parcel is written down. Richman said the agreement identifies all the lots. Richman said the agreement deals with maximum development on each site. 5 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 1988 Hughes said there is a binding PUD agreement in place right now. The applicants are amending that agreement. Sarpa said in an effort to show Council the applicants mean what they say about employee housing, they will agree to dedicate all 37 employees housed in 22 units at Ute City Place to the Ritz. Mayor Stirling said the last paragraph states, "The City Council will grant an extension to the project to the extent necessary to permit the completion the processing of these amendment, includ- ing but not limited to the recordation of a plat and agreement and obtaining a foundation permit". Richman told Council his memorandum addresses this paragraph. Richman reminded Council resolution #11 established September 12 as the deadline by which processing of all amendments needs to be completed. Richman said the resolution does not give staff the kind of guidance its needs at to what that means, whether it means the Council process being completed or the actual recording of all documents and issuing of all permits for the approvals to be final. Richman said in April staff was looking at the GMQS deadline being April 15th and staff was suggesting that a building permit needed to be obtained by April 15th, an excavation and foundation permit. Richman said there was extensive discussion in April and May about this topic. The minutes mention that the PUD agreement might need to set out a formal time table within which, presuming the September 12th deadline was met, the other actions required, the recordation of the plat and the issuance of the foundation permit would be set out within the PUD agreement to make it clear Council had agreed to the time frame. P & Z is recommending Council act on this and not leave it ambiguous. Richman said Council has the authority to hear appeals or make judgments on interpretations of the code given by the staff. Richman said staff has interpreted the applicable section of the code to require that an excavation and foundation permit be obtained. Council could make the determination that the excavation permit obtained April 15th was the building permit, and this issue would be closed. The other approach would be to grant the project an extension. Richman said the September 12th deadline is 122 days after the April 15th deadline. The code talks about 180 days, and there are 58 days that have not been used since the last time Council acted on this deadline. Richman said the applicant accepted the 122 days; there was no requirement it be less than 180 days. Mayor Stirling asked when a foundation permit would be issued. Richman said the first thing would be to obtain Council's approval. Richman said there are drawings in the building department. Sarpa told Council they have submitted an initial 6 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 1988 package and are meeting all the time frames asked by the building department. Richman said the normal time table would be to wait until the PUD agreement is signed and then have the plat and elevations recorded. These are documents that will be used as checks against the foundation plans. Councilman Isaac said in May when Council was discussed resolution #11, they set September 12 as the deadline for approval or denial of the PUD agreement and left any reference to building permits or recording the plat up in the air. Councilman Isaac said to meet the requirements of resolution #11, Council has an obligation, and the applicant has met their obligation, to finish the review by September 12th. Councilman Isaac said it makes sense to put in the PUD a time line for the other things to happen. Bob Hughes said the applicant's take the position they have met their requirement. The applicants opt for the first alternative that the excavation permit did suffice. Mayor Stirling said he has no interest in the first approach. Councilwoman Fallin said she doesn't either. Mayor Stirling said the Council should probably grant an extension. Harvey said the applicants have submitted the initial draft of the PUD agreement to staff. Harvey said the requests made by staff on the plat involve up to 35 pages, and these will be submitted by early September. Harvey said it may take up to 4 weeks to review these and make changes. Councilman Isaac asked if Council prefers to go through an extension process as opposed to putting a time schedule in the PUD agreement. Mayor Stirling said the amendment process should be extended 58 days. Councilman Isaac said Council made an agreement to produce a decision by a certain date. Mayor Stirling said all the aspects of this decision cannot be fulfilled. Mayor Stirling said the plat cannot be recorded and the permit obtained by then. Councilman Isaac said it was not suggested this would be done by September 12th. Mayor Stirling asked if the additional review work should happen within an extended period or outside of the period. Richman said the September 12th deadline is silent on that, but staff's opinion is it should have stated it as a requirement. Councilwoman Fallin said her interpretation is that everything should have happened by September 12th. Councilwoman Fallin said even though Council fulfills their commitment of all the review by that date, the rest of the commitment cannot be made. Richman said it is just too much to do in 122 days. Councilman Isaac said Council ought to make their decision so that the community knows what the decision is and what the project is. Richman said he would like to see Council finish the agreement by September 12th so that staff can keep within the time frame on the plat. 7 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 1988 Mayor Stirling suggested Council continue this meeting to September 6 and receive a request for extension from the appl- icant and to also complete work on the PUD agreement. Council could then pass on the PUD agreement on September 12. Councilman Tuite moved to direct staff to take all the approved conditions and move forward with them to be returned on September 6 inclusive in the proposed PUD agreement; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Stirling. Motion carried. Councilwoman Fallin brought up the cloud that has come up in the last few days with interpretation of the code, section 24-8.3. Richman said there was an August 9 memo from Joe Edwards to Council on two issues. Richman said these issues deal with very specific language of the code which is being interpreted in a way unlike that which the city has interpreted the code before. Richman said the issue is whether one can increase the number of units allowed in a hotel through the variations that are per- mitted in the PUD regulations. Richman said there are two aspects in which Edwards argues that it is not possible to do that. Richman said the first one has to do with the term "use square footage limitations". Richman said the memo argues that an FAR, whether internal or external is a form of use square footage limitation. Richman told Council the section referred to, section 24-8.3(b) of the prior code lists 4 or 5 terms in a row and use square footage limitations is one of them. Richman said these are titles of sections of the code. Richman said this is not some term that could be applied to internal or external FAR. It is a section of the code and refers to a limit on the amount of square footage allowed in a number of commercial-type uses. Richman said the town was concerned about the scale of develop- ment in Aspen, so there is a limit on the size of food market, for instance. All the limits apply exclusively to commercial structures, hotel and lodges are never mentioned. This talks about food stores, drug stores, warehousing, it mentions 20 or 30 different uses, all commercial. Richman said to him the use square footage limitation argument is absolutely baseless. Richman said to take a very specific piece of language which applies to a very specific section of the code and say it could apply to FAR because the FAR is a form of the use square footage limitation is not a good way to interpret the good. Richman said the other section discussed is 24-8.3(c) which says, "the density of the overall project shall not exceed the allow- able density of the zone district in which the PUD lies". Richman said the term density is not defined in the old code. 8 -k Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 1988 Richman reminded Council the task force pointed out that density needed to be defined. The new code defines density as the maximum number of dwelling units per area of land permitted in the zone district. Richman told Council there was some debate in the code review process whether it should relate to floor area. Richman said everyone agreed at that time that density is not floor area; floor area is a mass issue. Density is a how much activity is going on issue and is always measured by the number of units. Richman said the memo recognizes there is no minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement in the applicable zone, LTR zone. Richman said the memo argues is that despite that fact, FAR sets the form of de facto density regulations. Richman went through an example, a .5:1 to allow 50,000 of the 75,000 square feet in a lodge to be used as units. That is as far as the city's controls of lodging goes. It is up to the owner to decide how many and what size rooms to build; that is the density. Density in a lodge is determined by the size of the rooms that the owner picks. It has never been determined through any regulatory process. Richman said to say that the city's intention in drafting the PUD regulations to say one cannot increase density would apply to the FAR is really extrapolating from what the FAR is limiting. The FAR is limiting the square footage of unit space. Richman said in his opinion the density is not regulated in all zone districts and never has been. Richman said in 1983 before the first application was submitted on this property, the staff faced a number of code interpreta- tions like this. Richman said the format staff agreed to was to submit the request for interpretation in writing. At that time, the code did not have an interpretation methodology. Mayor Stirling said if this is the staff's interpretation, why are specific number of units allowed as quotas in the LTR zone on an annual basis. Richman said the city limits the number of units that can come on in an annual basis but not the dimensional requirements. Mayor Stirling asked how the competition and allocation relates to the code statement about density, which sound they are two different subjects. Richman said they are entirely separate kinds of issues and do not have a bearing on one another. Richman told Council there was a staff level interpretation that Council agreed to in 1983, which the applicant would submit letters requesting interpretations, staff would receive those, discuss them and come up with interpretations. Richman said in cases where necessary, these interpretations would be brought to Council during the conceptual review process. Richman told Council he has some evidence of one interpretation Council made prior to the application being submitted. Richman said inter- 9 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 1988 pretations were made by Council during meetings regarding issues. Richman said he provided the applicant with a copy of the only written interpretation on the matter of density, a letter from the city attorney to Sunny Vann that is in agreement with the interpretation 5 years ago, that there is no density limitation in the zone district. Councilwoman Fallin said there is a letter from Sandy Stuller, city attorney at the time the code was written, stating her recollection is that, except for SPAs, the city intended that uses and densities be determined by the underlying zoning and that PUD regulations be used only to allow flexibility in the building envelope and other site considerations. Richman told Council in 1974 when the code was being adopted, PUDs were very novel concept and became a national concept in 1971. Richman said in 1971, PUDs were a residential concept and were being used to cluster units to reserve open space on environmentally sensitive parcels of land. Richman said it is hard to imagine that in 1974 people thought these would be applied to lodge development. Councilwoman Fallin said Ms. Stuller listed Council and P&Z minutes that document the thought process at that time. Council- woman Fallin said this is a major issue and no one wants to go into this with a clouded interpretation. Councilwoman Fallin suggested Council have an independent counsel to interpret this. Fred Gannett, city attorney's officer told Council he looked at how this has been applied over the last 14 years, and if the city has been consistent. Gannett said the city has consistently used the same definition, interpreted this in the same way. The issue has been raised before and has been addressed before by written opinion. Gannett said independent counsel gives a chance to put greater objectivity into the record. Gannett said the city will have to make sure they get counsel that will put their professional malpractice insurance on the line and will give a written opinion. Richman said the preferred way to look at the code is not what someone meant to write but what they did write. Richman said he looks at the language of the code in plain terms. Richman said if the city meant to put a density limitation in this zone district, there is one in the residential zone. The city chose to write no requirement next to that term in the code. Council- woman Fallin said this may not have been applied consistently. Councilman Isaac said it appears the city has already engaged outside Council looking at the pending lawsuit. Councilman Isaac told Council he was approached on this matter today. Councilman Isaac said when he told Paul Taddune this, he expressed concern because Council is being asked to change their legal interpreta- tion and was being asked to do so from adversaries in a lawsuit. 10 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 1988 Councilman Isaac said Taddune questioned the ethical standing of this group addressing individual Councilmembers who are pers- onally being sued. Taddune said there is a problem for counsel of the opposite side in a lawsuit engaging the defendants in a lawsuit without notifying counsel for the City. Taddune said he talked to the city's counsel in Denver, who is also concerned that an indivi- dual Councilmember who has been sued had been approached without notifying Hall and Evans or Taddune. Taddune said he does not see any downside to having an independent opinion. Taddune said the attorneys did not know what will be discussed when Council- members are contacted and if Council's interests are being protected. Gannett said these types of contacts can be a serious ethical breach. Gannett said he would like to put the other counsel on record that he objects to these contacts; they are inappropriate and should not happen in the future. Bob Hughes told Council they are co-defendants in the lawsuit and find this highly irregular. Councilwoman Fallin moved that Council hire an independent counsel to review the question raised on Section 24-8.3 of the prior City of Aspen Code; seconded by Mayor Stirling. Hughes said he feels it matters not what an independent counsel may tell the Council. Hughes said the applicant's predecessors sought an interpretation; it was given. There has been incre- dible reliance on that. This is the only interpretation that makes sense and is consistent with the code. Hughes said Ms. Stuller's recollection of events that happened 14 years ago with a brief review of the record is not particularly relevant. Hughes said there was an informal process for code interpreta- tions, which was sought and done. Hughes reiterated there has been too much rights and reliance on that interpretation. Hughes said the case of Denver vs. Stackhouse suggests that the notions of estoppel come into play at this juncture, even if there has been erroneous interpretations. Hughes said he is concerned about a red herring issue. Hughes introduced a letter to the record from Joe Wells who was involved in seeking the interpreta- tions out earlier. Councilman Isaac said he was somewhat inclined to hire an outside counsel until he found out that the city already has a law firm representing the city in this case. Councilman Isaac said rather than spending time and taxpayer's money, he would just as soon use counsel the city already has. Jody Edwards said there are two distinct issues. One is the law suit, which he did not discuss with Councilmembers. The other is interpretation of this code section. The motion is to look at this code section and give an opinion on the section, legislative history, and case 11 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 1988 law. Hughes said he assumes this motion will not delay the land use process. Councilwoman Fallin said she would like to have a response no later than September 6th. Gannett said he does not know if the city can have an opinion by that time. Mayor Stirling suggested this outside opinion be within 30 days. Jasmine Tygre said if the city gets independent counsel to say the city's interpretation of the code is correct, it will not stop the plaintiffs from putting that in a suit if they want to. Ms. Tygre said as a practical matter, hiring outside counsel does not accomplish anything. Roger Hunt said he has been on P&Z for a number of years and has had to deal with the term density. Density has been consistently not applied to lodging because it did not apply to lodging. Hunt said it has been consistently applied when the city deals with density and when they do not deal with density. The city does not deal with density in lodging districts. Jeffrey Evans said this process has been going on a long time with 3 different sets of owners and 2 different land use codes. Evans said there are a number of different interpretations in the code and agreements through 3 different sets of property owners. Richie Cohen asked the ramifications of an adverse ruling to the way the city has conducted their land use proceedings over the last 14 years. Cohen asked if this would leave the city under attack by everyone who has operated under the use of the term density from 1974 to date. Jim Curtis said this is one of the most monumental decisions this community has faced in a long time. Curtis said he is uncertain what is the correct inter- pretation and uncertain if it has been interpreted consistently in the past. Curtis said he feels there would be benefit in getting a third party interpretation. Bil Dunaway asked if this issue will be settled by the litigation. Dunaway questioned spending extra money while the city is already fighting a lawsuit. Edwards said this issue is not part of the lawsuit. Councilwoman Fallin and Mayor Stirling in favor; Councilmembers Tuite and Isaac opposed. Motion NOT carried. Mayor Stirling said this meeting will be continued to 5 p.m. Septmber 6th. CASTLE RIDGE Assistant City Manager Mitchell requested an executive session because staff is seeking direction on negotiations and part of the issue deals with the potential of Castle Ridge Associates filing litigation. Mitchell said there are long term issues to be dealt with; affordability of the rents and the economic viability of Castle Ridge Associates under the existing agree- 12 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 1988 ment. Council directed staff to find some long term solutions. Mitchell said Castle Ridge Associates made a conceptual pro- posals, which staff responded to. Mitchell said staff feels they are fairly close to a negotiated agreement, if Council agrees. If Council does not agree and wishes to stay with the existing agreement, it would be sticky legal situation if Castle Ridge files for bankruptcy. Mitchell said Castle Ridge is saying economically with the tax law changes, they cannot stay with the project as it exists. If the city cannot come to a negotiated settlement amending the agreement, Castle Ridge is saying their only course of action is to file for bankruptcy. Councilman Isaac moved to go into executive session; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Councilmembers Tuite and Isaac in favor; Councilwoman Fallin and Mayor Stirling opposed. Motion NOT carried. Mitchell said the city's position is compromised either in negotiations or legal actions when the issues are discussed in public. Mayor Stirling asked why Castle Ridge Associates is not able to meet their obligations. Mitchell said the tax law changes do not give them the benefits of the losses and enable them to protect their other income. Mitchell said they are generating a loss and there is no way the rents will cover the operating costs unless the city makes an adjustment in the mortgage payments. Mitchell recommended the city pursue a negotiated settlement. The first major issue is adjusting the promissory note. The way this was originally set up, their mortgage payments were over the same period of the as the bonds. At the end of the bonds, there was still a significant principle. The majority of the payments are interest. This no longer serves Castle Ridge Associates well because of the tax laws. Castle Ridge Associates are suggesting that the mortgage be amended so the payments will cover the city's bond payments. At the end of that Castle Ridge will owe $817,000 which they will pay off at 9 percent over 5 years. Within this payment, Castle Ridge will purchase an annuity for in excess of $200,000 to buy the note down. This annuity will pay the city on a semi-annual basis based on a guaranteed 9 percent interest. Their mortgage payments will cover the remainder so that the city receives sufficient monies to retire the bonds. Castle Ridge would have a lesser amount at the end. This is switching from Castle Ridge paying a lot of interest to paying principle and interest. The second issue has to do with the land lease agreement. Castle Ridge is proposing to provide the city with either a U. S. Treasury note or a certificate of deposit for $150,000 which would guarantee a 9 percent return. By the year 2000, this wold 13 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 1988 be valued at $500,000, which is close to what the city would generate through the $30,000 annual payment and the $150,000 option to buy land at that point. Under their proposal, if they meet all their obligations, when the note or certificate of deposit matures, they would have the land conveyed to them. Mitchell said there is less exposure under this because the city will have the $150,000 note in the city's name. Currently, Castle Ridge is paying $30,000 annually and if they would default the city would not get the money. Mitchell told Council the reason the contract was negotiated the way it is is that the interest was a tax deduction to Castle Ridge, and they could walk away from the project when they had used up their tax benefit. Mitchell said another issue is if the city and Castle Ridge come to an agreement soon, they will fix the major roof problem. If this exceeds the existing replacement reserve, the city will give them future credit for the amounts they put in. Mitchell said he would try to negotiate a replacement repair schedule that addresses other issues like landscaping and carpets. Mitchell said the fourth issue is that Castle Ridge Associates is reducing the amount of rent increase over the life of the agreement. Castle Ridge is reducing their increase to 5 percent per year for the first 5 years and 2.5 percent for the remaining 5 or 6 years. Mitchell said he told Castle Ridge the city wanted this capped at the housing authority guidelines. Castle Ridge is concerned because the rental cap has not changed in the last 4 years. The housing authority feels this may average 3 percent over the next years. Mitchell suggested the rents increase the 5 and 2.5 percents but cap it to the housing guidelines or use $.85 base and 3 percent annual increases, whichever is higher. Mitchell said the staff is trying to keep the rents affordable. If the city stays with the existing agreement and Castle Ridge can justify over 6 percent rent increases, at some point Castle Ridge will be beyond the guidelines. There is no cap in the existing agreement. Mitchell said he feels the negotiated agreement accomplishes the goals of keeping the rents affordable and keeping Castle Ridge Associates in this. Mayor Stirling moved to direct staff to pursue finalizing the existing negotiations as per the summary 1 through 4 in the - memorandum dated August 24, 1988; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. Councilman Tuite said Castle Ridge is saying they are losing money but are making a proposal that says they can live with everything but paying the 3.9 or they will have to walk away. Councilman Tuite said this is a project that will turn around and start making a lot of money for Castle Ridge Associates. Councilman Tuite said he does not have a problem with the housing 14 '. f 4 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 24, 1988 authority taking over this project in the next few years. The housing authority has the ability to control the rents better themselves. Mitchell said based on the discussions of the bankruptcy, there is a chance the city could lose this project and it could go free market. Mitchell said the city's main goal is to make this affordable. If Castle Ridge makes money and keeps it affordable, that doesn't matter. Mayor Stirling said he does not mind that Castle Ridge Associates stay in as long as the property is maintained and kept up. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Tuite. Motion carried. Councilman Tuite suggested the city could say the Castle Ridge Associates they could get out in 3 years time and the city would suspend the land lease payments. Councilman Tuite said because of the tax laws and depreciation, there is a period where Castle Ridge could get out and not suffer tax consequences. Then the city could get the project back and be in control. This could be another options in the negotiations. Mayor Stirling moved that Mitchell pursue this recommendation of Councilman Tuite's and run with it if it looks like it works, and if not, come back and consult with Council; seconded by Council- man Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. Fred Gannett, city attorney's office, brought up the $15,000 claim from the Mother Lode. Mitchell told Council he has directed CIRSA to settle this. Mitchell said the city will spend more money defending this suit than settling it. Gannett told Council the city has been put on notice of intent to sue on behalf of Nancy Poe if the Red Roof closes. Ms. Poe says she is entitled to $100,000 commission and has engaged an attorney. Mayor Stirling said the key is was she the procuring cause. Gannett told Council all information to date suggests she was not; she provided a conduit that information flowed. Gannett said once it got to the next person, it was disseminated to DeBoer. DeBoer, who lives in Aspen, thought it was a good idea and approached the city. Gannett said the city's position is that Nancy Poe was not the procuring agent. Mayor Stirling said information is not a procuring cause. Mayor Stirling said he sees this claim as specious. Paul Taddune told Council the city has won a motion summary judgement in the Trans America case. There might be an oppor- tunity to get $10,000 to $15,000 from Trans American. Council adjourned at 7:35 p.m. 15 ELt.43 4 9146 doty j â‚¬ ULL Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 16, 1988 Councilman Isaac called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. with Councilmembers Tuite and Gassman present. Councilman Isaac said there is a question about the ballot language regarding the Marolt property. Jim Adamski, housing office, said this issue will take some time and recommended a work session or scheduled at the next Council meeting. (Mayor Stirling came into the Council meeting). Fred Gannett, city attorney's office, told Council the M.A.A. in conjunction with the housing office, has a project they would like to build on an area that may not have been included in the specific description. Gannett said the question is whether the way the description is written can be interpreted in such a way to give the Council the authority to use the most southeast portion of the Marolt property. If this is not permissible, does this need to go back to a vote of the people. Councilman Isaac said he would prefer to discuss this at the August 22 agenda. Jim Adamski said he has proposed a southeast portion of the property from the beginning. This did not coincide with the ballot question. Gannett told Council his office drafted the question that a 10 acre parcel was to be considered. The only 10 acre parcel that has a metes and bounds description is that parcel that Opal Marolt gave to the city free and clear of any sixth penny restrictions. Gannett said that was the parcel that the engineering department used as the legal description as a generic metes and bounds description for the question. Gannett told Council there was a reference to a book and page in the ballot question, which is essentially the description of the entire Marolt parcel. Gannett said an argument can be made that what was approved was the southeast portion of the Marolt parcel. There is an description that is at odds with that. Mayor Stirling said he does not have an interest in going to another election. There is a general understanding of what the intention of Council was. Councilman Gassman said it was clear what was approved and what the proposal was. Councilman Isaac said the city may have some liability. Councilman Tuite said as far as he is concerned, the housing is on the southeast parcel and he does not want to go to another election. ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE PUD Mayor Stirling suggested Council take the P&Z conditions and work through them and vote on them each. Conditions 1 though 5 are employee housing; 6 is parking, and the rest are technical and construction issues. 1 AUG 3 1 I988 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 16, 1988 Alan Richman, planning director, is told Council condition #7 is the request of putting the language regarding the Galena street improvement district into the PUD agreement. The prior PUD agreement contained a lot of language about the improvement district. Staff is suggesting the participation language be revised to indicate commitment to provide improvements on the frontage of the project corresponding to the Galena street improvement district. Richman told Council there is one specific improvement which the district intended to construct; however, because of timing considerations, the city is discussing trans- ferring district money to the applicant to allow the applicant to construct this improvement. Jay Hammond, city engineer, told Council the plan for the improvement district included areas that were near and adjacent to the frontages of the Ritz project. Hammond told Council because the way the construction fence is put up, the city cannot get in there to do the work. Hammond recommended this be deleted from the district work, transfer the funds to the applicant and have them complete this work as part of the Ritz construction. Perry Harvey, representing the applicant, said this makes more sense. Hammond suggested the condition be clear that the city is asking the applicant to complete the improvements. Hammond said the city is working from a contract that has square footage unit prices. Hammond said if their contract comes in higher, the applicants obligations should be to complete the improvements as opposed to doing the improvements at the money given. Councilman Isaac moved condition #7 amended to reflect that the allocation of district monies available to the applicant on a pro rata basis, and that there is an obligation to complete these improvements; seconded by Councilman Tuite All in favor, motion carried. Richman told Council condition #8 deals with storm work reten- tion. There is a major storm work retention facility being designed as part of the project. The concern is avoiding any utility conflicts and making sure there is adequate separation from the city water mains to prevent freezing. Hammond reminded Council in the earlier process, there was granting of underground easements in the Mill street area, expecting there would be parking constructed under the street. This is no longer part of the plan, but there is a plan for storm retention facilities in that area. Hammond said this is to protect the city from conflicts with that facility. Harvey said this is a requirement to retain water and to release it at a later date so the storm sewer system is not overloaded. A. J. Zabbia, Rea Cassens, told Council originally this was inside the parking garage. Now this will be a structure buried under Mill street. This will be two parallel pipes, 6 feet in diameter by 100 feet long. 2 . Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 16, 1988 Councilman Tuite moved to approve condition #8; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Richman told Council condition #9 has to do with the storm drainage requirements placed in the PUD, which resulted for substantial detention on the top of Mill site. Richman said the applicant is proposing a series of amendments to the drainage program, including a commitment to fund an Aspen mountain drainage study and to implement the results of this study. Richman said there is feeling there needs to be additional work done to determine how best to retain off site drainage that comes on to this site as opposed to detaining on the top of Mill site. The applicant is suggesting they will be willing to spend a similar amount of money that they were planning to spend on the top of Mill, estimated at $250,000. The applicants are committ- ing to provide drainage improvement to the city in addition to those required for their on-site facilities. These are commit- ments associated with their growth management scoring. Richman said this proposal is to fund a study the city believes is necessary and to provide monies towards the implementation of that study. This might be drainage easements or actual faciliti- es. Harvey said the top of Mill was given conceptual approval and then held off pending the drainage resolution. The applicants have agreed the way to do this is to examine the problem on a city-wide basis and analyze the runoff and to try and get a system that diverts this around the main part of town rather than have the solution piecemeal. Councilman Isaac moved to approve condition #9; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Tuite asked if this is a continuation of the study being worked on by the city, county and Ski Company. Harvey said it is. Richman told Council condition #10 is a request by the city water department to relocate one of the fire hydrants to the city' s satisfaction. Councilman Gassman moved to accept condition #10; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Richman said condition #11 deals with the truck turning radii. Harvey told Council P&Z felt one tower was too far out from the building and wanted it moved closer to the main part of the building for greater turning radius. Richman said the condition also requires a certain amount of clearance across the entire 3 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 16, 1988 span. The applicants have a 15 foot stretch right across the middle. Staff felt comfortable with 14-1/2 feet. Mayor Stirling asked if the applicants will prohibit through traffic on Dean street. Harvey said the applicants have discussed access to the hotel on Dean. Harvey said their goal is to have a pedestrian way and access and not to encourage through traffic on Dean. The applicants would like to create a mall feeling with an enriched paving treatment. Councilman Tuite moved to approve condition #11; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Richman told Council condition #12 is related to the landscape plan, which has not changed a lot since the prior review. Richman said an issue of concern is that the size was not called out on the Norway maples nor was underground water called. Richman told Council P&Z spent considerable time debating whether to require a variety of trees to be planted or just Norway maples and whether to get into internal planting of the hotel. P & Z settled on this as their condition. Richman told Council Norway maples are being used at Little Nell and through- out the district and will create a sense of continuity. Councilman Isaac moved to approve condition #12; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. Richman brought up the question of the electrical service. Richman said staff recommended that provision of electrical service should be by the city. This condition was not accepted by P & Z. Mayor Stirling asked why staff is requiring this condition. Hammond told Council it is a big load and the city would like to have this customer. Hammond told Council when he suggested this condition, he understood there were no arrange- ments between the project and Holy Cross electric. Hammond told Council there is an arrangement with Holy Cross that the appli- cants would be subject to a rebate of certain capital expenses over a period of time. Hammond told Council there is no preclu- sion in the Holy Cross franchise for the city competing for customers. Hammond said the city will look at the arrangement the applicant has with Holy Cross and determine if it is some- thing the city is able to compete with. Hammond requested to be able to see if the city can offer a comparable arrangement. John Sarpa, representing the applicant, said they felt it was inappropriate, which they expressed to P & Z, that they would be mandated to pick one electric company over another. Mayor Stirling asked if the city has generally respected Holy Cross's domain. Hammond said generally the city has. Mayor Stirling asked if Holy Cross has competed outside their areas. Hammond said they are arguably inside the city as they are providing 4 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 16, 1988 service to the Little Nell hotel. Hammond told Council because of logistics, the city left Little Nell to Holy Cross. Harvey told Council when the previous owner did undergrounding, there is an agreement with Holy Cross for $163,000 that is refundable over a 10 year period based upon usage. Harvey showed Council where the transformers are located up the site and that the city's lines do not extend up there. Harvey told Council the applicants did their electrical siting based on access to Holy Cross. Harvey said there is not room for them to put a trans- former lower down on the site. Councilman Gassman said if the city electric department wants to compete for the business and make a better deal, that is fine. Councilman Gassman said this should not be a requirement. Council agreed. Richman said condition 13 is related to coordinating the various aspects of the PUD, like redevelopment of the Grand Aspen and the development of the Ritz Carlton. When Council was dealing with resolution #11 in May 1988, they were looking at the development of the Ritz, the park and the Grand Aspen as close together as possible. Richman said because of the complexity of putting together an application for the park and for the Grand Aspen site, the hotel is almost through and the city has not seen a development application for the other two portions of the PUD. Richman said the staff was looking for general design com- patibility, comfort that the number of units could actually be accommodated on site, understanding the program for the ice rink. Richman said there is nothing in the resolution stating when the redevelopment for the Grand Aspen needs to occur. Richman pointed out when the Grand Aspen comes down, this goes from a 447 unit to a 342 unit-complex. There will be 105 less rooms. Richman reminded Council the Grand will be 155 rooms at the time the Ritz is initiated, and Council only allowed 50 rooms in phase two. Richman said there are benefits the city will get by having the Grand Aspen come down and by getting phase two initiated. This includes street utility improvements, the elimination of a building which is not up to code, the develop- ment of facilities that will be more consistent with the entire PUD, as well as a reduction of 105 units. Richman said the Grand Aspen is the largest hotel in Aspen and is providing benefits to the community like Winternational and conference facilities. Richman said the trade off is whether Council wants the Grand Aspen to come down immediately or 5 years after the c/o is issued for the Ritz Carlton, which is what the applicant wants. Richman recommended 2 years after c/o; the applicant requested 5 years, and P&Z recommended 3 years. Condition #13 is that demolition of the Grand Aspen should occur within 3 years of date of issuance of a c/o for the Ritz and there be plans presented for that lot that the city would need to approve. Richman said 5 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 16, 1988 if the city has not approved plans because of the land use process, Council could have the opportunity to extend the demolition deadline. Richman pointed out if the 3 year deadline occurs during the ski season, it is automatically extended to the end of the ski season (Councilwoman Fallin came into the Council meeting). Richman said the issue is when Council wants to see phase two get underway. Councilman Isaac said staff did not put any cause for the deadline to be extended. Richman said this is a different type of deadline from the growth management deadline. Harvey reminded Council in the discussion about Resolution #11, the applicants committed to a numerical program and to getting this into the . pipeline before the Ritz was completed. Harvey said the appli- cants have not had enough time to do the architectural detail- ing. Harvey said in order to refine the architecture on phase two will delay this too long getting into the process. Harvey said they are having trouble getting the setbacks, massing and basic planning for this. Harvey said the applicant are still looking at whether these units should be two-bedrooms or small units, whether there should be a restaurant. Councilman Isaac said the only reason he can see to grant an extension is if the city's process takes too long. Harvey said the condition states the applicants are permitted to request an extension. Mayor Stirling said if this is not a formal GMP deadline, the appli- cants can request an extension. Councilman Tuite moved to approve condition #13; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Stirling asked what happens if the c/o for the Ritz is a lot later than 1989. Jim Curtis asked if the resolution speci- fies the permitted FARs on phase two. Curtis said one concern is the impact of the overall project. Richman said the FAR was established in Resolution #11. The city has not received a specific development plan to review how the FAR works out on the site. The maximum established in the resolution is 115,000 square feet. Richman said this project will go through the PUD review process. Richman said condition #14 is a coordination issue of bring the ice rink/park into this resolution. Richman suggested adding specifics about rezoning of the parcel into this condition. Richman said the subdivision to create lot 6 cannot be done without a growth management allotment. Richman said without the park rezoning he does not feel comfortable having a lot with no development approval. Richman said the city should be through the foundation permit review and issuance of a building permit within 60 days of September 12. Richman said the applicant should have a building permit by November 15. Richman said the 6 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 16, 1988 applicants want to have uninterrupted construction underway or unencumbered by any potential lawsuits. Councilman Tuite asked if a date specific is what the city wants out of this. The applicant has told the city they will give the city the park as soon as they know they have the hotel. Richman said he wants to avoid the hotel getting near completion and having the park issue up in the air. John Sarpa said that is not a problem. Richman suggested a certain number of days beyond a full building permit, foundation and building permit. Councilman Isaac moved to approve condition #14 with the addition of setting a date for rezoning of approximately 90 days after issuance of a building permit and to instruct that language to be added to the agreement; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. Richman said condition #15 is a statement by P&Z that approvals have not been given for the ice rink and its associated facil- ities. The city needs to look at growth management allotment or exemption, there are conditional use questions for the res- taurant, and the park zone requires the area and bulk be set by PUD approval. P & Z made a point that in the analysis that have been done for employee housing and parking and other impact analysis, the ice rink has not been considered. The impact analysis will be done at a later date. Councilman Tuite moved to approve condition #15; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Hammond told Council when the excavation permit approval was granted, there was a schedule for anticipated construction. Hammond said this schedule has been on hold and staff is inter- ested in re-establishing a schedule for construction. Hammond told Council the bulk excavation was one of the most disruptive activities for this project; however, there are other construe- tion activities that will be very disruptive to adjacent neigh- bors. Hammond said it is not desirable to be pouring huge quantities of concrete through winter. Hammond said the city does not have a specific revised schedule but this should be carried forward as a condition. Hammond said there are para- meters he will be looking at for the schedule. Hammond told Council he and the contractor will seek to use the off season to the best advantage. Hammond suggested most of the activity will be disruptive, and it would not seem reasonable to shut the project down during the height of the summer but to minimize the impacts as best as possible. Harvey said the applicants do not have problems with this condition. 7 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 16, 1988 Richman pointed out in his memorandum there are 9 specific areas discussed and the first 8 of these were identified in the prior PUD agreement. The staff and contractor would need to come to agreement on the form of the construction activities. Richman said the timing on these issues has changed but the basic parameters have not. Richman told Council P&Z did not have a lot of changes but added that all staging areas be screened, the applicant asked for an opportunity to do internal construction beyond the 10 p.m. deadline of the noise ordinance. Richman said the agreement was the only activity allowed after the 10 p.m. deadline would be something like painting or non-noise generat- ing. Richman brought up the provision of housing to deal with con- struction worker impacts. Richman said the current regulations do not address this. The staff is working with the applicant on this. Richman told Council staff asked the applicant to look at the impacts that could be expected when the crew would be at its maximum size and where they would be coming from. Richman told Council for the period of construction, the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse are not expected to be deed restricted until there is a c/o on the hotel The applicant would expect to house the crew at these places. Harvey told Council the applicants have housed music students at these places. Harvey said when he came up with this program it was before what happened with the M.A.A. this summer. Harvey told Council the applicants have had 128 music students this past summer. Harvey said housing workers is really the contractor's problem. Harvey said if the applicants can help to accommodate the contractor, they will. Harvey said it might be better for the M.A.A. to have the housing next summer as they cannot commute. Harvey told Council the contrac- tor will provide busing and tool storage on site. Harvey told Council he would be willing to work on this with the staff. Richman told Council when staff looked at this issue, there was the potential for 4 hotel projects going on at the same time. Richman said Little Nell and this project have become naturally phased, and the projects at the Highlands are not happening. The housing situation is different because of this. Richman pointed out P&Zis supportive of construction workers being housed at the Meadows when the Meadows is not operating. Mayor Stirling asked why the 9 construction impacts are not listed specifically in condition #16. Richman said 1 through 8 are addressed in the current PUD agreement and will be addressed in the new one. Richman said there is nothing in the code that sets 9 as a specific requirement. Councilman Tuite said he is concerned about the statement that most of the employees are expected to be recruited from outside the valley. Harvey told Council at that time, this project was 8 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 16, 1988 on track with Little Nell. Harvey said the construction season was looking so busy in this town that most local employees would rather work for someone who is here year round rather than work for a one-time project. Harvey said another point is that this is a huge project and there are not that many subs that can handle it. Harvey told Council PCL contractors is taking bids from local electric and plumbing contractors. Harvey told Council this was not a conscious effort. Sarpa told Council the applicants have asked PCL to do what they can to involve the local community in this process. Harvey said he feels local contractors can be competitive because they do not have to build in housing and transportation factors. Councilman Tuite said he would like see the contractors try and get employees from the valley. Mayor Stirling said he would like to see this articu- lated in the condition. Mayor Stirling asked about extra cleaning of Mill, Monarch and Durant streets as part of this project, and whether this is the city's responsibility or that of the contractor. Hammond told Council during the bulk excavation process, the contractor brought in his own flushing equipment. The city provided some assistance with sweeping at the expense of the contractor. Hammond told Council the city would like to keep that kind of cleaning an obligation of the developer. The excavation is the major problem when a lot of mud is being tracked. Hammond said this can be addressed through the construction scheduling. Mayor Stirling said he would like this added in the conditions. Councilman Isaac moved to approve condition #16 as amended with a new (e) and (f) as above; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. Richman told Council condition #17 is the environmental health department concerns, which the applicants have been put on notice about and which they have no problems with. Councilman Tuite moved to approve condition #17; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Richman said condition #18 is a concern with the commercial proposal on the first floor of the Blue Spruce building, there is a potential for commercial uses to creep into the lodge district. The applicant intended to propose these uses by accessory, but there was nothing specific to regulate that. Richman said the staff wanted something so that when the uses turn over in time, there is something in the agreement that will help to limit this. Richman said P&Z and the applicant came up with a series of uses, which are standard for a major hotel facility. Richman said this is a 4300 square foot commercial space. There are 4 spaces shown, and these will not be allowed to be combined. This 9 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 16, 1988 will keep a major ski shop or clothing store from being located there. Richman said the city did not want to draw stores from the other side of the commercial district to this area. Harvey said there will probably be an accessory ski shop-type uses. Harvey said the applicant and staff agreed these will be 4 different shops and put in some specific uses for these shops. Councilwoman Fallin moved to approve condition #18; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. Richman said condition #19 is the requirement that the documents be updated, both the agreement and the set of drawings, the elevations and floor plans so there will be a specific FAR. Richman said this condition can specify the countable FAR is not to exceed 190,000 square feet. Councilman Isaac moved to approve condition #19 amending (a) and (e); seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. Richman said condition #20 makes sure that all the representa- tions made by the applicant during the process are included as requirements. The city's commitments are also requirements in this. Councilman Tuite moved to approved condition #20; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Stirling brought up the paragraph from the P&Z recommend- ing that Council grant an extension to the project to the extent necessary to permit the completion of the processing of these amendments but not limited to the recordation of the plat and the amendments. Harvey told Council the applicants have some Ritz Carlton people present to discuss employee housing and would prefer to do that before discussing this paragraph. Ed Staros, regional vice president Ritz Carlton, told Council Ritz has 6 operating hotels and 2 that will be opening this year. Staros told Council Ritz normally opens a sales and marketing office in the community 12 to 14 months prior to the opening of the hotel. This office becomes an office where people drop their resumes. From these resumes, Ritz can look at who is in the community and can hire key management personnel. The employees are trained in the corporate office and placed back in the community. Staros told Council Ritz has hiring clinics in the communities. Staros told Council Ritz also works with community colleges. Horst Schulze, Ritz Carlton, has been working with Colorado Mountain College on vocational training. Staros said Ritz also brings in some employees. Ritz has an executive committee consisting of a general manager and 7 division heads. 10 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 16, 1988 This executive committee is the key to continuity from hotel to hotel. These 8 people will possibly be brought into the com- munity. Staros told Council training is Ritz's number one criteria and they have an extensive training program in every single level in the hotel. Every employee has a minimum of 40 hours training before they greet a guest. Mayor Stirling asked how many employees are expected to be generated. Staros said the standard in their hotels is one employee per guest room. This has a variance of 5 percent in either direction. Councilman Tuite said if Ritz trains all their employees, they are more valuable. It should follow these employees should be paid well because Ritz does not want turn over of employees. Staros said Ritz looks at what the market will bear as far as salaries and adjusts these according to the community. Councilman Isaac asked what percent of the employees will come from outside the community. Staros said he is not sure, but Ritz hopes to hire as many from the valley as possible. Staros said the most recent Ritz opening was Rancho Mirage and they brought in 44 people out of 255 employees. Harvey said the concern is new housing for people that will be coming in. Harvey said the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse were both short- termed this past winter. These will house 89 employees. The Grand Aspen will house 4 employees. Harvey told Council in the Hunter Longhouse agreement, there was a commitment by the housing authority to use the money and interest earned from it to provide housing for 13 new employees. As a result of this project, new housing will be created at the Hunter Longhouse site for 13 people. Jim Adamski, housing director, said the money for these units will come out of the $250,000 loan. Adamski told Council the Hunter Longhouse is paying the Aspen Mountain Lodge back for their loan. Harvey told Council at the last meeting they brought up Ute City Place and requested future credits for these units. Harvey said Council' s concern was that these housing units would be needed for the Ritz. Harvey pointed out there is a provision in the P & Z resolution calling for an audit at the end of the second year to see if the Ritz is housing 60 percent of their employees. Harvey told Council the applicants intend to build Ute City Place in conjunction with the Ritz and have it available for housing. The audit will determine whether these units are needed for Ritz Carlton employees or whether they will be available for future credits. Harvey said the housing will come first, and the determination whether this is a future credit will come out of the audit. 11 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 16, 1988 Councilman Tuite said until 3 years from c/o of the Ritz, the applicants cannot look at this as future credits. Harvey said correct. Councilman Tuite said if the audit shows the Ritz does not have enough employee housing, the Ute City Place units will be used as credit against that, or if they have allowable credit they can use these units for future projects. Mayor Stirling said the conditions should specify the numbers of employees to be housed, the number of units and a completion date, and the fact that these will be restricted to the city's guidelines. Councilman Isaac moved to approve condition #2 as amended to include Ute City Place for 37 employees, 22 units, ready for occupancy at the same time as the c/o for the Ritz; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Gassman. Motion carried. (Councilman Tuite left Council Chambers). Richman told Council condition #1 is necessary so that there will be no more than 447 units in operation, which is the maximum lodge allocation available to the applicants; 155 at the Grande Aspen and 292 at the Ritz. Councilman Isaac moved to approve condition #1; seconded by Mayor Stirling. All in favor, motion carried. Richman told Council condition #3 is a recommendation by the housing authority. The numbers are the basis for the employee generations of the Ritz. One concern is the restaurant inside the hotel. If it grows, the employee generation could also grow. Richman told Council the city does not normally obtain employee housing for outside dining in open space. This was discussed at the P & Z, and they agreed. Richman pointed out when restaurants do outside dining, it is not necessarily an expansion. Councilman Isaac moved to approve condition #3; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Isaac asked if two years is adequate for the audit and is it going to be averaging or the employees at that time. Harvey said the audit is for the second year of operation so there is an entire 12 month picture. The audit will take the factor of a full time equivalent employee, will convert part time and seasonal and come up with the number of full time equivalent employees. Harvey said the applicants have discussed an audit after 1, 2 or 3 years. Three years would probably be more stable but it was felt to be too long. Councilman Isaac suggested an audit two years and four years after the c/0. Mayor Stirling asked about the date for bringing in the audit. Harvey said he does not know how long an audit 12 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 16, 1988 will take. Harvey suggested the audit should begin within 30 days after the end of the second year and be completed and have the results available no longer than 90 days. Council requested this be added to the condition #4. Councilwoman Fallin moved to approve condition #4 as amended; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Councilman Isaac asked if Council was interested in having an audit after 4 years. Harvey said there will probably be fewer employees as a business goes along because efficiencies will be developed. Staros agreed the peak number of employees is in the beginning. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Gassman. Motion carried. Richman told Council condition #5 is the applicable ratios for employee housing. Richman said the 56/44 comes from the original approval and maintains that is the required mix of 56 percent low, 44 percent moderate. Exhibit A is the formula of how employees are generated minus the credits. Richman said the formula also approximates 1 employee per bedroom. Councilwoman Fallin moved to approved condition #5; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Councilman Isaac said he is not happy how the applicants got the credits and debits. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Gassman. Motion carried. Mayor Stirling said he has uncertainty about condition #2. Mayor Stirling asked the proposed square footage of Ute City Place. Harvey said the total is just under 17,000 square feet of FAR. The studio units are 450 square feet; one bedroom 650 square feet and two bedrooms are 900 with a couple just over 1,000 square feet. Mayor Stirling asked what the applicants are factoring as a cost of construction. Harvey told Council it is between $70 and $85 per square foot. Mayor Stirling said if the construction costs are $70 per foot, that is $1,390,000 plus $700,000 for the cost of the ground for a total of $2,100,000. Mayor Stirling pointed out two members of the P&Z talked about a cash-in-lieu payment for 69 housing credits, which would be $1,725,000. Mayor Stirling said he is trying to balance the cash-in-lieu with the housing commitment. Councilman Isaac said the city would have to do something with the cash-in-lieu money. Fred Gannett, city attorney's office, said he has prepared an ordinance to approve these amendments for the August 22nd agenda. Council 13 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 16, 1988 requested that ordinance be added to the agenda. Council scheduled a continued meeting to August 24 at 5:00 p.m. This meeting will cover parking and the extension. Council left Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. 91=cÂ»uk) 2- do_ Lti Kathryn S(/Koch, City Clerk 14 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 9, 1988 Councilman Isaac called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. with Councilmembers Tuite and Gassman present. RITZ CARLTON HOTEL REVIEW (Aspen Mountain Lodge) Alan Richman, planning director, said Council can review the architecture and site planning first. Richman told Council at the completion of the architecture and site design review ,P&Z was without concern about the project. The only comment P&Z made was that some of them felt better about the project before the changes occurred in the resolution level review, before the big portion was removed from the Mill street area. Some members preferred the more continuous facade. The conclusion was that it was not worthwhile for them to pursue a redesign of the project back to its former configuration. Richman reminded Council the city was dealing with a design that changed gradually in response to concerns that were raised. Richman said the project in January was a different project than that presented to P & Z and Council in June and July and one that everyone felt was a better project. Richman said the areas staff was having trouble with were the massiveness, or overall facade and height; the scale and style of the building; whether the height was within the limits set under the previous PUD, how much more visible the height might be with the design proposed; and whether the open space was benefiting the public. Richman told Council these 4 issues came up during staff review and later during the P&Z scoring in April The project did not score as high as it had in 1985, although it is still above the threshold. P & Z found that the project will remain eligible for its GMP allotments, but it was a project P & Z was prepared to place conditions on to improve the score to be considered for a positive recommendation. (Mayor Stirling came into the Council meeting) Richman said when the staff looked at the mass of the project, there were concerns that there was an unbroken facade on Mill street; that there was a roof form that instead of being pitched was more of a mansard style; and that the building was "squared off" at the ends. Richman told Council the previous design had the building angled at its northern ends. Richman said the angling in the previous footprint opened up the views towards the mountains to a greater degree than the squared off look. Richman said staff was concerned that the footprint seemed to be creeping up towards the mountain. Richman said staff was looking for some breakup, and the current design has achieved that break up in several ways. There are now 3 separate components of the hotel. Richman said when the roof form changed, P&Z started to feel more comfortable with the design and massing changes. 1 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 9, 1988 Roy Haggard, architect, pointed out that the roof element makes up a majority of the upper portion of the building, but the roof now springs back at 45 degrees and enables the dormers to be more pronounced. P&Z felt this was more in keeping with the design intent instead of a flat mansard roof. Haggard said the appli- cant is pursuing either stamped metal or slate for the roof materials. Haggard said the primary facade of the building will be masonry with sandstone or limestone detailing at the cornices, and heads of windows. Haggard said the balconies will project only enough to allow the balcony doors to open and get some air. The balconies are not intended to lounge on. Haggard said there is an alternate balcony design to help break up some of the monotony of the hotel. The roof will be sloped down into some ornate leader boxes, which will carry all the internal leaders down through brick pilasters. Haggard showed a character drawing of what it will look like under the porte-cochere where one enters the hotel. Haggard said the hotel will introduce a base material which is an archit- ectural pre-cast flagstone, the rest of the building will be principally masonry. Haggard showed a typical dormer and balcony, the ski entrance, the cornice pieces carrying the leader boxes, the architectural frieze as it rolls across to delineate the base of the building. Richman told Council some of P&Z were concerned about some of the more ornate features of the building, like sculpted bowl and spires. Haggard told Council they have eliminated a lot of the frivolous architectural ornamentation. Haggard said certain areas warrant the application of things that make more of an architectural statement. Haggard said the building is a very lively building. They have scaled the design back down and gotten more simple. The building will come off as a traditional style building with very clean details. Richman said P & Z's main concern was that the architecture was neither unique nor borrowed from a local style. Richman said the building has been toned down, and P&Zis more comfortable with the project. Richman said staff and P&Z were concerned about the 42 feet to the midpoint and 55 feet for elevator towers written into the PUD agreement. Richman told Council he felt these limitations were not generic limitations that any design would be required to meet. Richman said the approval given by the city in 1985 was for a specific design with specific roof forms. Richman said the mansard form does accomplish what the city was looking to accomplish with the 42 and 55 foot height limitations. Richman said the increased setback in the roof starts to make a big difference for P& Z. Richman told staff felt comfortable that the roof could protrude through the 42 foot limit, if along the 2 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 9, 1988 facade in other locations, the roof was lower. Richman said staff preferred a variety in roof design. Haggard showed comparisons with the previous Roberts design. Haggard said the Blue Spruce building is two guest floors above retail. The front of the hotel is 3 guest floors above the entrance. There is a single loaded corridor to come up to the full 5 floor height. Haggard showed the location of the notch between the Dean street and Mill street wings. Haggard showed various height locations of the project. Richman told Council P&Z had recommended that both of the side wings of the main building be moved in by a module in an attempt to increase the setbacks on both Mill and Monarch street. Richman told Council this does not show up in the final recommen- dation for approval as there was a trade off because moving the building in tended to elongate the building. P & Z felt it was more appropriate to increase the garden area. Richman told Council a minority position of P&Zis that Council ought to be looking at greater setbacks in return for height variations. Two P & Z members suggested for each 1 foot above 28 foot height limit, the city increase the setback requirements by 1 foot. Richman said the city should be thinking about this type of approach, to have more specific criteria, for the planned unit development regulations in the future. Richman said the fourth issue discussed was open space on site. Richman told Council on lot 1 the majority of the open space is within the courtyard. P & Z had concerns about this open space. In the original design, the open space was viewed from Monarch street but not entered from Monarch street. Richman told Council there were several design changes to help respond to open space. One was opening up the garden to access from Monarch street as well as increasing the size of the garden. The penetration on Mill street creates greater access of both visual and pedestrian access. The applicants have proposed to dedicate the lot in front of the Grand Aspen. This previously had a building on each corner. Richman said staff and P&Z started looking at the PUD more in an entire context, which made P&Z more comfortable. Richman told Council, ideally, P&Z would have like to flip the building around and opened up the open space to town. P&Z recognized they were in a PUD amendment situation with an approved design with a footprint, and in their opinion, these changes were improvements, although not ideal. Richman pointed out the overall growth management scoring was essentially similar to the 1985 score. The project scored a couple of points lower, but it is way above the thresholds. Richman said if there is any reason for a lower score, he feels the staff and P&Z are being tougher on the project. The staff 3 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 9, 1988 and P&Z were applying the criteria in a more strict interpreta- tion. Richman pointed out that the attitude of the community in 1983 about redevelopment in the lodge district is different than the attitude of 1988. The community is looking for more and greater things in the lodge district than they were in 1988. Richman told Council the P&Z felt the Ritz design is an improvement over the Roberts' design in terms of architecture and site design, after the changes. Councilman Isaac asked what is the elevation change from the south end of the garden to Juniata street. Haggard said it is 14 feet. Haggard said instead of one retaining wall, they have introduced a series of sawtooth planting beds. Mayor Stirling asked if the gardens are large enough for functions. John Sarpa said that was a strong part of the discussion about the internal gardens. Sarpa told Council Ritz has a tradition in its other facilities of hosting events. Harvey showed the garden about 112 feet by 85 feet; there are 3 separate gardens. Harvey told Council the underlying code in this zone for setbacks is 10 feet front and rear yard and 5 feet side yards. Harvey showed where the project is 112 feet and where it is 30 feet. Harvey told Council on Mill street this ranges from 19 to 24 feet back from the property line to soften the scape of the project. Harvey told Council on Monarch the project is between 13 and 20 feet in setbacks; the Roberts plan was at the property line. Harvey showed the project is 35 to 50 feet from the center line of Dean street. Mayor Stirling asked if the bridge is all right for trucks backing in and turning. Richman said this is discussed in the technical issues. The staff was looking for 14'6" for a span of the bridge. Richman said there is a 15 foot section in the middle of the bridge which will meet that 14'6"; the rest of the span is 14 feet. Richman told Council staff feels comfortable with truck turning capabilities and with the emergency vehicle access. Haggard said P&Z was concerned about the pedestrian edge. Haggard said the project has introduced a series of horizontal planting beds along Monarch. There will be Norway pines of 15 to 20 feet planting along the building. Richman said this design is trying to be compatible with the pattern being set by Little Nell hotel and by the Galena street district. Richman said the applicants have coordinated well with those two pro- jects. Councilman Tuite said he would prefer a slate roof rather than a metal roof. Harvey said it would not be a standing seam roof. Haggard said the primary intent is to get some texture and design pattern out of the roof. Richman told Council architecture and site design is the only area where P&Z does not have recommend- ations for conditions. Mayor Stirling asked if the applicants 4 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 9, 1988 have calculated the height of the elevator shaft. Haggard showed drawings of the elevator shafts. One projects 62 feet above existing grade to the ridge of it. Haggard showed the location of the penthouse as it relates to the building and the site line of what would be seen from the street. Haggard said it is 35 feet back to the main guest elevators. The elevators on Mill street do not take up as much of the facade and come up to 58 feet above existing grade. Harvey pointed out when a section of the building was eliminated, another section of elevators had to be added to service the hotel rooms. Mayor Stirling asked if the public could walk in on the Mill street side and walk all the way into the courtyard. Harvey said there is a conditioned corridor that runs from the main lobby to Mill street. Haggard showed Council the worst case scenario where it is 46 feet above existing feet but pulled back away from the facade. Haggard showed store front windows that load internally which will soften the pedestrian edge. Councilman Isaac said he would like to go over the handicap access with the architect. Haggard pointed out the upper terrace, which loads directly from the first occupied guest floor. The entry level is at grade. Haggard showed other access points. Haggard showed Council the suite arrangement layouts. There are 5 different suite designs. The standard room in the hotel will be a complete bedroom and bath compartment. The suite is two modules with a bedroom compartment and a parlor module. The executive suites are in the corners of the building. Mayor Stirling asked if there will be a whole floor of suites. Haggard said there will not be an all-suite floor; there will be suites on every floor. Sarpa said the design will intersperse the suites throughout the hotel. Councilman Isaac said he is concerned about putting a hide-a-bed in the suites. Harvey presented a memorandum from Horst Schulze, president of Ritz Carlton, stating using hide-away beds in suites does not exist in any of their hotels as it is not in keeping with the standards expected by the market. Harvey submitted the letter to the record. Harvey told Council Ritz does have a program for families to encourage children and provide rollaways for children. (Councilman Gassman left the meeting.) Sarpa told Council the applicants have been working on an analysis of the employee housing situation. Harvey said the applicants are responsible for 161.5 employees for the Ritz Carlton. Harvey said the applicants are deed restricting 4 rooms in the Grand Aspen hotel for employee housing. When the Grand Aspen is removed, these 4 units will be replaced at a location satisfactory to Council and P & Z. The Alpina Haus is currently short term rental in the winter and offered to music students in the summer. Councilman Isaac asked if the Alpina Haus will be 5 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 9, 1988 available to music students next summer. Harvey said the applicants have discussed using the Alpina Haus as construction worker housing. (Councilwoman Fallin came into the meeting). Harvey said he would prefer to find another solution for con- struction workers as they can travel on the roads better than music students. Harvey said he does not have a specific answer. Harvey said the applicant housed 120 music students this summer, and they will try and honor that commitment again next year. Harvey told Council the Alpina Haus will provide new housing for 46 employees. The Copper Horse will supply new housing for 43 employees. Harvey reminded Council in 1986 Hunter Longhouse was about to go into default and into the free market. Hunter Longhouse and the applicant worked out a proposal for the applicant to make a loan to the non-profit housing corporation of $250,000. The terms of the loan are no payments for the first 2 years and a 10 year loan at zero interest. Harvey said the $250,000 over 12 years in a bank would be about $600,000. The credit for this was a total of 69 employees. This totals 158 with 4 rooms at the Grand Aspen for 162 employees. Harvey said employee housing is a community-wide problem which has been incurred to a large extent by some of the other projects in town. Harvey reminded Council when the Ski Company hotel and the Jerome were going through the process, Centennial was sitting with more units than people. The perception was there wasn't that much of a problem. Harvey said the 7 rooms at the Holiday House and 19 rooms at the Cortina seemed to be adequate. Harvey said the applicants have seen the community-wide housing problem and want to build some housing now to use a credit for future projects. Harvey said the applicants want to put Ute City Place under contract. Ute City Place was a project originally approved for this hotel. It is 22 units housing 37 employees. Harvey said the applicants intend to close on Ute City Place this fall and construct it as soon as possible. Harvey said he is con- cerned that in 3 or 4 years they will be in a situation like Hunter Longhouse, that this is not perceived as new employee housing because it is already housing employees. Harvey said the applicants intend to use this housing for future demands for whatever project is acceptable. Harvey said the applicants want to do the Ute City Place project now because the property is available, it has zoning in place, and they have plans for it. Mayor Stirling said Ute City Place would be finished about the same time as the hotel. The applicants would be putting new workers in it. Sarpa told Council the applicants have had preliminary discussions with the housing authority on joint cooperation on Ute City Place. Mayor Stirling said Ute City Place plus the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse would be housing 6 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 9, 1988 about half of the workers generated out of the need for operation of the hotel. Richman said there are 28 units at Hunter Longhouse, each calculated at having 2 people. The applicants credit at Hunter Longhouse is 69. The housing authority is required to produce housing for 13 people as part of the obligation of the $250,000 loan. Richman said the housing authority is planning to add on to Hunter Longhouse. Harvey said the applicants' goal is to try and piggyback on the tax exempt financing for the Ute City Place because it will create economies for both projects. Mayor Stirling asked if Council could make a condition of this amend- ment these additional units. Richman said the applicant is making a commitment to these units on the record. AP&Z requirement is that commitments on the record are made conditions of approval. Richman said the applicants will want explicit language that these units are in addition to the requirement for the project and that they will have the ability to use them as credits in the future. Councilman Isaac said his problem with the old formula is that it gave credit for employees that worked at the old Aspen Inn. Councilman Isaac said those employees are long gone. Councilman Isaac asked what the credit was for these employees. Sarpa told Council there was a great discussion on that number, and it was concluded that whatever number had been operative to that point, which the Ritz should have used in their project, was low. That number was adjusted to give the Ritz less credit. Harvey said the credit went from 12.8 employees per 1,000 square feet to 9 and from .36 employees per lodge room to .20. Richman pointed out that the applicants received credit for 70 or 71 employees for the Blue Spruce and Aspen Inn. Harvey told Council there were 29 employees that lived in old housing units on the Ritz Carlton site. These units were demolished. Harvey said these people are living somewhere else, and the applicants are providing replacement housing in the employee housing numbers for these people. Richman said staff impacted them with a displacement requirement in the formula in 1983. Harvey said the applicants are getting credit for workers that are no longer there; they are also creating housing for people that are no longer there. Councilman Isaac said he would like a simple formula. For 300 employees, the applicants will supply 50 or 60 percent of the needs. Councilman Isaac said he is hesitant to give the applicants credit for future development for Ute City Place because he does not think they will be taking care of the needs for the Ritz. Sarpa reminded Council the applicants have agreed to an audit in two years. Councilman Isaac said the audit on addresses how many more employees the Ritz will have, not how many employees are not being housed. 7 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 9, 1988 Sarpa said the applicants feel the numbers they have and the formulas they have gone through with staff and P & Z, leads to 162, which is a reasonable number for the Ritz. Sarpa said the city needs more housing, which is why they are taking on building Ute City Place now, and the applicants will use those credits in the future. Councilman Isaac said he feels the applicants will need those rooms now, not for any future growth. Harvey said the applicants propose to provide housing for an additional 37 people at the time the impact of the Ritz occurs. Harvey said if the applicants use those credits prior to the audit, when the audit comes around, they will have to provide more housing. Harvey said the reality is that there is going to be housing for an additional 37 people in town to answer a problem. Harvey said the land cost at Ute City Place works out to $20,000 per employee. Taddune asked if the applicants will deed restrict this project at the time a PUD amendment is signed. Bob Hughes, representing the applicant, told Council Ute City Place will be tied into to their ability to use it for future credits. Harvey said this will be moderate income, which is $.85 per square foot per month. The project will be a mix of studios, one- and two-bedroom units. Mayor Stirling said Council will take this under advisement as to whether to accept this as applying to the Ritz or as the applicant is proposing, credit for future developments. Harvey said it is important to the applicants to get a reading from Council on architecture and site design because they are trying to do their foundation drawings for building permit. Sarpa reminded Council there are no conditions in the P&Z resolution regarding architectural design. Harvey said the applicants and Council can keep going over each issue or they can finalize each one as they get to it. Mayor Stirling asked if Council has any architectural or site planning conditions for this project. Councilman Isaac said he does not feel the need for any conditions on architecture or site design. Mayor Stirling agreed there is no intention of conditions, at this point. Richman told Council in the technical issues, staff has addressed certain things that could be considered site design. Mayor Stirling asked if there is full assurance that the hotel as presented is going to be presented that way. Richman said condition #19 will give the city the most assurance. The condition talks about what will actually be recorded. Richman said in the Little Nell hotel, elevations and detailed plans were not recorded. Staff found themselves in a quandary when review- ing the plans for final approval. Richman recommended avoiding this by recording an entire set of plans. Richman said he feels the city has adequate assurances. 8 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 9, 1988 Mayor Stirling asked if floor area calculations are addressed. Richman said (e) asks for floor plans for each level indicating countable and excludable floor area. Richman told Council he has preliminary calculations indicating the countable area is within 190,000 square feet. This will be finalized on the final recording. Councilman Tuite asked the percent of open space. Joe Wells said it is 35 percent. Harvey said 25 percent is required in the code. Richman said this is a representation, not a specific condition. Richman said there will be 40,000 square feet of open space. Harvey showed on the site plan where the open space is that the applicants are getting credit for. The open space has to be open to the street. Wells told Council only the upper terrace counts in open space because the others are more than 10 feet below grade. There are two strips on Mill and Monarch, the tail of lot 1, which is the ski easement. There will be open space around the Blue Spruce. Harvey said the 35 percent open space is on lot 1. Councilman Isaac asked about the open space on lot 6. Richman said it is part of the PUD but is not counted towards the open space in phase one. Wells said phase one lot is 128,941 square feet; the building coverage is approximately 50 percent. This will give an idea of how much open space is not counting. Mayor Stirling said at the next meeting 1,3 and 5 should be worked on. Richman said items 7 through 13 and construction activities will also be handled by Jay Hammond. Mayor Stirling said Council should disclose any new conditions they would like added to this. Mayor Stirling said there will be a condition on the rezoning of the lots on Durant. Richman told Council in the parking, staff is dealing with a formula approach developed in 1983 which has been applied to the most current program Ritz is proposing. Richman told Council there is an increase in the parking from the 1985 agreement. Richman reminded Council the parking formula looked at the hotel in its various components with a factor of .66 parking space per room at 90 percent total occupancy of the hotel. Richman said this generates 175 parking spaces. Richman told Council P& Z accepted the previous formula and ended up with a requirement of a minimum of 220 parking spaces sub-surface along with 10 ground parking spaces. Richman said in the PUD agreement, there was a requirement associated with lot 5; the Grand Aspen was required to have 129 parking spaces while it was in operation. Richman said this is being maintained by the applicant with the spaces that exist below and at grade of the Grande Aspen. Richman said the actual numbers of parking spaces required for the two phases is 359, which is more than was required in the prior PUD agreement. Richman told Council the actual parking plan shows 235 spaces rather than 220. Richman told Council of 9 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council August 9, 1988 the 220 sub-grade spaces, some 18 percent of them are at a dimension which will not meet the city's code standard. The city's code standard is 8'6" by 18"; these spaces are 7'6" by 16". Richman told Council there is nothing in the code which provides for this type of variation. Richman said staff has been provided with evidence that national standards of 7'6" by 16" is not an unusual standard. Richman told Council the applicant has submitted a request for a code amendment to allow the city to deal with this issue. Richman said there is nothing the Council can do to vary the size of parking spaces. Richman said P&Z was satisfied with the parking program and had no problem with spaces that did not meet the city's standards. Harvey told Council national standards allow up to 25 percent of parking spaces to be in the range of 7'6" by 16". Harvey pointed out the parking is in the back portion of the hotel on two levels. Councilman Isaac asked the height of the parking garage. Haggard said it is 7'6" clear to structure on the typical level. One level will have 13 foot clear for a portion of the garage and a section with 9 foot clear. Councilman Isaac requested the applicant designate some parking spaces for wheelchairs and make the spaces a little wider. Haggard said they will meet all the UBC requirements. Councilman Tuite asked if the entrance will be snow melted. Haggard said it will be with a trench to collect the runoff. Richman told Council P&Z accepted the parking plan; however, the code does not provide for the parking as presented. Richman said P&Z accepted this on the basis it makes good planning sense. Harvey said there is a percentage of compact cars. If this parking plan can accommodate more cars, they should go with it. Harvey said he feels comfortable with the parking plan. Mayor Stirling said the meeting will be continued for one week from tonight at 5:00 p.m. tfO:=tii iuÂ«) 2 140-X- 1 Kdthryn S.j'Koch, City Clerk 10 MINORITY STATEMENT ON RITZ CARLTON PUD AMENDMENT AUGUST 1, 1988 WE RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE AMENDMENT FOR THESE REASONS: SITE DESIGN: Such a large project, with heights 100% over code, and FAR 35% over code, should be designed with open space on the perimeter. Every foot of excess height should require an extra foot of setback. A grand building requires grand grounds, and the community requires mitigation for such an enormous building. Privacy for hotel functions can be maintained with hedges or fences. EMPLOYEE HOUSING: This project is not producing a single unit of new employee housing. The Ritz will be the second largest employer in the valley. If it is not required to actually produce employee housing, what prececent are we setting for future projects? The Ritz received 69 housing credits for only loaning money to the housing authority. Cost of 69 housing credits for this applicant $250,000 LOAN which the housing authority repays Cost of 69 housing.credits for any other applicant today $1,725,000.00 PAYMENT to cash-in-lieu program CHANGED CONDITIONS: We are in the midst of a building boom. Other hotels are being built and have already come on line. The employee housing crisis is even more severe than when these approvals were orginally made. This amendment should not be approved until conditions are made requiring the project to address the changed conditions in the community, as your code says. Mari Peyton Planning Commissioner U.(44 David White Planning Commissioner *241.MA_: HAD[ D July 27, 1988 Aspen Holdings, Inc. Alan Richman Aspen City Planner 130 So. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan: Per our phone conversation, I am writing to clarify the approval status of Ute City Place. We have the property under contract and intend to construct the employee housing project in 1989 for fall occupancy. In researching the project, there are two separate sets of drawings. I am only interested in the 100% employee project of 22 units for 37 employees. It is my understanding that all approvals under the R.B.0. have been granted and are still in force. My plan is to develop plans suitable for modular production of the units for installation on-site. Thus, my goal is to develop plans and go for a building permit. If, in your review of the approval status, you determine that approvals have lapsed or there is more to do, please contact me. Sincerely yours, <7t' rn 7 Ho/7 Perry A. Harvey, Dir@ctor HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC. PAH:fc JUL 291988 :lf,1 j 600 East Cooper Street Suite 200 Aspen Colorado 81611 (303) 925-4272 FAX: (303) 925-4387 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr. , City Manager T 7( FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director -kii RE: Ritz-Carlton Hotel DATE: July 27, 1988 Attached is a copy of the applicant's submission to the City with respect to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. I wanted to make sure each member of Council obtained a copy of this document prior to the initiation of the review on August 1. The meeting planned for August 1 will simply be a general orientation to the project by the applicant. At the meeting or sometime just prior to the meeting, I anticipate completing my review memo and distributing it to you. Attached to the memo will be the Planning Commission's Resolution recommending your approval of the project, which was adopted on July 26. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please do not hesitate to call me for information. U fSâ€¢ Aspen/Pitkiii*Rl**ning Office i - Â·.9 ,.Â» 4. # r . it' I' .it':Â·.4 4-i-N.â‚¬'..:c;*86.:-:bÂ· 35Â·' - 130 s#*thigilenarystreet asped, colorado 81611 July 22, 1988 Mr. Perry Harvey Hadid Aspen Holdings 60C East Cooper Street, Suite 200 Aspen, Colorado, 81611 Dear Perry, This week I had two conversations, first with Joe Wells and subsequently with you, at which time you brought up the question of where in the process the Ritz-Carlton project needed to be as of September 12. Because of the importance of this matter, I met today with Bob Anderson, City Manager and Fred Gannett, City Attorney, to review the staff's position. Following are the conclusions we reached. We looked back at the minutes from the May 9 City Council meeting, at which time Resolution 11 was adopted. On page 10 of those minutes, Bob Anderson states what continues to be our position on this question, which is that you must obtain a foundation permit for the project by this deadline. While Bob Hughes makes a differing interpretation of this matter on that same page of the minutes, it was not our position then, nor is it now, that you need only apply for the permit. I think you will have to agree that we have been quite consistent as to this position in each instance we have been questioned, which is why I was so surprised by the position you took this week. In order that you are able to meet this deadline, I suggest that you have a complete foundation plan package into the Building Department by August 1. This package should include all information requested by the Building Department from your recent meeting with them, plus sufficient drawings of proposed elevations to allow a preliminary check of height to occur. Furthermore, I recommend that you place a high priority on drafting amendments to the PUD Agreement and the amended Final Plan drawings, as these will need to be recorded prior to the September 12 deadline as well. It is our intention to process the request for the foundation permit concurrent with your Council review, but not to issue any permits until final approval has been given and all required documents are recorded, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code and Resolution 11. The permit which is issued will be contingent upon your agreement that our review of the D .A foundation has been accomplished without a full review of the compliance of the remainder of the structure with the Building Code and Land Use Regulations. Detailed check of compliance with these regulations will occur in conjunction with review of any permit beyond the foundation permit, as has occurred previously in complex projects of this type. I would also recommend that you carefully check all applicable regulations to insure that you are submitting all documents which are required at this time. While I have tried to tell you all that is required to obtain . the next permit, the burden still rests with you to meet any applicable regulation I may not have noted. If you feel that it is not possible to meet the deadlines stated herein, I would suggest that you bring this matter to the attention of the City Council early on in the review process so that it can be resolved expeditiously. I have gone out of my way to provide you with this notice as quickly as possible, to give you adequate time to meet these deadlines. Please let me know if I can otherwise be of assistance in this regard. Sir>Yerely, HyL-Â»~ Lift Alan Richman Planning Director CC: Bob Anderson Fred Gannett ritzdeadline MEMORANDUM 108-88 AGENDA TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City/County Manager DATE: July 21, 1988 RE: MISCELLANEOUS MEMO AND ITEMS OF INTEREST -- ADDENDUM --i--- ------ John Sarpa of Hadid Aspen Holdings has made a very strong request that the City allow Hadid Holdings to substitute an $800,000 letter of credit for $800,000 of the $1,800,000 placed in escrow to assure the completion of certain specific phases of their hotel project, or the replacement of the excavation if they can not eventually proceed. I have discussed this at length with Paul Taddune and we can see no compelling reason to reject this request given a letter of credit that meets our standards. The Hadid people are proposing a letter of credit from National Bank of Washington a major Washington, DC bank further backed by a major New York Bank--Irving Trust Company and further confirmed by First Interstate Bank of Denver. Subject to Paul Taddune's final approval as to form I am going to authorize this letter of credit substitution unless you specifically, by formal Council action prohibit this action. I am aware that informally Council's first reaction to this proposal was negative. It is no wonder, given the bazaar situation that the County has encountered with the matrix corporation letter of credit. Because of this situation, we have required that the Hadid group go to extraordinary lengths to provide a secure an accessible letter of credit. If we can reach a final agreement as to form, Paul and I will be confident that this letter of credit is totally legitimate. Attachments 2 J . 1 0. l_) to , Â¥ ...1 -- . AE Jr. -1 1-1 ~ THE NATI0NAL BANK 0F WASHINGTON OUTGOING ~ WIRE MESSAGE .~ unar i nat. BY MT = . 99 TRANSACTION REFEMENCE 1 20 -1 -Fr..9983- FREE FORMAT To IRVING TRUST CO. - NEW YORK, N.Y. 8. TER t.sl: b. - .....1 -,9-t. --i.-- ., k r, 11: 1 6. 4 34 : - SWIFT/CABLE 2 1 ADDRESS , ..t ~ TEST KEY: ( ''iII':9 1 ... 1 FF' 49983 START TEXT WERE-7 TEXT ~ 79 ATTN. MR. -GEORGE KROL - LETTERS OF CREDIT GROUP, SPECIAL .. TRANSACTIONS CENTER ~-ADDING YOUR CONFIRMATION, KINDLY ADVICE THE FOLLOWING LETTER OF 2 ./.- 1 DO-CRDIT THROUGH: FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF DENVER NOTE DENVER, COLORADO 8 ATTN. MS. HEIDI HELDRICK . 9 TYPE 10 1Â¢E ARE HEREBY ESTABLISH IN FAVOR OF: THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO 11 BEFORE .ATTN: MR. BOB ANDERSON - CITY ADMINISTRATOR, PHONE! (303) 925-2029 12 13 THISIOR THE ACCOUNT OF: SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, OUR IRREVOCABLE~ " 15 LINE -MANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT No. 13082 :FOR AN AMOUNT OF EIGHT HUNDRED f ' 0 ,- 17 4- -THOUSAND DOLLARS ($800,000.00) , EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AND EXPIRINZ '0 %19 -ON JANUARY 19, 1989. 2 20 5 5: .EL]NDS UNDER THIS LETTER OF CREDIT ARE AVAILABLE AGAINST SIGHT ~ 23 .IlRAFT DRAWN ON IRVING TRUST CO., NEW YORK, N.Y. WHEN ACCOMPANIED 24 25 -BY: "WRITTEN ADVICE SUBSCRIBED BY THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF '6 :7 ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT THERE EXISTS A DEFAULT UNDER THE TERMS OF 78 29 EITHER PARAGRAPH 1 OR PARAGRAPH 2, OR BOTH, OF SECTION B OF THE jo LINES LEFT ...~~,ANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT-ASPEN MOUNTAIN 31 32 [f -SUBDIVISION, RECORD IN BOOK 500 AT PAGES 656, ET SEQ. OF THE 33 -- 12 CONT. PAGE 2 H 11 F. L- DO NOT TYPE BELOW THIS LINE --~ INSTRUCTIONS -40 1: P/S TEST 1 07-19-88 1 .OC/bept. /ah - ~ \31Â»7:71.-uuâ‚¬ . 11 i.--6.:24â‚¬' d Li Â£1<ij .. _ i ~ '~- ~~ j - .... 1 .10 h I. 1 -I -, V k '*- â€¢ u./ t..... -- - - - I. M - PAGE No. 2 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO REAL PROPERTY RECORDS, WHICH DEFAULT ENTITLES THE CITY OF ASPEN TO DRAW UPON THIS LETTER OF CREDIT. " ~PARTIAL DRAWINGS ARE NOT PERMITTED. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY STATED, THIS IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT IS SUBJECT TO THE UNIFORM CUSTOMS AND PRACTICE FOR DOCUMENTARY CREDITS (1983 REVISION) INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PUBLICATION No. 400. BANK TO BANK INFORMATION: TO IRVING TRUST CO., NEW YORK REIMBURSEMENY'INSTRUCTIONS: WE ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZING IRVING TRUST CO., NEW YORK TO DEBIT OUR ACCOUNT ONE DAY AFTER THEIR TESTED TELEX ADVISE TO US, CERTIFYING THAT ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LETTER OF CREDIT HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND DOCUMENTS ARE BEING AIRHAILED TO US. REGARDS THE NATIONAL BANK OF WASHINGTON L/C DEPT. /3.,6 4 zod.Â·~. 11.,~724,tu ' 2Â· *h 70 0 1. 4 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE AR MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director RE: Consensus Items from June 28 Meeting DATE: June 29, 1988 As requested, following is a summary of the decisions made by the Commission at the meeting on June 28: 1. Architectural and site design changes are quite acceptable overall. Staff recommended changes to the bridge and to the Monarch Street side of the Blue Spruce replacement building are not required. 2. Elevation sketches from within the courtyard should be provided to the Commission. 3. Some limited additional architectural details should be provided on the blank wall of that portion of the building intended to house the apres ski lounge. 4. A list of retail uses which will be permitted in the accessory retail areas of the hotel should be provided so the staff can regulate occupancy over time. 5. There should be somewhat less regularity or formality in the street tree planting which surrounds the site, provided that this can be coordinated properly with the plans for other portions of the lodge district. The meeting was continued to July 12. At this time, we will review the above items and then go on to discuss housing, parking and technical issues. If we are able to complete all of these items, we can then complete the GMQS rescoring and present you a draft of proposed conditions for the project on July 26. Please bring your memo from the prior meeting to the session on July 12 as it continues as the basis of our review of the project. ritzmtgupdate.1 Comparison of Key Parameters Change of Roberts Plan and 6/3/88 12/02/85 6/03/88 Increase (Inc) or Architectural Proposal Roberts Plan Submission Reduction (Red) Main Bldg @ Monarch Street Distance from facade to south prop line 105' 112' 7'Inc Perceived length of facade 130' 206' 76'Inc Setback from Monarch prop line @ entry level terrace NA 7' NA @ upper levels 0' to 16' 13' to 21' 5' to 13'Inc Range of bldg height @ facade 31.5'to 60.5' 25' to 48' 6.5'to 12.5 Red @ ridge 49.5'to 65.5' 34' to 57' 8.5'to 15.5 Red Number of levels above grade 3 to 5 2.5 to 4.5 .5 Floor Red South Wing/Main Bldg @ Mill Street Distance to south prop line 25' 34' 9'Inc Perceived length of facade 162' & 85' 205' & 521 43'Inc(longes) Setback from Mill Street to SE balustrade 5' 5' 00 @ upper levels 15' to 20' 18' to 76' 31 to 56'Inc Range of bldg height @ facade 27.5'to 60' 8' to 53' 7' to 19.5 Red @ ridge 46' to 65' 17' to 55' 10' to 29' Red Number of levels above grade 3 to 5.5 .5 to 5 .5'to 2.5' Floor Red Main Bldg @ Dean Street Distance from facade to prop line @ Monarch 39' 32' 7'Inc @ Mill 66' 37' 29 'Red Perceived length of facade 170' 206' 36'Inc Setback from Dean St centerline 30' 33' to 44' 3' to 14' Inc Range of bldg height @ facade 29.5'to 55' 35' to 48' 5.5'to 7' Red @ ridge 55' to 58' 48' to 52' 6' to 7' Red Number of levels above grade 3 to 5 3 to 4 0 to 1 Floor Red Blue Spruce Bldg @ Monarch Street Distance from facade to north prop line 28' 22' 6'Red Perceived length of facade 72' 74' 2'Inc Setback from Monarch prop line @ ramp retaining wall No ramp No ramp NA @ upper levels 0'to 15' 16' 1' to 16'Inc Range of bldg height @ facade 26'to 45.5' 19' to 40' 5.5'to 7' Red @ ridge 42'to 53' 32' to 40' 10' to 13' Red Number of levels above grade 2.5 to 4 2.5 to 3 0 to 1 Floor Red Blue Spruce Bldg @ Durant Street Distance from facade to Monarch prop line 6' to 15' 16' 1' to 10'Inc Perceived length of facade 96' 101' 5'Inc Setback from Durant prop line 0' to 30' 7' to 26' 4'Red to 7'Inc Range of bldg height @ facade 26'to 38' 26' to 41' 0 to 3' Red @ ridge 44.5' to 54' 36' to 40' 12.5 to 14' Red Number of levels above grade 3 3 0 C Pcl TH E R!TZ-CARLTON MANPOWER LOADING CHART 1 %0 0' 09,20-ne' 500 - - e _ Summer Tourist Sum mer Tounst Ski Season . Season 1988 -1989 Â· Season 400 - ' 1988 1989 320 - 2dO - 160 - 80 - 0! Ill I 1 1 1 1 I T 1 T 11 1 1 1 N MJJASONDJFMAMJJASOND 1988 1989 1 SCHEDULE DURATION 02.1 1/83 ELECTRIC LINE DURANT AVENUE S 75Â°09'll" E 120.62' k 90 . M Z _- U Lt ' M /O-,01/ i .161 1# - F R Id 3 - S 75â€¢09'11" E !2 lo DEAN STREET I.' 1/ \ //11 r 1 -1 i r.1.- O./V 0./y 2 m OAf ABC A 100.52; M.6/,05/DI S L u N c A Â«47 . 3-/04>Gri ACCESSORY USES FOR RITZ-CARLTON, ASPEN Lot 1, Aspen Mountian P.U.D. Sundry Shop Car rental desk Travel desk Ski rentil and repair Ski and sports activity center Ski and sports shop Ritz-Carlton souvenir store 6 x le- y Retail clothing store 4 Luggage and leather goods Beauty shop Florist shop Gift shop 9 Jewelry store + Art gallery 4 Bookstore - ~ &.0. Chugu GATIOU/b 2bf 1 + Ba c k,a N a .. a 90*4 8 A . - P YÂ»F. e.9. 10 9,Â« _ -roU l F,412 Pa l I h:on, Uvi 1 2 80 000 0 0 0 9 . peÂ·,Â·Â·tri Lau, 1 : 34) 080 (30.10 1 4 020 (20.70 1 9 74 \ 5,054- 2 : 527; a e (08.-103 24, 22, 1 CO.03 0 + 24(18 1 3 0-3 315 06Â©.4 91 8,10 0 = :21 j 2>\ 8 4- : 2 7/ 24 S (ia,Â·4 52- 3 3 (g - - 93 346 U - 9 : 10)09-9 (Mve 5201 0526 0 20,00-6 - 11610 : 1 3 9, 591 101,972 I, 17+ H 6 1 40, 220 1-J V f ki 4.2 l-Fvlu- 2 : 149 451-- (34.72) 6 j.*Le 00 -50) 2 0 9* -- 3 6852 D : \A-, 4 3 4 42.90 jo) 06,0 (*.tâ‚¬) 11 168 : Il 1 -71 8 ~ 4- : \6 tel (500) 1 4/ 404- S 14 404 j e: \43134 (300) 1 *j 404- p ) 49 494 47 . joi 099 (loa) to/012.-' - 1 10, 07:2- (>87 81-6 65/-73:0 - . 31 '029-9- 96,11Â©0 -Eve -Eft> 02.L F094- 10{24,24: '3'702- (12-Â°i) 4 3 1 1 4-- (15.-7~) ldpÂ» = 4) 2-7 8 LORA: .40. 62> 1 7006 1 1 056 , 110 66 \44Â£ 49.00 : 1066 1 logs = -\ j O 96 .-I .-. I lie 22- 1 87 224- le,4- \4 3,88 r -76 / 1 * 6/9 1-DTÂ»- F,6427 =. 1(0do;29 4- 1 ~ .~- ~ _ 4, n rn /3 % i 0 + PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. Construction Since 1906 June 23, 1988 D-206A-2A Serial No. 18 ISSUED TO: HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC. RECEIVED ASPEN INN CONDOMINIUMS THE GRAND ASPEN HOTEL JUN 2 7 1988 CONDOMINIUM RENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC. THE MOUNTAIN CHALET City Engineer THE DOLOMITE CONDOMINIUMS Dear Sirs: RE: Ritz Carlton Aspen Hotel Site Hours Of Operation Our excavating contractor will have completed his bulk excavation June 24, 1988 as scheduled. No work will be done on the site over the weekend of June 25 and June 26, 1988. Starting Monday June 27, the hours of operation will be reduced to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday for the duration of the shoring operations and the related excavation activities. These hours may be adjusted slightly to ensure compliance with the overall project schedule. Your cooperation has been greatly appreciated. It is PCL's continuing desire to minimize the impact of this project on the community. Should you have any problems, questions, or concerns, feel free to contact myself or the Project Superintendent, Lewis Leatherwood. Our local phone number is 920-4300. Yours truly, PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. 27 79 ,4...Aby O./le-,Â·u/nt. Gary Browning Assistant Project Manager GB/ls CC: Jobsite P. Harvey R. J. Gallagher , J. Hammond 200 Fillinore Street Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80206 Telephone 303-321-3300 Telex: 454555 9 : 2 ,1 CITYc<OF VAS 1 1~/ V 130 south galena s~reet aspen, colorado 81611 303-925-2020 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 20, 1988 TO: City Manager Planning Director City Engineer Building Inspector FROM: City Attorney RE: Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc.: Modification to Cash Escrow Financial Assurances Forwarded herewith please find a June 14, 1988, letter from John Sarpa indicating Savanah Limited Partnership's intention to offer the City an $800,000.00 letter of credit to be issued in favor of the City of Aspen by National Bank of Washington, Washington, D.C. The purpose of the letter of credit is to substitute $800,000.00 of the cash presently escrowed with Central Bank in Aspen as financial assurances for site improvements. As you know, approximately $1.8 million cash is being held in Central Bank of Aspen. Allowing $800,000.00 to be funded by letter of credit is consistent with the provisions of Section 20- 16(c) of the Municipal Code, which language is tracked in the PUD agreement, which requires the developer to provide a guarantee for no less than 100% of the then current estimated costs of the improvements as computed by the City Engineer. "The guarantee shall be in the form of a cash escrow with the City, or a bank or savings and loan association; or an irrevocable site draft or letter of commitment from a financially responsible lender; and shall give the City the unconditional right, upon default by the subdivider to withdraw funds upon demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for any improvements or pay any outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party." The applicant agreed to install additional cash funds to bond around the excavation. In conversations with John Sarpa, we have insisted that, at least for the time being, $1 million remain in the cash escrow. Unless we hear to the contrary by June 24 we will assume that there is no objection to modifying the financial assurances as set forth in Mr. Sarpa's letter, and we will arrange to transact the modification. PJT/mc 7 4 4... r' A.. M m 4 1 ir June 14, 1988 Paul J. Taddune, Esq. HAND DELIVERED City Attorney City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Cash Escrow for Financial Assurances - Modification Dear Paul: As you and I have recently discussed on the telephone, I want herein to confirm for you the intention of Savanah Limited Partnership to offer an $800,000.00 letter of credit to be issued in favor of the City of Aspen by National Bank of Washington in Washington, D.C., a bank with assets in excess of $2 billion. The purpose of the letter of credit is to substitute for $800,000.00 of the cash presently escrowed with Central Bank in Aspen as financial assurances for site, landscaping and excavation work relative to Hotel Phase I. Upon the signature of the City, below, this shall consti- tute the joint instructions of Savanah and of the City to Central Bank in Aspen to release to Savanah from the foregoing described escrow the sum of $800,000.00. This will also confirm that, prior to expiration of the letter of credit, Savanah will arrange either for its extension, for other collateral reasonably acceptable to the City of Aspen or for the sum of $800,000.00 cash to be redeposited with Central Bank in Aspen upon the same terms and conditions as apply to the escrow presently in effect. SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a District of Columbia limited partnership BY: HAI*~~D +SPEN HOLDINGS, INC. , a Colorad~corporation b.1 [Al .2 la~ Joh# Barpa V THE FOREGOING IS AGREED TO AND ~ M CENTRAL BANK IS SO INSTRUCTED // 12 THE CITY OF ASPEN By - ---~~JaÂ¢Y 6*het -EULiCL_'0n.la41 16 DIA. *44 4 1 06. 1 4 Judg 88 1 2 1 L--1 L_Er - -i \ \ I I 60' Â»icL ji? .-I . 7==.Jurf 2*3 ----_33=22313333~- r-11 L VEL - Â·Â· __,=-,~UCK DOCK ~ - - -=:~reÂ» 11 1 . 1 1 /1 h PURCH; .SING 9 n \ 1 \ 11 ** 5-6 1-01-:cw_Jt 3 \- R / r t~ RETAIL .1 1 SECI.~~Y / it 44/ 1/ 7 L/i/li i /71 \ 1 1 Â»t-Â»-1{ lih,1 =-*Lucg 1>4 1 - -- -U i mil/hu/////Pf \ ' -1 1 111 a#-A ZE 94 -Â»tu- 9.H Â« y %1-1 ./ \1, 0~ -- 1 1.1 --9 1 1 y /,f~11 7Â»i,RE % <)I~)lllilll)up GALLERY, ~TR 1 1 lj< r STORAGE e Fl -- -9Â»97/22;42 1*-- -~ &49- F A d =fl 1 : 84Â¥ATOR I 1 . BELLMAN ~l 1 - D Em=EA 213 -2 Ja ~1 I U\ 3 a SERVICE Â· L / , -I El// 'A f --T 1 1 el*t i 11 rar-1 Tr ' 'A PORTE COCHERE ENTRY Â«>9 V i 091>0 1 )N % ] I 1-~VY , i. 1 8 GR. 11 1-1, , WORK I RETAI L ] i -Â«JEL~ AREA 4 21 11 1 1 h - ' r'BOXES , i It '(1 1900 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~1 - Ld_ . -212 3/22-J---_(~ h VIEW 1. 1/ 11 1 1 1 C C.ONCIERGE 1-- 1 - Ce', A:C {Â·-4,1 1../. i #300, 200 Fillmore St. PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. Denver, Colorado 80206 Phone: (303) 321-3300 June 16, 1988 D7 2064-2A Serial No. 13 Mr. Leslie Holst Aspen Inn Condominiums P.O. Box 12287 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Ritz-Carlton, Aspen Excavation & Shoring Schedule Dear Mr. Holst: Further to our letter of June 2, 1988 regarding the excavation and shoring schedule for the above-referenced project, I am pleased to advise you that the pile driving operations will be completed tomorrow, June 17, 1988. As you will recall from our previous schedule, this is one week earlier than we originally anticipated. With respect to our bulk excavation activities, please be aware that the work is proceeding on schedule and it is still our intent to complete these operations by June 24, 1988. Once again, we apologize for any inconvenience our work may have caused you, and thank you for your continued support of the project. Sincerely, 4l A,h<kie, 1--1 (/ 0/Lot,n Shaun P. Yancey ~f Senior Project Manager SPY:fc CC: Perry Harvey R.J. Gallagher Jay Hammond PCL Jobsite DENVER / MINNEAPOLIS / LOUISVILLE / CHICAGO / LOS ANGELES Construction Since 1906 â‚¬201;k--4 ,-1 JI 1 01988 HADID Aspen Holdings, Inc. June 9, 1988 Alan Richman Planning Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan: Monday night June 13 we can finalize the language of Resolution 11 Series of 1988. On May 9 we spent considerable time refining the language. Unfortunately, we all had little time prior to that meeting to review the Resolution and prepare for the meeting. On June 1 we met again to discuss the processing of Phase I, Phase II, and the Park. It was agreed that Phase II and the Park will be behind the Phase I amendment process but the commitments for these parcels, as outlined in the Resolution, will track with the Phase I amendments. In an effort to clarify the language in the Resolution, it should be recognized that the terms and conditions will control the project until the development of Phase II, and thus we must be clear in the intent and language. In this light it is important to clarify the following points. A) In the Whereas on Page 3, the language speaks to obtaining final approval for all the proposed amendments by September 12, 1988. This should changed to incorporate the understandings of the June 1 meeting, to wit: The applicant must process the proposed amendment for Phase I, the Ritz-Carlton, to obtain final approval on or before September 12. Phase II and the Park will be in the process but will not necessarily have received final approval by September 12. Nonetheless, the representations agreed to in the Resolution will be part of the Amendment language for 600 East Cooper Street Suite 200 Aspen Colorado 81611 (303) 925-4272 FAX: (303) 925-4387 June 9, 1988 Page Two Phase I as well as other details on Phase II and the Park which might be agreed to prior to September 12. B) There is a great deal of semantic confusion in the City Code over hotel rooms, hotel keys, hotel units, and bedrooms. Throughout our work with you, with the Ritz- Carlton and with Morgan Stanley, we have maintained the same program that we presented to the Planning & Zoning Commis- sion, the one they voted to approve. This program was for 292 keys. We thought this was clearly understood by all parties or we would have clarified this. The program is 292 keys, consisting of 154 king rooms, 110 double/double rooms, 26 1-bedroom suites, and 2 2-bedroom Ritz-Carlton suites. This is the program upon which Ritz-Carlton based their projections and upon which the lending institutions have based their commitments. We have consistently maintained this program, and the Resolution should reflect this understanding. The term, 'hotel room' can be construed as a key or a single module. In the interest of clarity we suggest the language in Section I to read, "Phase I - the right to build no more than 190,000 square feet of countable floor area to contain up to 292 hotel units as herein outlined, and 0 residential units." Section 1(2), "Phase II - maximum of 50 hotel units..." These language clarifications should also be reflected in the Whereas sections. We are confident that these clarifications are consistent with the meeting of the minds which we mutually achieved, and we look forward to continuing to work with the City in bringing the hotel to fruition. Sincerely, 4 #*,916 Perr* Harvey, Director HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ASPEN MOUNTAIN REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 28, 1988, at a special meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M., before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor, Old City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO, to consider an application submitted by Savannah Ltd. Partnership for rezoning of Lots A thru I, Block 91, City of Aspen Townsite. The rezoning request is from C-L & L/TR to Park for a new Lot 6 of the Aspen Mtn. Subdivision to be created to encompass the block in front of the Grand Aspen to develop a public ice rink and park. This rezoning application will be considered in the context of GMP/PUD Amendments submitted with respect to construction of the Ritz-Carlton Aspen. The public hearing for these amendments has previously been continued to June 28, 1988. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 225. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on June 9, 1988. City of Aspen Account. MEMORANDUM TO: Jay Hammond, City Engineer Jim Adamski, Housing Director Paul Taddune, City Attorney Wayne Vandemark, Fire Marshall FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director RE: Ritz-Carlton Hotel Re-Submission DATE: June 7, 1988 Attached please find a copy of the re-submission for the Ritz- Carlton Hotel. The changes included in the document reflect agreements reached with the City Council during May, as reflected in Resolution 88-11, which is included in Section VI, Appendix. The City Council has asked me to expedite the review of this project, in order that the deadline for final approval of September 12 can be met. Therefore, the initial hearing on the project by the Aspen P&Z has been set for Tuesday, June 28 at 4:30 P.M. In order for me to digest your comments and write an adequate review memo I will need a written response from you no later than the end of work on June 17. I realize this is a short turnaround, but I certainly hope you will cooperate so that we can meet our deadlines. If you are unable to meet this deadline, please let me know ASAP so I can rethink my priorities. So you fully understand what I am looking for, I suggest the following. First, please review the changes since the prior submission to determine if there are new concerns you need to have addressed. Second, please take another look at the entire project to make sure there isn't anything you missed the first time around. Finally, feel free to call with questions. By the way, for Wayne only, the reason that we are sending this document back to you is because of the new bridge across Dean Street. The applicant's fire consultant recommended a 14' clearance for fire equipment, something the current design does not achieve. Is this important to you? Please respond to this and any other new issues you identify. Thanks a lot! MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director RE: Ritz-Carlton Status Update DATE: June 3, 1988 At the Council/P&Z work session with the Hadid Group held on June 1, it was agreed that a brief status update on the Ritz-Carlton project be given to you. The reason for the update is to provide you with a copy of the resolution agreed to by the Council and the applicant (attached) and to explain to you the thinking that is behind this resolution. We hope to have a Council member available at the beginning of the meeting to speak with you about the resolution. Staff will also be present to answer any questions you may have. For your information, your hearing process for the project will begin again on June 28. Staff is expecting to receive an updated submission for the Ritz-Carlton on Monday, June 6. This will be referred to several agencies and our comments will be compiled into a review memo for you. We hope to have this memo ready for the June 28 meeting, but due to the applicant's submission being about 10 days later than originally anticipated, we cannot guarantee that staff will be prepared for the meeting on the 28th. Because of commitments to other projects on your regular meeting days in July, you will need to schedule special meetings to review this project in an expeditious manner. Open Tuesdays in July are the 12th and 26th. . Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9, 1988 hours someone has to work to qualify for the subsidy in half, this is saying that since the amount of work is finite, it will take twice as many people to do a task by someone working a normal job. Councilman Gassman said these seem to be doubling the problem to the public. Jim Curtis, housing board, said his perception is that the 9 months, 30 hour definition does reflect the seasonality seen in the work force. Curtis said Council may want to reconsider the 60 percent GMP commitment but the guidelines should try to most correctly identify how persons are actually working. Curtis said the community is stabilizing but not to 40 hours a week, 12 months a year. Adjusting the definition reflects what is actually seen. Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. Gideon Kaufman pointed out the cash-in-lieu payment has been raised from $20,000 to $25,000. The city has changed the employee generation percentages from 35 to 60. If this change doubles the hours, it is an impact of 4 times on an applicant in GMP. Kaufman said the city should analyze the economic viability before this is adopted. Kaufman said staff is concerned about a definition, but it this change should be examined to what it does to everything. Kaufman said the magnitude of the increase is more than anyone has contemplated. Kaufman said staff should come up with the actual cost differential and the percentage differential. Adamski told Council the low housing cash-in-lieu is $25,000 which reflects the cost of the subsidy to get from a free market to affordability. Adamski told Council the 9 month employee is a real body and is the target group to be housed. The 60 percent housing for employees is a political number and is based on the needs of the community. Adamski said there is a clear distinc- tion. Kaufman said if the hours are in the guidelines and one goes to compete in GMP, this dictates how many employees are generated. This doubles the number of employees generated. Curtis said the position of the housing authority is that those persons are in town searching for beds. The question is what is the commitment between the private sector and the public sector as one competes in the GMP process. Councilman Gassman said this is responding to a demand and public policy should be leading rather than just reacting. Councilman Gassman said the community has talked about for years trying to get out of the seasonality. This seems to perpetuate the cyclical nature of housing demand. The system should push employees and employers more into being year-round. Larry Yaw told Council the new housing requirements and new parking 5 .. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Mav 9, 1988 requirement add $70 per square foot, which is what non-improved space costs. This will make it $140 per square foot. Yaw asked what the effects on net rents and quality of shops will be. Joe Wells reminded Council at the last meeting he outlined the effect of 100 percent employee housing requirement on a restaurant space. This change will have a more dramatic effect than the 100 percent requirement. Wells pointed out that the public has very little notice of this change. It is not alluded to in the ordinance nor is it in the guidelines. Wells said if Council is interested in pursuing this change, the public deserves better notice. Adamski said this discussion boils down to who pays for what. The employees are here. Adamski said these guidelines suggest what the employees look like. Adamski this will put a burden on the private sector. Perry Harvey said the 60 percent employee housing requirement should be tested first. Councilman Isaac said he would like to keep the definition of a full time employee at 2,080 hours. Councilman Isaac said he would like to see employee housing built by developers; however, if the city makes this too onerous, nothing will be built. Councilman Isaac said it does not help the local economy by having two employees for every job available. Councilman Tuite said he does like the idea of 3 month rentals in employee housing. Councilman Gassman moved to adopt Ordinance #17, Series of 1988, not changing the definition of full time employee; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Gassman, yes; Tuite, yes; Isaac, yes; Fallin, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. Adamski said he will deal with the rental arrangements through the resale agreements. Adamski told Council each employee at Castleridge is being re-evaluated because the leases are coming upâ€¢ RESOLUTION #11, SERIES OF 1988 - Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD Mayor Stirling said this is a continuation of the meeting of May 5, 1988. The staff has drafted a resolution for consideration. Mayor Stirling asked if the motion to reconsider at the May 5th meeting followed the sequence. City Attorney Taddune told Council the April 11 meeting, was continued to April 18, con- tinued to April 20 and April 27. There was a regularly scheduled meeting April 25, and this item was not discussed at the April 25 meeting. The April 27 meeting was continued to May 5. Taddune said the Council rules provide for a motion to reconsider at the meeting at which the matter was discussed or an adjourned session or at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Taddune said all the meetings were adjourned sessions of the April 11th meeting. 6 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9, 1988 Mayor Stirling said an adjourned session is the equivalent of a continued session. Bob Hughes, representing the applicant, said he feels that "adjourned" and "continued" are synonymous. Taddune said Council also has the ability to suspend the rules and extend the period of reconsideration. Councilman Isaac suggested adding the word "continued" to the first whereas. Hughes said Council could also suspend the rules for this purpose. Councilman Isaac said he would prefer not to suspend the rules if Council does not have to. Mayor Stirling said he feels Council needs to suspend the rules directly in order to do the reconsideration that was done last Thursday night. Mayor Stirling challenged how the Council acted procedurally. Mayor Stirling said he has a concern of skipping the April 25 meeting. Councilman Isaac moved to add the word "continued" in the first whereas after the word "adjourned"; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Stirling. Motion carried. Mayor Stirling said he is challenging the procedure and suggest- ing another action has to be taken. Mayor Stirling moved that the action taken last Thursday night was not in accordance with the proper rules and regulations of the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, and an additional action of suspending the rules would be required to reach this point; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Councilman Tuite said if it is matter of protection, Council could add a whereas if it is deemed that was not a legal continu- ation that Council is suspending the rules for this resolution. Mayor Stirling said he is challenging the Council to see if they will suspend the rules. Mayor Stirling in favor, everyone else opposed. Motion NOT carried. Councilman Tuite moved that Council add a whereas to Resolution #11 that to the extent necessary for a motion to reconsider to be operative, the rules are deemed suspended and the motion to reconsider operative. Councilwoman Fallin said that is totally unnecessary. Council- woman Fallin said it is shown in the first whereas and Council has all agreed it was a continued or adjourned session; there- fore, the action at that session was legal and binding. 7 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9, 1988 Councilman Tuite in favor, everyone else opposed. Motion NOT carried. Mayor Stirling said the majority of the Council presumes that the procedure outlined will stand as written in the first whereas. Taddune told Council he came up with a format for the resolution with conditions and parameters provided by the planning depart- ment. The resolution was circulated to staff and revised. Taddune pointed out the draft resolution has handwritten revi- sions. Perry Harvey, representing the applicant, told Council they also have changes for the resolution. Council suggested staff go through their recommended changes first. Taddune told Council this resolution was not negotiated. It was an effort to reflect the thinking of the Council and then presented to the applicant. Taddune said in #1 Phase I - the maximum of 292 hotel rooms, 0 residential room, up to 190,000 square feet of countable FAR. The city manager has suggested "no more than" in place of "up to". The city manager has suggested the same change in #2- Phase II - maximum of 50 hotel rooms, no more than 115,000 square feet. Taddune told Council "the shortening of the elevation along Mill street by approximately 40 feet" has been circled by the city manager for clarification. In #4 "Block bounded by Durant, Mill, Dean and Galena streets to be permanently deed restricted to open space and the following non-commercial uses: Only structure to be a "pavilion" to service an ice rink, and other outdoor activities to be operated and maintained at the expense of the applicant." The city manager inserted the underlined portion. Taddune told Council these parameters were discussed between the planning director and applicant last week. Richman told Council these were in response to council's challenge to work on the residential units #6 Regarding residential units: a. There will be no more than 47 residential units developed on the Top of Mill and phase II sites. Richman told Council there are a total of 52 units; 40 reconstru- ction credits and 12 GMP units. Four of these units are com- mitted to the 700 South Galena and one to Summit place. Richman told Council originally there were 33 proposed for Top of Mill and 14 for the hotel. b. The applicant will not request GMP allotments to ever increase the size of either project in the future. C. The applicant will build the facilities on the park in front of Phase Ii and will operate same. 8 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9, 1988 These facilities will be ready for occupancy at the same time as will phase I and will be designed in connection with the review of the proposed amendments to phase I. #7 The remaining aspects of the PUD, including but not limited to employee housing, are to be resolved during the amendment process. #8 That any hotel project submitted by the applicant not expand in size or development beyond the above referred parameters. Taddune read the next whereas, "based on the applicant's repre- sentations, commitments and agreements, and induced thereby, the City Council desires to authorize the applicant to process proposed amendments through the PUD process for a period not to exceed one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of this Resolution, specifically September 9, 1988. Taddune told Council Hughes is suggesting adding "unless at such time as sooner enlarged". In Section 1, "The City Council does hereby authorize the applicant to process proposed amendments, to the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD Subdivision Agreement through the PUD process for a period not to exceed 120 days, on the condition that applicant abides by its representations, etc. as announced at the afore- mentioned Council proceedings, which proceedings are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference, including but not limited to the following". Taddune told Council the applicant added the underlined language, which he agreed to. Taddune said the next part of the resolution are recitals of the recitals in the whereas provisions. Taddune pointed out #5 on page 4. "The previously approved "Roberts Design" for phase I and phase II will not be built as approved bv the PUD and Subdivision agreement and the applicant will continue to pursue an amendment to the PUD concerning phase I and II thereof which will not exceed any of the limitations herein." The underlined language was inserted by the applicant. Taddune told Council that section 2 addresses the question of excavation and provides that the applicant may, at its own risk, begin excavation. Hughes reminded Council the applicants have bonded $650,000 for excavation and $1,300,000 for site and landscaping imrpvoements. Hughes said the concept is to complete in the time contemplated by the codes. Mayor Stirling asked if the 120 days will guide this. Taddune said the concept is if the approvals lapse and the applicant does not proceed to refill the excavation site, within a certain period, the city can fix it. Harvey said the applicants have 120 days to do the amendment process; they have X amount of time after the excavation permit 9 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9, 1988 is pulled within which to go to the next step. Harvey said he would hate to get in a position where they are through the amendment process but they have run out of time for the next step of the permit. Mayor Stirling said this verifies with excavation permit the applicants now have, they can begin breaking ground and the city will not put a stop work order on that. Mayor Stirling asked about the foundation permit. Taddune said the way he interprets paragraph #5 is that the applicants will not obtain a foundation# permit until the amendment process is complete. ' Hughes said this will allow the applicants to take advantage of the off season and get some excavation done before summer. City Manager Bob Anderson asked if for some reason this falls apart or no excava- tion permit can be gotten, this triggers the escrow and the hole will be filled in. Hughes said that is the spirit in which this is going forward. Anderson said the governing thing for the foundation permit is the building code, which states an appli- cant has to do 10 percent every 120 days. Anderson said the 120 days for this resolution is to reach an agreement with the Council. There are two things going on simultaneously; one is the approval process. Councilwoman Fallin said if the date for the excavation permit is April 15th, the resolution should have some language to clarify there are two different dates. Anderson said the applicants can easily do enough to keep the permit alive. Anderson said if this process with Council takes 90 of the 120 days and an agreement is reached, the applicants have to then take this and put it into a #plan form final enough to get a foundation permit. Anderson said the applicants could not do that within 30 days and give the city *enough time to also process the permit applications- Anderson ,said another extension may be needed at this point, ;Anderson said the stand the city has taken for the applicants to keep the PUD alive is obtaining a foundation permit. If it takes a lot of the 120 days for the amended PUD, there will have to be another interpretation of the deadline or another extension. Hughes said the time this is talking about is not the time to obtain a foundation permit but to submit foundation permit drawing plans. Councilman Isaac said this could be done within'Â· ~the amended PUD with a statement that the applicants have so many days from the approval of the amended PUD to apply for a founda- ItÂ·lon permiti Taddune told Council section 4 provides that the authorization granted by this resolution shall only take effect after this resolution and the terms and conditions set forth herein are acknowledged by the applicant in the space provided below. Taddune said the section also states that the provisions hereof 10 -1 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9, 1988 shall run with and constitute a burden upon the title to the subject property and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the applicant and applicants representatives, succes- sors and assigns. Taddune said there is no signature space for the lender. Taddune said he does not know what the consequence would be if there were a foreclosure. Taddune said if there is any covenant running with the land, the city would request the consent of the lenders. Hughes said they have no objection to that. Councilwoman Fallin asked if this is a covenant that stays with the land for any future owners. Taddune said the last sentence in Section 4 covers that. Richman told Council last September when Council granted the six month extension to this project, some questions arose in the hearing about the 700 South Galena project and the other residen- tial units in the hotel. Richman said at the meeting, Council made two separate motions of extension, one for the hotel to March 15th, later extended to April 15th, and a second motion only dealing with the 700 South Galena project. At that point, 700 South Galena had come up to its deadline of needing to submit plans sufficient for the issuance, not needing to obtain a permit, but sufficient for the issuance of a building permit. The applicant indicated to Council they wanted to pursue amend- ment to 700 South Galena. That separate extension was granted to March 1, 1988, by motion of Council. The applicant proceeded through the amendment process for 700 South Galena, obtained approvals from both P&Z and Council; everyone was satisfied by the project. Richman said communication between the applicant and staff got crossed and both missed the fact that March 1st was the deadline. Richman told Council the applicants submitted plans sufficient for the issuance of the building permit for 700 South Galena on about March 15th. Richman said staff went through all the checks and was prepared to issue the permit, when it came to April 15th which everyone thought was the deadline. It was then discovered that the deadline was March 1st. It was unintentional. The applicant had submitted a letter in February asking for an extension if one were necessary. That is all the code requires. Richman suggested in the resolution, if Council gives the applicant the 30 days of March to have submitted those plans, they have done that. Richman told Council the applicant sub- mitted the extension entirely according to the order of the Code, and staff did not process it because they were not aware any extension was necessary. Councilman Isaac asked the intent of 700 South Galena and if it will be built. Sarpa said it is four units and will be built this summer. John Sarpa, representing the applicant, said the process has been an intense and emotional one. Sarpa told Council they appreciate 11 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9, 1988 the community's involvement. Sarpa said there is a lot this community has to be proud in its process and the people repre- sented. Sarpa said Resolution #11 captures a lot of what the Council and the applicant have meant. Sarpa said the applicants have some proposed changes to the resolution. Perry Harvey said in the third whereas, #1, it was his under- standing that Councilman Tuite's motion was for 292 hotel rooms and no more than 190,000 square feet of countable FAR. Harvey asked that "maximum of" 292 rooms be deleted. The section would read "Phase I - 292 hotel rooms . . ." Harvey requested in #2 "maximum of" be deleted and it just read 50 hotel rooms. Mayor Stirling asked Tuite if it was his thinking that when this went through the amendment process it could possibly be reduced from 292 rooms. Councilman Tuite said that was not his think- ing. Councilmembers Isaac and Fallin said they prefer to see "maximum of" stay in the resolution. Sarpa said the focus of this is whether the action taken May 5th and ratified at this meeting would be specific enough to let the financiers be comfortable to let this process go forward. Sarpa said the applicants specifically asked if the action taken in which 292 rooms would be the number to be built and that the applicants could rely on this. Sarpa said Council indicated if they voted for 292 rooms that could be relied on. Sarpa told Council the reason they are requesting "maximum of" be deleted is that 292 rooms was debated upon and the FAR was the figure to be adjusted. Councilman Isaac said that is not exactly true for phase II because the financing is not set for phase II. Sarpa said it was only phase I that was agreed upon, and it was a maximum of 50 rooms in phase II. Councilman Tuite moved to delete the words "maximum of" on pages 1 and 4 Councilman Isaac said he does not think this is necessary. Sarpa said this is very necessary and is the whole basis of the agreement the applicant thought was reached. Sarpa said it is the 292 rooms that has been debated with Council. Sarpa said if Council is saying they are not sure the applicants get 292 rooms, the applicants will have to look at the concessions they have made and start over. Sarpa said both the applicants and Council agreed that phase II has question marks. Councilman Isaac asked if during further architectural design, the applicants finds that other parameters like height and mass do not allow 292 units and they have to drop 2 rooms. Sarpa said they would back off if that were the case. Sarpa said the applicants are confident with 190,000 square feet and 292 rooms 12 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9, 1988 and the architectural design consensus that they will be able to keep the room count. Sarpa told Council if the bank asked if they have 292 rooms, they cannot say maybe. Harvey said "maximum of" is an ambiguous intention. Anderson said the language gives the applicant the right to build 292 rooms and the "maximum of" language is permissive and the only person that can reduce it is the applicant. Harvey suggested the resolution state, "the applicant has the right to build 292 rooms". Hughes said he viewed the language as the applicant could be told they could build anything from 0 to 292 rooms. Sarpa emphasized that 292 rooms is critical. The applicants are not cutting off any architectural changes and feel there is sufficient leeway within the program to make some changes. Councilwoman Fallin said she would agree to language "the right to build up to 292 hotel rooms". Councilwoman Fallin moved to amend the resolution to read "the right to build up to 292 rooms" and delete "maximum of" on pages 1 and 4; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Gassman and Mayor Stirling. Motion carried. Harvey said in #2 on page two, the approval was to build up to 50 hotel rooms and residential units. Taddune suggested that "and residential units as set forth in paragraph 6 below" be added to #2, page 2 and page 4. Harvey told Council lot 5, which is phase II, goes from Durant south to the top of the site. Harvey told Council they have separated off the open space community activity. Harvey said he would like to make it clear that the FAR of 115,000 square feet is on that portion south of Dean street, not on the park site. Taddune suggested adding "excluding any FAR on the park site". Harvey said if the community deems that a commercial building for skate rental and food service is appropriate, that should be considered. Harvey told Council he has a letter addressing details of this site the applicants would like to work out with staff. Harvey said they are not clear how this activity center will work. Harvey told Council lot 1 and lot 5 are the two phases and are on the PUD plat. Taddune said the language will read "exclusive of the FAR which might be built on the park on lot 5". Councilwoman Fallin said someone in the future may come back and not under- stand that the FAR in the park was to be non-commercial. Harvey said that is another issue; the city may want some commercial footage on this block as an accessory to the ice rink, like food service. Harvey said in the deed restrictions, a lot of these things can be covered. Richman said most of these items can be covered under the PUD amendment process. Richman reminded Council the code now allows that essential community facilities 13 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9, 1988 may be commercial. These should be decided before final approval. Councilman Isaac moved to add the above language in #2 pages 2 and 4; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Stirling asked about the issue of deadline related to phase II. There is an overall PUD deadline. Does this applicant have forever to build phase II. Richman told Council when the PUD was adopted in 1985, it set out a specific construction schedules for phases I and II, which has been extended through the various extensions of the project. Richman told Council the PUD agree- ment is the best mechanism to apply construction deadlines. Richman told Council the problem with applying deadlines to the GMP is that most of phase II is reconstruction credits. The new units are occurring as part of the Ritz construction. Richman told Council there is a code provision that a unit which is demolished must be rebuilt within 5 years from its demolition or the credit goes away. The staff has been tracking this limita- tion with the applicant, and some of these deadlines have had to be extended. Mayor Stirling asked about the overall approved units in the PUD, which was 447, and the proposal is for 342 units. When the hotel is built there will actually be 447 units. Richman suggested this be dealt with in the agreement. Council may specify a time period in which the applicant must pursue con- struction of phase II or to close up portions of the Grand Aspen. Councilman Isaac asked about the parking agreement on the block between Dean and Durant that was for the Woodstone Lodge. Harvey said he will have to check into this. Richman said when Council addressed the parking requirement for the hotel, this issue was addressed. Harvey said #3 refers to drawings, which the applicants have requested from the architect. Harvey said these will be iden- tified and delivered to the planning office for reference. Harvey said the next sentence is "Major changes include the removal of all but the first floor from an 86-foot section of the building on Mill street, the shortening of the elevation along Mill street by approximately 40 feet, the transfer of approxi- mately 30 lodge units into the Blue Spruce site and the lowering of the height along Mill street. Harvey requested this be changed to "to approximately 40 feet from the south property line". Harvey said this will indicate the distance between the end of the building to the south property line, which is the issue. Council agreed with this change on pages 2 and 4. 14 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9, 1988 Harvey told Council the Mill street elevation shown to Council on May 5th, showed the roof over the apres ski lounge to be almost a two story element to soften the impact of the building. Harvey said the second sentence where it says "all but the first floor" is an inconsistency between what has been submitted and that reference to the first floor. Harvey said the building is only one floor but the roof elevation comes up higher to soften the wall. There is nothing above the ski lounge. Harvey said #4 talks about the non-commercial uses and only structure to be a pavilion to service an ice rink and other outdoor activities to be operated and maintained at the expense of the applicant. Harvey said if the applicants put in an ice rink and have to buy a Zamboni, they have to have a building to house the Zamboni in. Harvey said if the applicants want skate rental and supervision or food service, there will have to be a commercial facility. Harvey said if the applicants are to operate it, one of the issues they would like to discuss is that they do not lose money annually forever. Harvey said they would like to have the ability to charge an entrance fee, for skate rentals, hot chocolate, etc. Harvey said this could be a commercial use and requested some language be added that this is an accessory commercial building as agreed upon in the amendment process. Harvey said if the applicants are donating a 27,000 square foot parcel to the city, there are some conditions of the approval process and some commitments from the city the applicants would like to be able to get. Harvey said if this is to require a commercial allocation and provision of employee housing, Harvey said they would like to be able to discuss terms of relief during the amendment process. Richman said the growth management quota system provides for an exemption for essential community facil- ities, reviewed by P&Z and Council, the requirement being not to compete for any development but to mitigate impacts, which could mean employee housing and parking. Harvey said the applicants have not priced what an ice rink could cost. This could be an expensive proposition. Harvey said an option is a donation of land to the city with a lease back. Richman suggested language for #4, "Block bounded by Durant, Mill, Dean and Galena streets to be permanently deed restricted to open space and an accessory structure/s to service an ice rink . . ." Council agreed this was fine. Hughes requested #5 read "The previously approved "Roberts design" for phase I and phase Ii will not be built as approved by the PUD and subdivision agreement dated December 5, 1985, and the applicant will continue to pursue an amendment to the PUD concerning phases I and II thereof which will not exceed any of 15 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 9, 1988 limitations herein." Council agreed with this change in #5 on pages 2 and 4. Councilwoman Fallin said in 6(c) it states that the park facil- ities will be ready for occupancy at the same time as will phase I. Councilwoman Fallin asked if the city wants to be that restrictive, rather than just landscaping. Richman said this language does not commit Council to an ice rink but gives an opportunity for an ice rink if that is what the community wants. Mayor Stirling asked if there is a commitment from the applicant to build an ice rink on this park. Sarpa said if that is what the community wants, that is what they will do. Harvey said this will be determined in the amendment process. Mayor Stirling suggested changing "occupancy" to "use". Council agreed. Harvey said #7 states, "The remaining aspects of the PUD, including but not limited to employee housing, are to be resolved during the amendment process." Harvey reminded Council Top of Mill only has conceptual approval. Harvey requested "as appli- cable to phase I and phase II" be inserted after the second comma. Council agreed with that interpretation. Harvey said #8 states "That any hotel project submitted by the applicant not expand in size . . ." Harvey said he assumes that applies only to the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD. Council agreed with that change. Harvey asked that the resolution be amended to add that Council, P&Z and staff agreed to expedite this amendment application and cooperate with the applicant. Harvey said P&Z has already been extremely cooperative. Taddune said that is implied and has been past practice. Hughes requested the language regarding the 120 day process be added to include "unless such time as soon enlarged", in the event that this is not able to get done by September 9th. Councilman Tuite said he put the 120 days in as a realistic figure, and that figure came from staff. Councilman Isaac said he does not want to leave the time open-ended. Hughes said he does not want this resolution to be read that the door is now shut and the applicant cannot come back. Hughes said the applicants expect to get this done within the 120 days. Councilman Tuite said he does not want this project hung up because of financing; he wants it to go through review. Hughes said he would not expect to ask for an extension other that the fact the applicants has not been able to complete the process. Harvey asked if this time period is approval by Council or signed, recorded documents. Richman said approval by Council and the agreement approved by Council. Actual recordation can come later. Richman said 120 days is not enough time to get a foundation permit. Taddune said the language should read 120 16 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Mav 9, 1988 days from the date of this resolution to obtain final approval by the city Council for the proposed amendment. Council requested that the date in the resolution be September 12, 1988, to coincide with a regular Council meeting. Councilman Isaac moved to approve Resolution #11, Series of 1988, as amended; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Gassman, no; Fallin, yes; Isaac, yes; Tuite, yes; Mayor Stirling, no. Motion carried. Councilman Tuite moved to table the Red Roof Inns contract; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Isaac moved to table Resolution #9, Series of 1988, to May 23, 1988; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. REQUEST TO USE CITY PROPERTY - Volleyball - Koch Lumber Property Bill Efting, leisure services, reminded Council during their last budget process, the Koch lumber property made it to the final list of capital improvements for 4 more volleyball courts and a trail but did not make it to the final cut. Efting told Council Leon Fell is asking for a temporary court. Efting said if the Koch lumber property is going to be developed into a trailhead in the next 2 or 3 years, that the Council look at more permanent courts. Efting said $7,000 is a lot of money for temporary courts. Efting said the request is also to be able to sell tee- shirts during the volleyball tournament; this is a Council decision. Leon Fell told Council their primary reason for this request is that they are trying to bring in a televised event, which is part of the pro-beach tour which will be added to the Labor Day weekend tournament. Fell said this will give the tournament national television. Fell requested the right to be able to build a temporary sand volleyball court on the Koch lumber property. Fell said the reason is to have an extra court in order to pull off the agreement for the women's pro-beach tourna- ment. Another reason for requesting this court is that there is over- crowding on the courts behind the Chart House restaurant. Fell said there are a lot of competitive players and a much larger recreation class using the courts. Fell told Council groups like ASAP and MADD are requesting court space for kids. Fell said he is willing to use local help to get time on these courts that is exclusively for the kids. Fell said this would be a lot easier if the temporary court was built early this season. 17 Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council May 9, 1988 Councilman Isaac said $7,000 sounds like a lot of money for these courts. Councilman Isaac asked if Fell could get donations for the material and the city could use some of their labor to cut down on the $7,000. Fell reminded Council the 5 year proposal for 3 courts in this area was $18,000. Fell said rather than doing a temporary court, the city could start building this phase and one court would save a lot of money to add 2 other courts. Fell said he will try to get some donations. The issue is whether they have the right to build this temporary court. If they get the permission, they will get to negotiate to build something earlier or to get donations. Mayor Stirling asked if the Shadow Mountain homeowners have any comments about this proposal. Si Coleman said he feels this is a good idea but feels this should be a first step towards permanent courts so that the work that is done will be of a permanent nature. Sharon Tennis said she would like to see a plan in order to see where on this prperty the courts would be located. Efting said there is no final plan but they are looking at the middle of the parcel in order to do some landscaping around the courts. Fell said he would be willing to work with the homeowners on the location of the courts. Councilman Isaac moved that Council approve the use of Koch lumber property for the construction of at least 2 volleyball courts for this summer and they should come back with a plan for location; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. Councilman Isaac said the reason he did not allocate any money is that if Council allocates city funds, Fell will not get any materials donated. Councilman Isaac said he would like this to come back within the next two meetings. Fell asked if something does not happen on the 2 courts, are they allowed to build temporary courts for the tournament. Councilman Isaac said these can be built this summer, he just wants to know where. Efting told Council the courts behind the Chart House are full every night of the summer. Efting told Council he is also working on getting some gym time, weight room time for teenagers. Efting said he is working on getting one night a week for kids at the volleyball courts. Councilman Tuite said the Eagle's Club have been wanting to do something by the trail system. This is a lot closer to the Rio Grande property and might be a better location. Fell pointed out the Koch lumber property is only one block removed from the most visible playing sites. It is an easy traffic flow between Wagner, Willoughby and Koch property and would be less of a congestion problem. All in favor, motion carried. 18 42991*L=, â€ž-----I- MAYI 6 1 2 2 i. . - HADID Aspen Holdings, Inc. May 13, 1988 Mr. Alan Richman Planning Director 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Alan: On behalf of Mohamed Hadid, John Sarpa and myself I wish to thank you, the mayor, the Aspen city council, and the entire staff of the city of Aspen for their attention, time and dedication during the past month. All of you have been responsive and willing to contribute time and energy toward the goal of processing the amended Aspen Mountain PUD. Despite divergent opinions at times we feel the process has worked and will continue to work to provide the community with the best product in a Ritz-Carlton hotel and the best package possible of lodge district upgrades, community amenities and employee housing. We look forward to a continuance of responsiveness for the remainder of the process. Thank you again for your efforts and cooperative spirit. Sincerely yours, <--Anny 4-ap-, Perry Harley, Director ~ HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC. PH/ld 600 East Cooper Street Suite 200 Aspen Colorado 81611 (303) 925-4272 FAX: (303) 925-4387 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Ritz-Carlton GMP/PUD Amendment DATE: May 13, 1988 As a result of the completion of the City Council review process with the Hadid group, the Ritz-Carlton amendment process is back on track. The applicant is currently developing an updated submission to address all Of the changes which have been accomplished during the review process. We expect to receive this submission later this month. Once we have received the revised application, we will refer it to several departments and develop a new memo to allow you to complete the review process. We expect to pick up the review where we last left off, at the completion of the Lodge GMP scoring. Given the many changes which have occurred, we expect to spend time reviewing architecture and site design, as well as the resulting program questions affecting housing and parking. Further, since the program for Phase II has been changed and the development of the park in front of the Grand Aspen has become a commitment for Phase I, we will also be focusing on this side of the project. In this regard, we are trying to set up a work session with City Council on May 24, to which you will be invited, to deal with design/operation issues for the public park. If this meeting is scheduled, we Will inform you accordingly. Based on all of the above, we recommend that you open and continue this hearing to a date certain, which is June 28. This is an off meeting week and is the earliest date we can expect to have our work available for you. Obviously, if the applicant does not make a submission within the time now anticipated, even this date may be optimistic for review. We do not, however, want to delay the review any more than is essential, since the agreement with Council is that the review process Will be complete no later than September 12. I .D Continued Meeting Aspen City Council May 5, 1988 Mayor Stirling called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Tuite and Fallin present. Councilwoman Fallin moved to adjourn this meeting and reconvene at the Community Center; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE PUD Mayor Stirling reconvened the meeting at 5:12 p.m. at the Community Center with Councilmembers Tuite, Fallin, Isaac and Gassman present. Mayor Stirling said on April 11, the proposed extension was denied by the City Council. On April 15th an excavation permit based on the John Roberts' approval was issued to the applicant. The city manager ruled that permit meant both excavation and foundation, not just excavation. The applicant has disputed that this is the correct interpretation. Mayor Stirling said no ground has been broken, no suits have been filed against the city, no new conceptual planned unit develop- ment has been made. Mayor Stirling said on April 18th Council agreed to enter into a dialogue with the applicant to discuss some aspects of this PUD; bulk and mass, the number of units, the overall PUD, an analysis of phases I and II, the need for a model, Ritz Carlton's opera- tion, the Trump lawsuit, and the status of financing. Mayor Stirling said Council and the applicants met April 20, 27 and May 5. Mayor Stirling thanked Mohamed Hadid and his staff for producing the model. Mayor Stirling said the applicants have moved 5 residential units from the southeast corner of the hotel, shifted 30 units off the main site to the Blue Spruce site, breaking up the mass into three units. Mayor Stirling said there has not been a reduction of hotel units. There are still 292 units proposed. Mayor Stirling said up to April 11th, Council received 5 written letters in favor of extending the project. On the night of April 11th, Council received a petition from the applicants with 121 signatures in favor. Mayor Stirling said there were 31 calls and letters to Council opposing the extension; 17 were on one petition. Since April 11, Council has received 21 individual letters, a group of 37 form letters in favor of the project. Council received a resolution from P&Z asking Council to reconsider the decision made April 11th. Mayor Stirling said Council received 20 letters still asking for reduction of mass, and one letter with 22 signatures. Mayor Stirling said in favor of going ahead with the project were 76 calls and letters plus the petition. Still urging Council to seek further reductions were 85 calls and letters including 39 signatures in one docu- ment. 1 . Continued Meeting Aspen City Council Mav 5, 1988 John Sarpa, representing the applicant, said this is a critical juncture for this project. Sarpa stated the project has gone through a great deal of scrutiny both with previous owners and this applicant. The community has had an overwhelming impact on this project. Sarpa said this has been a most thoroughly reviewed and debated project. Sarpa said it has been suggested that X amount of rooms could be taken off the hotel, this would create a better scale and mass. Sarpa said taking off 20 rooms cannot make a difference to the city; however, a reduction of rooms of the hotel has significant consequences for the project. Sarpa said the balance is whatever might be gained by the reduction of rooms does not offset the risks it creates in the life of this project. Sarpa said the applicants have had an opportunity to interact with the community, with Ritz, and with the financiers. Sarpa told Council the operators and financiers have confirmed that 292 is the most appropriate number and the only approach for phase I. Sarpa told Council the applicant has a greater flexibility in phase II; the applicants can control this phase and do not have to worry about financing and an operator. Sarpa told Council they have taken Council's instructions to look at both phases and what can be done to reduce the scale, mass and density so the project is more in keeping with the community. Sarpa said the applicants are prepared to make a reduction in the number of hotel units to be constructed in phase II, as well as a reduc- tion in the total FAR of the site. Sarpa said the applicants have looked at what can be done to make the entire project a more open project with dedicated green space to the city. Sarpa told Council they applicants have had over 200 people who came to see the model. Sarpa said the majority of people who viewed the model said this was a good project and they liked the hotel. People said they found the scale and mass acceptable. Sarpa said the applicants would like a decision that phase I of the project will consist of 292 rooms and an architectural design configuration generally like what has been presented and the additional reductions that will be presented at this meeting. The project will not exceed 190,000 square feet of FAR. The applicants will propose on phase II not more than 50 hotel units to be built. Sarpa said the applicants are proposing to reduce by 100 rooms the number of hotel units to be built on phase II. Sarpa said the Continental Inn, with 160 rooms, sits on that site. They could tear this down and rebuild it. The applicant is proposing 50 hotel rooms and some residential, not to exceed 115,000 square feet of FAR. The applicants are proposing to permanently dedicate to the city the entire block in front of the Continental between Dean and Durant streets and Galena and Mill streets, as an open activity center. Sarpa said the applicants 2 I I Continued Meeting Aspen City Council Mav 5, 1988 hope staff will be given the direction to work with the applicant so that this project can come to fruition by Christmas 1989. R. J. Gallagher, representing the applicant, gave Council a list of 51 names of letter writers in support of the Council. Gallagher presented Council a petition circulated among arts and cultural groups in Aspen in support of the Ritz Carlton hotel. The petition has 65 names on it. Gallagher gave Council a list of 9 names who phoned their office in support of the project. Gallagher presented a petition circulated in the Ajax Mountain building and signed by 12 business owners in that building. Gallagher gave Council a viewers response of the people viewing the model. Gallagher said this is not a scientific study but does show some response of viewing the model. Gallagher pointed out 271 people signed in to view the model. The applicants talked to 187 of the people viewing the model. Gallagher told Council those positive were 158 people or 84.5%, those negative 20 people or 12.6% and neutral 9 persons. Peter Krause, vice-president Morgan Stanley Realty Inc., said their investment bank serves as an intermediary raising capital for commercial real estate projects. Krause said it is difficult to put together financing packages for both destination resort and urban hotels. Krause said Morgan Stanley was strongly attracted to this project because of the design of the project, strength of the ownership, top reputation of the proposed manager, the excellent results achieved on the feasibility study by Levanthal and Horwath, and the location. Krause told Council this project has met with enthusiastic response from both domestic and international lending clients. Krause told Council his firm has already received written indications of interest from 3 banks. Krause told Council Morgan Stanley is ready to select a lender to proceed on an expedited basis on the develop- ment of this project. Krause said the process will be to finish negotiations with the proposed lenders, select a lender, proceed to negotiate a legal commitment and close the deal. Krause told Council Morgan Stanley has felt comfortable from the beginning that this will be a successful project. Krause said Morgan Stanley recommends the project be approved, that it proceed to development on the quickest possible basis. Krause told Council hotel financing is fragile, and he would like this to proceed to commitment as soon as possible. Councilman Tuite asked what is the guarantee that a lender cannot pull out half way through the process and leave the town with a half built hotel. Krause told Council his company deals with banks and insurance companies that are exceptionally well capitalized and experienced. Krause told Council these companies issue a commitment they will have enough funds to complete a project; they are legally bound. These are institutions that 3 4 - Continued Meeting Aspen City Council May 5, 1988 have analyzed the projects before the commit the funds, they know they have the capability to complete the project. Krause said he has never had experience with any client refusing to follow through and issue the commitment. Krause said this will be construction financing and a mini-perm. After 18 months, that lender would agree to stay on for 3 to 5 years. Krause told Council Morgan Stanley stays through the project in keeping the relationship between the borrower and the lender and to give guidance how best to structure a take-out. Horst Schultze, chief operating officer of Ritz Carlton, told Council he is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the hotel and for marketing and sales. Schultze told Council he was asked to work out a feasibility of a hotel in Aspen. Schultze told Council the marketing department looked at what it would take to have a hotel in Aspen that would be successful. Schultze said they analyzed this very carefully. Schultze said he told the Ritz a hotel in Aspen can only be successful if they have space for meeting up to 250 rooms and enough extra rooms for meeting their transient base. Schultze recommended a 300 room hotel and the space to serve those rooms. Sarpa told Council when Hadid Aspen Holdings bought the project, the asked Ritz to update their analysis and see if the size was correct for the market. Sarpa said Ritz's requirement was still 300 rooms. Sarpa said the applicant asked Ritz what was the least number of rooms they would be comfortable with. Sarpa told Council the applicant and Ritz finally settled on 292 rooms. Schultze told Council in the past two weeks, the applicants again appealed to Ritz to see how low they could possibly go. Schultze said they studied this all over again and came back again with the request for 300 rooms. Schultze told Council the average in this hotel would be 60 percent double occupancy. Schultze told Council there has been a high interest in groups coming to Aspen in off season, and there is a strong market in the off season. Schultze told Council if 30 rooms are cut out of this hotel, he would lose 50 percent of the market because groups happen to be the size to need 200 to 250 rooms. Schultze said with the proposed hotel size, 75 percent of the groups are achievable. Schultze told Council Ritz cannot afford to have their name on a hotel that is not successful. Mayor Stirling asked how long the Ritz company has been in business. Schultze told Council it was formed in 1982 without any hotels in existence at that time. They opened their first hotel in 1984. The Ritz hotel in Boston was acquired at the same time and consequently they acquired the use of the name in the United States and other countries. There are 6 hotels in operation, 2 in construction and several in development in their operation. Councilman Isaac asked if Ritz Carlton has ever turned over the 4 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council May 5, 1988 operation of one of its hotels to another operation. Schultze said no. Schultze told Council with the groups he has talked to, he can run the hotel at 80 percent occupancy in October. Sarpa reminded Council at the last meeting, some ideas were brought up about what could be done to the existing mass of phase I building, with the primary focus on Mill street. Gene Aubry, architect, pointed out the Mill street elevation showing removal of some rooms off Mill street and adding them to the back. It will drop some elevations to two stories and three stories. There are roof heights of 28, 31 and 35 feet. The original submission was four stories. Aubry said he feels the break up of the building is very successful. Sarpa said the four pillars of the building do need to undergo some architectural changes. Sarpa presented a photograph in which the hotel is drawn in to scale to shown how it would appear looking south from Wagner park. Aubry presented some diagrams of phase II. Aubry showed where the open space is proposed, where a small 50 room hotel is proposed. There would be an apartment-condominium type complex. A total of 115,000 square feet FAR is proposed for phase II. Harvey said phase II site is just over 113,000 square feet. Aubry said the opportunity to have a community outdoor activity area in this site is extraordinary and provides a window into the project. Sarpa told Council that entire block will remain as a community activity center in perpetuity. Sarpa said the applicant's idea is to maintain this block for an ice rink in the winter and in the summer an outdoor performing area. This will be deed restricted in perpetuity. Sarpa said the applicant will not build retail, commercial buildings on that space. Councilman Isaac asked when this land will be brought in as a park. Sarpa said with phase II. Harvey told Council under the current PUD, this is to be open space and landscaped as a certificate of occupancy for the Ritz. Councilwoman Fallin asked about the employee housing on this block, will the people be relocated. Sarpa said if the city feels strongly about the employee housing, they will try and keep this. Sarpa said in the last few days an employee housing corporation has been formed. They are moving as fast as they can to find parcels of property to generate real projects for employees. Mayor Stirling asked how many employees the Ritz is projecting to hire for the hotel. Schultze said he projects 272 full time employees. Councilwoman Fallin asked when the applicants plan to begin phase II. Sarpa said the Grand Aspen is serving a very useful purpose in the mix of rooms in the city. Sarpa said the Grand Aspen has had a good season. They want to be able to use that facility for potential World Cup. Sarpa said they will 5 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council May 5, 1988 watch the market and let the market drive what that site does. Alan Richman, planning director, asked if the applicant have a range of residential units planned for phase II. Sarpa said they will have to examine the market for this site. Mayor Stirling asked the average size of hotel rooms in phase I. Sarpa said they are 550 square feet including the space in the corridors. Sarpa said they are planning larger rooms for phase II. Mayor Stirling asked how much square footage the applicants are proposing for phase I that will not count in the FAR. Sarpa said it is 92,500 square feet for conference facilities, parking, support space. City Attorney Taddune asked if the project is allowed to go through the amendment process, what would the applicant's position be with respect to the permit application. Sarpa said the applicants want to work in any way the city feels appropriate in order to complete construction of the hotel by Christmas 1989. They would like to be able to do some excavation work prior to this summer season. Sarpa said they do not want to do major work during the summer season. Bob Hughes, representing the applicant, said the applicants have given financial assurance for the excavation process. Councilwoman Fallin asked where exactly this is in the process. Council has voted to deny the extension but has said they want to work with this applicant. Taddune said this meeting is an adjunct to the PUD amendment process, in which this project is not postured. Taddune said a determination has to be made whether the Roberts' project is viable in a legal sense. If so, the project has the ability to complete the amendment process with the community input. Taddune said if it is the position of the city that the Roberts permit, even though the applicant does not intend to build that project, is viable, the project can proceed through the amendment process and return to Council. Sarpa said if the city and the applicant can reach an agreement on the general parameters, the applicants will commit not to build the old design. Mayor Stirling said there was a denial of the extension and there was only one permit given. Mayor Stirling said there has not been a motion by Council to reconsider the previous vote, which has to be taken at the next duly constituted meeting. Another approach is to overrule the city manager. Taddune said the city manager can report to Council where he is with regard to investi- gating the administrative process. Taddune asked the applicant if, in addition to not building the Robert's project, would they agree not to submit an application for a project that is more expansive that the proposed project. Sarpa said absolutely. 6 . I Continued Meeting Aspen City Council Mav 5. 1988 Councilman Isaac said the PUD agreement that is still alive. Taddune said that is under advisement whether the PUD is a viable project. Taddune said the city and the applicant are not in a position to agree to the status of the PUD at this time. Taddune said Council needs to discuss the city's position of the status of the permit given the representations that were made. Taddune said the Council has the prerogative, the way this project is postured and some of the claims that have been made, to go into executive season to discuss procedures and legal ramifications. Councilman Tuite moved to go into executive session; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Councilman Tuite said he would like to get input from the city attorney on the best way to go for this city on this project for the city's own protection. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Gassman and Mayor Stirling. Motion carried. Council went into executive session at 6:37 p.m. Council reconvened at 7:28 p.m. Councilwoman Fallin moved to reconsider the previous vote; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Councilwoman Fallin said she would like to try to arrive at a decision tonight that does not resurrect the Roberts' PUD, to get some guarantees from Hadid Aspen Holdings and from Ritz Carlton that the Roberts plan will not be built, to continue an open discussion through public hearings of P&Z and Council within the parameters outlined at this meeting, less scale, less rooms and density on the entire site, that more refinement will come. Councilwoman Fallin said she thinks there is more work to do on employee housing. Councilwoman Fallin said unless this process is kept open, nothing will be resolved. Councilwoman Fallin said the applicants have made a giant step with complying with the wishes of Council and P&Z and have shown a willingness to work with the city. Councilwoman Fallin said this is not the final vote but shows an open negotiation process between the city and the Hadid group. Mayor Stirling said the reason a motion to reconsider has been made is this meeting is a continuation of the prior meeting. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Gassman and Mayor Stirling. Motion carried. Councilman Tuite moved to grant 120 days for an amendment process within the parameters of tonight's discussion and presentation 7 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council Mav 5, 1988 with the following understandings; that the Hadid group agree not to build the old Roberts' hotel; that phase I not exceed 190,000 square feet FAR as presented; that it be built under the presen- tation of the 3 units seen tonight; that the park between Dean and Durant be deed restricted as discussed; that on phase II, the requested FAR of 115,000 staff has a problem with the configura- tion of 50 hotel and residential may cause some problems and Council finds that too excessive at that time and Council requests the applicants work to reduce that, and that the applicants work with staff and bring a resolution back to the May 9th Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Councilwoman Fallin asked that during this process, the employee housing number be looked at. Mayor Stirling said before this can go back to P & Z, there has to be drawings sufficient for the process and to get reactions. The staff will have to review this before it goes to P & Z. Sarpa said the applicants appreciate the chance to let this project go forward. Sarpa said the applicants have made the commitment that the Roberts' design is dead. Sarpa said there is an important function in this time frame, which has to do with the financing. Sarpa told Council an offer like they have will stay in place 30 to 45 days. Sarpa said the applicants have to move as quickly as they can or the financial offers will lapse. Sarpa said the applicants have proposed a 10 percent FAR reduc- tion, which is $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 which has been lopped off that site. Sarpa said the applicants will work on the FAR problem on phase II with the staff. Harvey said he wanted to make sure this is an extension of the GMP approvals and would like clarification on the starting date of the 120 days. Councilman Tuite said his motion was 120 days for an amendment process. Hughes said in effect the Council is extending the GMP approvals for phase I. Taddune said Council has directed staff to formalize the motion for the meeting May 9th. Sarpa said Morgan Stanley's concern is that whatever is done gives a definite enough signal to the lenders to know that the process is not still open-ended. Krause said a viable financing package is the key to any major commercial real estate develop- ment. Krause said when a project in the financing market has momentum, one has to make sure it does not get derailed. Krause asked for a signal that both the developer and community want this project so he can continue his efforts. Councilman Tuite said his motion is for 292 rooms, 190,000 square feet FAR for phase I as presented. Mayor Stirling said there would have to be reliance. Councilman Isaac said staff always has reviewed this project as expeditiously as possible. Council has gone out of their way to 8 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council May 5, 1988 have special meetings to meet on a fast track basis. Councilman Isaac said it is incumbent upon the applicant to get these plans in as expeditiously as possible. Councilwoman Fallin said there have to be some guarantees on the city's side that the scale shown will be this size or less. Councilwoman Fallin said there has to be reliance on both sides for this to work in the public process. Councilwoman Fallin said this is being sent back to P & Z for them to do their work within what the Council has negotiated. Councilwoman Fallin said there is still public process involved in this. Mayor Stirling said this does not give direction to P&Zto discuss the 292 rooms and the 190,000 square feet FAR. Sarpa said if there is a vote to confirm this resolution Monday, phase I will be 292 rooms and not more than 190,000 square feet. Sarpa said there are things to be done within that parameters that will change. Councilwoman Fallin asked that there is some comfort that Council will have more discussions and negotiations on phase II of the PUD. Sarpa said the applicants have only presented a schematic design of density on phase II. All the applicants have asked for is some general guidance that they have come close in saying only 50 hotel units and some FAR. This needs to be refined and nailed down. Mayor Stirling said 50 hotel units would be 40,000 square feet, leaving 71,000 square feet for residential units. Mayor Stirling asked if the applicants are going to be using residential credits that already exist. Mayor Stirling said 40 or 50 residential units behind a hotel is more density than Council is interested in. Councilman Gassman said what the applicants have done in the redesign has been good; the applicants have been cooperative and have been listening. A lot of improvements have been made. Councilman Gassman said his fear and concern is that the town is very fragile. Councilman Gassman said what creates a nice environmental is very ephemeral and hard to access. Councilman Gassman said all the interest in this project is a testament to all the individuals who have contributed to Aspen over the years to create this town. Councilman Gassman said his concern with this project is that it is too far beyond the general texture of the town and a little out of context. Councilman Gassman said a significant reduction in the overall size would have made him feel more comfortable. Councilman Gassman said he has to put what he sees as the interests of the town before those of the developer. Mayor Stirling said he appreciates the efforts the developer has made and also appreciates the interests of the town. Everybody views this community in a different way. Mayor Stirling said he has been trying to balance the community scale and the community needs, which are both aesthetic and economic, with the deve- 9 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council May 5, 1988 loper's economics. Mayor Stirling said had the proposed adjust- ments reached the harmony he was looking for, he was hoping to support the changes. Mayor Stirling said he urged the applicants to do all they could to decrease the mass and bulk. Mayor Stirling said he understands why this cannot be decreased. Mayor Stirling said one of Aspen's most appealing point is the flavor, character and sense of place. Mayor Stirling said the growth management plan has been developed over a long period of time and has helped restrain and to make this town beautiful. Mayor Stirling said to allow too much to be developed on one site to get less developed on another site is a problem that seems contradictory. The one project will always be out of scale. Councilman Tuite said if the city doesn't give in some area, they wouldn't have open space all over town. Councilman Tuite said the previous applicant gave the city the Koch lumber property. This applicant has offered another park. There is only so much open space in the town. The more the applicant is willing to give the city, the development has to go somewhere else. Councilman Tuite said if the applicants are going to have a chance of success, they have to work with something. Councilwoman Fallin said the applicants have reduced the scale from the original plan. This area is zoned for lodging. There is not another site for lodging like this. The applicants have reduced the scale and will have landscaping. Councilwoman Fallin said in comparing this building to the Jerome and the Wheeler, it is coming more into scale. Â· Councilwoman Fallin said she would like to see fewer rooms but the applicants have said continually they cannot do it for less than that. Councilwoman Fallin said she wants a project to be successful. Councilwoman Fallin said this proposal is preserving open space. Councilman Isaac said he was not enthusiastic about 292 rooms on site. The applicants do have a right to fairness of process. The applicants purchased the land with approvals along with it and there was some reliance they would be able to build that. The applicants could have build the approved Roberts' plan. Councilman Isaac applauded the applicants for amending that plan and for making the project fit in with the community. Councilman Isaac said this plan will not make or break the town aesthet- ically or economically; however, it will have an effect on the town. Councilman Isaac said the plans have improved because of the process. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Tuite, yes; Gassman, no; Isaac, yes; Fallin, yes; Mayor Stirling, no. Motion carried. Councilman Tuite moved to continue this discussion as the first 10 . I Continued Meeting Aspen City Council Mav 5, 1988 action item Monday, May 9, 1988; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. Council left the meeting at 8:05 p.m. ~ck L 4/)L-/~ VL#tk E _ ) Kathryn y/. Koch, City Clerk 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director ~ RE: Requested Information Regarding Hadid Holdings DATE: April 20, 1988 During the discussion on April 18, you asked that the staff provide you with several pieces of information. Following is a brief response to your requests. To the extent possible, we will simply present you with the information you have requested without analysis, permitting you to reach your own conclusions. 1. Explain Previous PUD Approval Process The staff has not had the time to complete this review. The applicant has prepared a presentation for you on this topic and has included an attachment to this packet summarizing some of the key points in the previous PUD review process. 2. List Available Lodge Reconstruction Credits Attachment 2 provides an inventory of both the 275 lodge and 40 residential credits available to the project. At the present time there are only 159 units in the Grand Aspen, which means that 19 credits are available from this facility. When added to the previously demolished 65 Aspen Inn and 32 Blue Spruce units, there is a credit to rebuild 116 lodge units on the West Wing site. If additional units are demolished in the Grand Aspen, these could also be credited to the West Wing. 3. Describe Development Allowed Under Zoning During the original review of the PUD, the development potential of the entire PUD was analyzed and was then broken out for the lodge and residential components. Ultimately, if a new conceptual submission is made, this analysis will need to be completed again, with updates for zoning changes since 1983. In order to simplify this task, so that order of magnitude density calculations can be made, we will simply focus on Lots 1 and 5, the east and west wing hotel sites. To begin with, we need to briefly explain the floor area and density provisions of the L-2 zone district. The L-2 zone district allows 0.75:1 of external floor area to be built by right, which is increasable to 1.0:1 if employee housing is built on site. The 1.0:1 is only achievable by meeting the following internal FAR requirements: Lodge unit space: 0.67:1 (maximum) Non unit space: 0.25:1 (minimum) Employee housing: 0.08:1 (minimum) If no employee housing is provided on site, then the maximum FAR is limited to 0.50:1 for lodge unit space and 0.25:1 for non unit space, for a maximum FAR of 0.75:1. Attachment 3 provides a table comparing floor area allowed under zoning to that contained in the Ritz proposal. Please note that approximately 12,000 sq. ft. of the East Wing is zoned CL, with an allowed FAR of 2.0:1. Calculation of permitted density is much more of a theoretical exercise than are floor area determinations. This is because the City Code does not set a minimum lot area per unit requirement. Therefore, the only way to calculate density is to chose an average room size which can be divided into the square footage available for lodge unit space. In attachment 3 we provide you with a range of density values, using average room sizes of 400, 450 and 500 sq. ft. 4. Compare Proposed Density to Other Approved Hotels Attachment 4 identifies the acreage per unit of several approved/built hotels in Aspen and compares these to the Ritz and Grand Aspen developments. We have also provided the density for the entire PUD. It could be argued that this provides a more accurate evaluation of the site because of the considerable open space included throughout the PUD. Conversely, it could be argued that looking at the entire PUD is somewhat misleading because it takes in not only lodge units, but also the lower density duplexes at Top of Mill, 700 S. Galena and Summit Place. 5. Reproduce comparative building program chart previously distributed This chart is included in this packet as Attachment 5. 6. Describe development review process alternatives Given the many variables which could arise during the meeting, we will respond to this issue verbally rather than try to anticipate all of the questions you may have. 7. Explain status of 700 S. Galena Through an unfortunate set of misunderstandings by both the applicant and staff, this project's expiration date (3/1/88) has 2 passed. However, the applicant sent us a letter in February which can be construed to be an extension request which was submitted prior to expiration, but never acted upon. Depending on what occurs with the remainder of the PUD, we have identified several approaches to this project which we can review verbally. Councilhoteldata 3 Attachment 1 (submitted by applicant) BACKGROUND TO A.M.L. APPROVAL 1983 GOALS TASK FORCE REPORT CONCLUSIONS: 1. Develop June to October time period to generate 50% of revenues by 1995. 2. Protect community from risks of no snow year, loss of skier share and national economic downtown. 3. Shoulder season business will be created by conference - hotel facility. Because the community would benefit the Aspen Mountain Lodge was approved in 1985. In fact the PUD requires conference facilities and requires a first class operator qualified to promote conference business. PUD is a negotiated process. In return for added FAR the owners have spend $3.5 million on community improvements in reliance on approval and Will spend an additional $1.8 million during construction. These improvements were negotiated in consideration for FAR and density. Any reduction in FAR must be accompanied by a reduction in the improvements provided. PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS AMOUNT TO BE % COMPLETE SPENT SPENT I. Utility Improvements and Undergrounding A. Electrical 1. City Lines Undergrounded 90% $200,000 -0-* 2. Holy Cross Lines Undergrounded 100% $345,000 -0- 3. Temporary Relocation 100% $17,900 -0- B. Telephone 1. Cable Underground/Relocation 90% $68,966 -0-* 2. Temporary Relocation 100% $13,068 -0- C. Cable 1. Cable Underground/Relocation 90% $15,000 -0-* 2. Temporary Relocation 100% $5,000 -0- D. Natural Gas 1. Relocated & New Gas Lines 100% $12,000 -0- E. Sanitary Sewer 1. Sewer Main Rerouting, Lot 1 100% $28,500 -0- 2. Sewer Along Durant 0% -0- $65,000 F. Water Lines 1. Main Line Disconnects, Lot 1 100% $14,200 -0- 2. 12" Main Galena to Mill 0% -0- $120,000 G. Storm Sewer 1. 18" Galena/36" Durant 0% -0- $205,000 H. Drainage Study Aspen Mountain 0% -0- $250,000 and work Sub Total $719,634 $640,000 AMOUNT TO BE % COMPLETE SPENT SPENT II. Roads, Parking and Landscaping A. Galena Realignment 0% -0- $315,000 B. Landscaping 0% -0- $400,000 C. Park on block in front of 0% -0- $150,000 Grand Aspen Hotel D. Parking lot west of Grand 55% $60,000 $50,000 ---------- -------- ---------- Sub Total $60,000 $915,000 III. Other Programs A. Grand Aspen Renovation (85) 100% $750,000 -0- B. Employee Housing Commitments 1. Alpina Haus (Purchase & Upgrade) $750,000 -0- 2. Copper Horse ( " " " ) $500,000 -0- 3. Hunter Lnghs.(Sub-equity Invest) $250,000 -0- C. Park Dedication Fee 0% -0- $36,000 D. Rubey Park Study 100% $25,000 -0- E. Aspen Ski Club 0% -0- $167,000 F. Koch Lumber Co. Gift 100% $475,000 -0- ---------- ---------- Sub Total $2,750,000 $203,000 GRAND TOTALS: $3,529,000 $1,758,000 * Paid 100 % in advance. Completion pending due to construction time. The costs in the to be spent column are still estimates. They are subject to change through negotiation with the City. 0420GTPH.IMP KSLW'S FOUNDATION BACKAGE MAIN BLDG. BLUE SPRUCE TOTAL Lodge Units 234 36 270 Residential Units 14 -- 14 Lodge units average: 446 sq.ft. Residential units average: 2,304 sq.ft. Equiv. Lodge units/Res. unit: 5 lodge = 1 residential Lodge units 234 36 Residential units X5 70 Lodge Unit Equivalents: 304 36 340 4/20/88 RITZ-CARLTON PROPOSAL Lodge units: 262 30 292 Residential units: 0 0 0 Lodge Unit Equivalents: 262 30 292 Attachment 2 ' SCHEDULE 8 RESIDENTIAL AND LODGE UNIT VERIFICATIONS PROJECT LEGAL/ADDRESS NUMBER OF UNITS I. RESIDENTIAL UNITS: A. Blue Spruce Lodge Lots A-D, Block 84, 2 (North Wing) Townsite (303 E. Durant Avenue) B. North Aspen Inn Lots 7 & 8, Block 3, Conners 6 Apartments Add. (711 S. Mill Street) Lots 11 & 12, Block 3, Conners Add. (300 E. Juniata Street) 1 (320 E. Juniata Street) 1 C. Hillside Lodge Lots A&B, Block 91, Townsite 14 (403 E. Durant Avenue) D. Townplace Lot C, Block 91, Townsite 4 (409 E. Durant Avenue) E. Chase Lots D-I, Block 91, Townsite 2 (415 E. Durant Avenue) F. Paas Lot K, Block 91, Townsite 2 (602 S. Mill Street) G. Melville #2 Lots 17 & 18, Block 2 Dean's 1 Add. (680 S. Mill Street) H. Black Lots 3,4 & 5, Capitol Hill 2 Add. (918 S. Mill Street) I. Previously Demolished ~ 1. 700 South Lots 16 & 17, Anthony Acres 3 Galena (700 S. Galena Street) 2. Snowchase Lots 16 & 17, Capitol Hill 1 Add. Lot 21, Capitol Hill Add. 1 TOTAL: 40 \ p r nâ€¢ i 4; 1 ni ,â€¢r- ,Â· , II. LODGE UNITS: A. Blue Spruce Lodge Lots A-D, Block 84, Townsite / 15 (North Wing) (303 E. Durant Avenue) B. Aspen Inn Lot 6, Block 2, Conners Add. 65 Lots 1-3, Dean's Add. and ~ Lots 1-6, Block 3, Conners Add. (611 S. Mill Street) C. Continental Inn Lo ts L-S, Block 91, Townsite 178 and Lots 1-3, Block 1, Anthony Acres (515 E. Dean Street) D. Previously Demolished i 1. Blue Spruce Lots 1-5, Block 2, Conners Add. 17 Lodge (South (300 E. Lawn Street) Wing) TOTAL: 275 12- -2- - - 1 Attachment 3 Comparison of Zoning Requirements to Ritz Proposal West Wing: Allowed by Zoning Ritz Proposal Lot Size: 128,941 sq. ft. 128,941 sq. ft. Lodge unit space: 86,391 sq. ft. 163,624 sq. ft. Non unit space: 32,235 sq. ft. 38,872 sq. ft. Employee housing: 10,315 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Total Floor Area: 128,941 sq. ft. 202,496 sq. ft. (1.57:1) Density range: @ 400 s.f./unit 216 units not applicable @ 450 s.f./unit 192 units not applicable @ 500 s.f./unit 173 units not applicable actual proposal not applicable 292 lodge units, 8 residential units East Wing Lot Size: 113,685 sq. ft. 113,685 sq. ft. Zoned L-2 101,650 sq. ft. 101,650 sq. ft. Zoned CL 12,035 sq. ft. 12,035 sq. ft. Total Floor Area: 125,720 sq. ft. 116,239 sq. ft. (1.02:1) (1.11:1) Lodge unit space: 84,232 sq. ft. not available Non unit space: 31,430 sq. ft. not available Employee housing 10,058 sq. ft. not available Density range: @ 400 s.f./unit 211 units not applicable @ 450 s.f./unit 187 units not applicable @ 400 s.f./unit 168 units not applicable Actual proposal not applicable 155 lodge units, 6 ft. per unit): residential units East and West Wing Combined Totals Total Floor Area: 254,661 sq. ft. 318,735 sq. ft. (1.31:1) (1.05:1) Density range: @ 400 s.f./unit 427 units not applicable @ 450 s.f./unit 379 units not applicable @ 500 s.f./unit 341 units not applicable Actual proposal not applicable 447 lodge units, 14 residential units councilritztable Attachment 4 Approved/Proposed Hotel Density Comparisons Proiect Acres Units Units/Acre Ritz Site 2.96 292* 98.6 Grand Aspen 2.60 155** 59.6 Entire Aspen Mt. PUD 11.69 501*** 42.9 Little Nell .99**** 92 92.9 Hotel Jerome 1.1 94 85.5 * Does not include 8 residential units. Total proposed lodge plus residential bedroom count is 313 bedrooms, an effective density of 105.7 bedrooms/acre. ** Does not include 6 residential units. *** Total PUD approval is for 618 bedrooms which equals 52.9 bedrooms/acre. **** Includes only land zoned CC, since land zoned C is used principally for ski area functions. Total site, including land zoned C is 2.04 acres, which equates to a density of 45.1 units/acre. hoteldensity Attachment 5 amparative Building Prrs==s : Lots 1 and 5 Aspen Mountain R]D West Wing East Wing Total Pro-iect Ifxkle Residential PUD Not more Not more Not more than Not more than Agreement than 300 than 14 190 lodge units 447 lodge units units units and 14 residential units Approved 285 units 14 units 162 lodge units 447 lodge units and Design (36 in Blue 14 residential units Spruce Bldg.) Roberts Building 270 units 14 units N/A (max. allowed 447 lodge units and Plans (36 in Blue is 177 lodge units) 14 residential units Spruce Bldg.) Current Ritz 292 units 5 units N/A (max. allowed 447 lodge units ar-' Proposal is 155 lodge units) 5 residential unit e.01#111.2 6Â£.lend Street 0 - --- r- - - f=runkccess - ...... .. -- ot' Cond=BALrii 1 1 -1 - - - .. I . - N - . 5 - i /1 94&{ 11 U . . 1 . irr-1 11. i -- f P-1 - . . 1 -Phaae 1!: Recap- f - 1-V \A ry - ~ ith~ +101= L ~39.110 02 : , PL I.FeC>A/VQYONJ 2' r- A -F'40Â£*<70* 2-1 1 1.1 -' , I : li t 50 --------- - M c Tkun*.s~lges 1G, 69ofa.Â·r. A / - ~ 4 / 5,5,46~Fn 4 - - - - - 89 Canacirrinturng - -=. - IÂ·-,1 1115.700 ~a.Â¥t 11 . 1)-4 .- laY:Ils~s H 1 . --- /2 12 . r !2gÂ°'- Condom-i--rit6â‚¬ . Apet. 844Â£. c.11-114:l - --9 --- - - --- Urs AMek.66 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 1988 Mayor Stirling called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Isaac, Tuite, and Gassman present. ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE PUD Mayor Stirling summarized the applicants have proposed to move 30 rooms to the Blue Spruce site, around 16,700 square feet, and to remove the 5 residential units from the upper southeast corner of the hotel and roll them into phase II, about 13,000 square feet. Mayor Stirling said the phase I site is about 2.96 acres, including the Blue Spruce and 292 units. Mayor Stirling said this will have the effect of creating 3 buildings. John Sarpa, representing the applicant, told Council they have been able to produce a crude massing model. The senior archi- tects are present to go over the drawings from last week. Ken Richardson, head of architecture design for Ritz is also present. Sarpa said the applicants feel the change to the design addresses the focus on scale and mass. Sarpa said the applicants feel this is a timeless design and will be made out of brick. Sarpa told Council the applicants and the town are at a critical point. This project is on the verge of coming out of the ground. The financing is in place, they have a top notch operator. 1 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 1988 Gene Aubry, architect, showed the ground floor plan of the building. Aubry showed the 3 buildings which will house 162, 100 and 30 rooms. Aubry explained by moving 30 rooms to the Blue . ~AUR (421 4 Spruce site Â·-*--up-wa;*A a distance of 86 feet between two bodies of the building. There is an apres ski lounge, a courtyard which is completely transparent to Mill street. Aubry showed the connections between the buildings and the proposed accessory retail. Aubry showed the second level overhead bridge connection which ties directly into the guest rooms. The guest rooms begin at the second level. Aubry said there is a wonderful entrance at Dean street. Aubry said these changes have drastically reduced the mass of the building. Aubry showed elevations from Durant and Mill street and the heights of the different buildings. Aubry showed the previous submittal from the work with P & Z. When the 30 rooms are moved, that height drops down to one story. Aubry said the building will still be 42 feet to the mid-point of the roof. Aubry told Council they have prepared a mass model. The proposed hotel on the model has a slight variation of 8 feet and 30 feet on the back. Aubry said the model shows comparisons of different buildings in the city and how the project relates. Council and the applicants moved to the model. The model gives an idea of building mass, of open space compared to other 2 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 1988 projects. Sarpa said the conference facilities are 20,000 square feet and are all underground. Mayor Stirling asked if the building could be moved back up the hill. Mayor Stirling said some of the comments about Ritz other hotels are that they are el surroundeâ€¢, by open space and landscaping. Harvey said the building is set back 28 feet on Mill street and 18 feet off Monarch street. Sarpa said P&Z recommended moving the building off Monarch street and showed where they moved the building back. Ken Richardson said they do not want to guest rooms on the lower level because of the service area on one side. Richardson said there will be some accessory retail of a logo shop and a Harrod's boutique. Sarpa said the shading has been reduced because of this design change. Richardson said that 292 rooms is their lowest count. They have done a lot of research and feel that is the number of rooms necessary to support this market and to get this hotel to work. Sarpa told Council they have to have the 292 rooms on phase I and cannot get much more inventive with the design, th=~Row. Sarpa said on phase II there is more flexibility and they can go down to 100 room total. This will have a total for the two phases of 397, eliminating 50 rooms. Harvey said the applicants have not looked at a land plan for this but dropping this number of rooms will give more flexibility. Sarpa told Council there are 160 units on the Continental Inn site that can be torn down and 3 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 1988 replaced. Sarpa said the number of units they have to have is 390. Sarpa said any lower than that, Ritz, the guarantee and the financing/ldisappear. Councilman Gassman said he feels the Continental Inn site is a better site for development. Sarpa said the premise of the proposed hotel is that the community needs and wants a facility to attract business in the shoulder season to help offset the economic peculiarities of a snow resort. Sarpa said if rooms are eliminated from the proposed hotel, it will lose the ability to attract the national group business. Mayor Stirling said he had hoped for a chance to develop a balance between the two sites and the two buildings. Mayor Stirling said he would like to see more of the density moved to the east wing site than just 5 residen- tial units. Mayor Stirling said the proposed hotel will loom behind everything in the town. Mayor Stirling said he does not feel the town's decisions should be driven by a hotel operator. Mayor Stirling questioned whether the town wants the kind of change this will bring to the downtown area. Mayor Stirling said this change is being driven by a guarantee to the appli- cant. Mayor Stirling suggested the model be placed somewhere so that all can view it that are interested. Mayor Stirling said the statements that are made in this town are made by the mountains and the significant old Victorian build- 4 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 1988 ings. Mayor Stirling said he still has trouble with the massing of the buildings and would like to move some of the rooms into phase II, which has more ability to handle the density. Mayor Stirling said the applicant has stated it is 292 units or the Ritz will not be the operator. Sarpa said the applicants feel it will be a mistake for the developer and for the town to put a hotel there will not accomplish what it is supposed to accom- plish. Sarpa said the applicant is deferring to the operators record of being able to put up a successful hotel and to read the community. Mayor Stirling said there have been new rooms built and the occupancy in the winter averages 50 to 60 percent. Mayor Stirling said there have been new rooms built and renewed rooms since the Council first saw this project. Mayor Stirling said this project will exacerbate the problems the community has. Mayor Stirling said he is not at the point of giving this project approval. Sarpa said there has been a net loss of short term rooms in the city. Sarpa said the additional commercial space requires more economic support of having extra beds. Sarpa said there will millions of dollars of community improvements from this project; there are also millions of dollars that will flow into the public treasury. Sarpa if they get the flexibility in this project, they can spend time, money and effort in working with the community to address problems, like employee housing. Richie 5 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 1988 Cohen said one thing that has not changed since this first approval is the awareness of the need to develop the shoulder season and get a more even flow of business. Cohen pointed out that Aspen is becoming much more of a stable community. Mayor Stirling moved to continue the meeting to Thursday, May 5, 1988, at 5:00 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director RE: Ritz-Carlton PUD/GMP Amendment DATE: April 15, 1988 During the last week, the staff has been working full time to process the excavation and foundation permit applications for the Aspen Mountain Lodge. Due to this heavy workload, it has not been possible to make any other progress on this project. As of the time of writing of this memo, it is not possible to report on the status of the permits. This issue Will be clarified in advance of the time of your meeting and we will report to you accordingly. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11, 1988 Councilwoman Fallin moved to adopt Ordinance #13, Series of 1988, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Councilman Isaac asked about the Castleridge note receivable. Everhart said this is transferring money from the Castleridge fund to the general fund. City Attorney Taddune told Council Castleridge is current on their payments except for the land lease payment which Council allowed them to delay. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Isaac, yes; Fallin, yes; Gassman, yes; Tuite, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #14, SERIES OF 1988 - Appropriations Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. There were no com- ments. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Fallin moved to adopt Ordinance #14, Series of 1988, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Fallin, yes; Gassman, yes; Tuite, yes; Isaac, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. RFTA BUDGE RESOLUTION Bruce Abel, general manager of RFTA, told Council this resolution approves the contribution to the city for the design work on the parking concerns and solutions. Councilman Gassman moved to approve RFTA resolution 88-2; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. GMP EXTENSION REQUEST - Ritz Carlton/Hadid Hotel John Sarpa, representing the applicant, told Council the appli- cant purchased the properties in August and came to Council to discuss what kind of process would take place. A conceptual and an amendment process were discussed as well as the parameters. Sarpa said the city and the applicant came to an agreement this was an amendment process with particular parameters. Sarpa told Council the applicant worked with staff to find out what were the areas within the approval they could work, what were the areas not to get into to upset the amendment process. Sarpa said the applicant has worked diligently and with the community and staff on responding to reactions to the plans. Sarpa said this was done in reliance and within the parameters they were originally given and agreed upon. Sarpa said the project has gone through 3 design changes. One was presented to the community for their reactions. This moved 11 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11, 1988 into a review with staff. The city hired an outside architect. The design went through a radical change at that point. Then the applicant went to P& Z. Sarpa said the design has changed tremendously, and the project has been getting better. Sarpa said height has been reduced, the setbacks have been changed and moved off the street to give additional space. Sarpa said the applicants have worked with the architectural community and tried to integrate into the community. Sarpa said the applicants have talked at length about employee housing with staff, the community and P & Z. The applicants have made radical changes to the existing plan for the open space in order to respond to the community's interest. Sarpa told Council these are areas which the applicant feels can and should continue in the community' s best interest. Sarpa said the system is working; however, this is the eleventh hour. Sarpa told Council the applicants have put together a financial package based on the set of parameters that were agreed to. Based on the financial package, the applicants are in their eleventh hour of financing and construction. Sarpa said the applicants have had on-going discussions with Ritz Carlton as to how big the hotel should be, how it can be run, and that rela- tionship has been solidified based on the parameters. Sarpa said in the last week in the employee housing area, the community has said because of the sheer size of the hotel and the number of employees, the applicants have to do more than their fair share. Sarpa told Council they propose to form a non-profit employee housing corporation. This corporation would be community-wide made of both the public and private sectors. Sarpa pointed out the proposed hotel site is not the only piece of property they own in Aspen. If the non-profit corporation benefits the community, it will benefit the applicants. Sarpa told Council the second area they have changed, in response to very clear signals sent to them, concerns the mass and scale of the current plans. Sarpa said because the applicant was given guidance from the city not to get into the scale and mass issue, they have not. Sarpa said the applicants have maintained a certain, fundamental base. Sarpa said even though the applicants may be within their legal rights to maintain a certain size, the community feels it is too big. Sarpa said the applicant would like to make a commitment to put the issue of scale and mass on the table. Sarpa said this has to happen through the extension process as they have to have time to do this. Sarpa said the applicants have made good progress; the community continues to have good ideas for the project. Sarpa said the process needs to continue for the benefit of this community so that the end product is a building that everyone can be proud of and that will serve the various purposes. Sarpa requested an extension of 12 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11, 1988 their current approvals and a time schedule. Sarpa told Council P & Z took 3 hours each week to devote to this project. Sarpa said they would like to have the same opportunity with the Council. Sarpa told Council the applicants feel that the employee housing needs of their project will be completely met separate from the proposed non-profit corporation. Sarpa said the applicants have spoken to the restaurant association and the lodging association. Employee housing is a problem in the community and someone needs to take the lead and come up with constructive ideas. Sarpa said there is currently no mechanism for people to build housing even if they want to. Sarpa explained this corporation could access funds that a for-profit entity could not. There would be funds available through other applicants. Sarpa said if 4 or 5 applicants have a need for an employee housing project, the non- profit group could undertake the development and management of that project. Sarpa told Council the applicants are willing to discuss with Council the scale and mass of the Ritz hotel. There are a lot of constraints on this. Sarpa said they cannot start at ground zero; however, they are willing to enter a dialogue to come to a mutual agreement on the scale and mass. Sarpa told Council based on their last week of activity, the applicants request 180 days in order to move through some of these issues. Alan Richman, planning director, reminded Council it has been six months since the last extension was granted. In those six months, there has been a lot of work put in by the applicant, staff and P&Zto try and improve the project. Richman said the work is succeeding in improving upon this project. Richman told Council the style of the building has improved in the last few months. Richman told Council the amendment process has to some extent hampered the way the project has been reviewed. The reason the amendment process has been difficult is because it is oriented toward the applicant asking the Council for changes based on conditions which may have changed in the community. The amendment process has not given the city flexibility on their side to argue about community changes. The only way the city can get that responsiveness is if the applicant says they are willing to reconsider things. Richman told Council the actual requests made by the applicant in the amendment process have given staff the opportunity to look back at what was approved and to think about whether these things should be reconsidered. Richman told Council he has made the recommendation to P&Z that things should be considered. The problem is that the previous extension was based on a determination that the amendment process was the fast track to 13 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11, 1988 getting through this review. The amendment process says that certain project parameters stay the same. Richman concluded that an extension which does not give the city an opportunity to re- evaluate some of the fundamental project parameters, is not in the community's best interest. Richman pointed out that best interest of the community is the basis for granting or not granting an extension. Richman said an extension that allows the city to do some re- evaluation is in the community's best interest. Richman said this would give the applicant the time to keep working with the staff and P&Zto improve the project. This would give the applicant the time to come up with ideas to make the project work better. Richman said this would also avoid the necessity that the applicant obtain the excavation permit immediately and start construction immediately. Richman said it would be easy to recommend not giving the extension and killing the project. Richman said this action does not get at the fundamental issue. Richman said denying this extension does not place the applicant and the city in a place where they can work together on solving the problems. That action would create confrontation and may force the applicant to start construction of the Roberts hotel. That would be more problematic than what is seen today. Richman said he feels the applicant is willing to work with the city. One of the opportunities here is to challenge the applicant to state ways in which the city feels the applicant may be able to deal with the issues, like scale. Richman told Council while granting the extension may allow the city to deal with some of these problems, the applicant is not required to deal with scale issues. Richman said if Council requires it as a condition of this extension, it insures the city has the oppor- tunity to deal with the issues staff has been bringing up over the last couple of weeks. Richman said height, open space, setbacks and break up of the building are several aspects of the projects which need to be re-opened for debate. Richman said the problem with height has been that it has been evaluated whether it meets its variation given to the previous project, which is 42 feet to the midpoint, not in terms of the 28 foot limit or its compatibility. Richman pointed out that is not the basis for reviewing this project. The height variation was granted previously to a specific building under specific cir- cumstances in return for certain specific community benefits. If this variation is to be applied in the future, it has to be demonstrated that it applies to today's circumstances and not that it is the previous hotel. Richman told Council there is another way to deal with height and scale. Richman presented a comparative building program chart 14 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11, 1988 for lots 1 and 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD. Richman said this approach has to do with the split of rooms between the west and east wings. Richman reminded Council the current PUD agreement states there cannot be more than 300 lodge units and not more than 14 residential units on the west wing and not more than 190 lodge units on the east wing. In total, the east and west wings can have not more than 447 lodges units and 14 residential units. Richman said this recognizes the flexibility between the two wings. The approved design of February 1985 has 285 units on the west wing and 36 of these units in the Blue Spruce building with only 249 in the hotel and 14 residential units. There were 162 units approved for the east wing site, for a total of 447 lodge units and 14 residential units. Richman told Council in the building plans he is currently reviewing, there are only 270 rooms in the hotel and 36 of these are in the Blue Spruce building plus 14 residential units. Richman said this implies there would only be 177 rooms ever allowed in the west wing to keep the total at 447. Richman said the current Ritz proposal is 292 rooms with no rooms shown in the Blue Spruce site. There is a reduction of the residential units from 14 to 5 units. The east wing would only have 155 rooms. Richman said this might explain why there is a problem with scale and why the community is finding the scale more out of context than it was several years ago. Richman reminded Council one of the things they were insistent upon in the earlier review was to break the building into pieces, not to have a single monolithic building Richman said one challenge Council could raise with the applicant is to shift rooms, not remove rooms. There are 447 rooms approved in the PUD agreement. It may be in Council's interest to shift some of these rooms from the west wing to the east wing site which would be an effective way of getting at the height and open space questions. Richman recommended that an extension with conditions is in the community's interest. Richman told Council the total of demolition rooms was 120 units, and 172 units is the net new on this site. Perry Harvey, representing the applicant, said granting an extension under Richman's recommendation is a win situation. The negatives in the denial column would still exist. Harvey said it is irrational to discuss numbers in a design vacuum. Harvey said the applicants are willing to discuss scale and mass through the amendment process. Councilman Isaac asked if the applicant is willing to commit the lowering the numbers. Sarpa said they are willing to discuss reducing the scale and mass, which relates to the numbers of rooms. Councilman Isaac asked if the applicant is willing to reduce the 447 units. Sarpa said they are and do not feel 447 units is appropriate for the community. Sarpa said they would like to improve the project. Councilman Isaac asked if the applicants are willing to throw out the Roberts plan. 15 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11, 1988 Harvey said not until there is a better alternative in place. Harvey said there is too much value associated with that zoning approval, which is why they are asking for an extension. Councilman Tuite asked if a 180 day extension is enough. Sarpa said if Council works the way P & Z, the answer is yes. Mayor Stirling said to not grant an extension does not kill the project. The issues of scale and mass are not related to an extension. Mayor Stirling asked why the applicant is now willing to discuss scale and mass. Sarpa said the rules of the game have changed and they have been listening to the community. Sarpa said this is not just one project of the applicants; they own other properties. Sarpa said it would be ludicrous to cut the system off now and stop talking. Harvey said when the applicants came in for the extension, their direction was to amend the project without jeopardizing the approvals in place because of the intrinsic value to the property. Harvey said when the applicants came in and went through the amendment process, they were told not to touch the fundamentals or they have to go back to conceptual. Harvey said the applicants worked with the parameters they were given. Harvey said the applicants cannot change the rules but the city can. Harvey said the applicants have not changed what they want; they want to improve the project but do not want to risk what was purchased in terms of the approved inherent value of the property. Mayor Stirling said if the applicants are willing to reduce, what does the prior approval mean. Harvey said this creates the option of constructing a hotel project that has an intrinsic value based on the number of units. Harvey said the approved plan calls for removal of 120,000 cubic yards of dirt off that site. The plan in the amendment process without the tandem parking is 90,000 cubic yards. This is a substantial cost savings. Sarpa said they are willing to put some of the funda- mental issues of the approval on the table. Sarpa said the applicants cannot put the entire approval back on the table. Sarpa said the main problems are scale and mass and number of rooms, and they are willing to work on this. Sarpa told Council P & Z has done some good work, and there is no reason to throw that out and start over. Mayor Stirling said Section 24-11.7 for granting an extension is based on the finding that said extension is in best interest of the community and shall be within the sole discretion of Council. Mayor Stirling said the question is if this extension is in the best interest of the community, and is the possibility of building the existing approved Roberts hotel going to happen. Mayor Stirling asked if the financing for the amended PUD is in place. Sarpa said this has been started on. Sarpa said the applicants have brought in an investment banker to work through 16 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11, 1988 the various offers that are on the table. The applicants have commitments in hand but have not signed them. Mayor Stirling said there is a major lawsuit that the applicant has not yet resolved. People are concerned about that and whether the applicant can go ahead, and if the settlement may bifurcate the PUD. Sarpa said the discussion in the paper relates to the Trump lawsuit. Sarpa told Council from the beginning they have been absolutely confident their position was as strong as any legal position can be. Sarpa told Council both sides have moved for summary judgments. Sarpa said there are no discussions to bifurcate the PUD. Mayor Stirling asked if lenders are concerned about that lawsuit. Sarpa said they are, and the applicants have discussed the lawsuit with lenders. Sarpa told Council these are lengthy processes. Sarpa told Council the Ritz guarantee is based on so many rooms; if these rooms are reduced, the Ritz guarantee disappears and the financ- ing is called into question. Harvey said the applicant is working with Ritz Carlton and what can and cannot be done with a proposed hotel involves their comfort level with the marketing capability on the size of the hotel. Harvey said the applicants are not willing to throw away the Ritz guarantee or their ability to finance the project. Sarpa said financing and construction are ready to go; it is working with the community for a mutually acceptable comfort level that is holding this up. Bob Hughes, representing the applicant, told Council they do have constraints and would like to broker the ideas of the community within those constraints. Hughes said when Hadid bought the property, there was an approval for 447 rooms and this concept was ratified 3 times without reservation. The applicant has come into the process and has worked very diligently. Mayor Stirling said he counts this as the seventh request for an extension for this project. Mayor Stirling said the town cannot handle the pressures on the community now. There are a lot of changed conditions in town. Mayor Stirling said the town is reaching limits; there is downtown circulation, highway 82, air pollution and violation of the PM 10 standards, residential and dormitory housing needs. There is a struggle in the community to retain a quality of life. Harvey told Council they have been hearing from the citizens that the community needs a first class hotel with a conference facility, that the community needs to even out its reliance on skiing. Harvey said the applicants have heard very strongly that the community needs this kind of facility, that it is a benefit. Harvey said there are long term existing problems in the com- munity. Mayor Stirling said he is questioning whether the approved number of units is appropriate given the challenges the community has. 17 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11, 1988 Robert Klein asked what the community has got to lose by giving this project an extension. If the knowledge of staff and the applicant is combined, the community will get what they want. Al said he feels this developer is sincere, is bringing to the com- munity one of the finest hotel chains in the world, is bringing in an auditorium to the community which the taxpayers will not have to pay for. Al said this community needs this hotel. Clifford Penny said there has been input from citizens saying the community could stand the benefit of the revenue of this project and that the city would not have to pay for some of the projects the developer is proposing to pay for. Penny said the height of this building will not block the view any more than any building already is. Richard Compton said if the city gives an extension, then the Roberts plans ought to be thrown out. Compton said if the extension is granted, he would like to see a complete housing plan for employees to know where all the employees will be housed. Diane Tegmyre said she feels the town does need a facility like this. Ms. Tegmyre said at some point there will be a hotel on this property, and these are the best plans so far. Ms. Tegmyre said Mr. Hadid has demonstrated a concern for the community. David Amory said the P&Z has not tackled the problem of scale or aesthetics. Amory said he would like Council to look at if the hotel fails, will there be a condominium project on this site. Dan Shank, McDonald's, said he is impressed by the willingness of this corporation to approach the restaurant community to talk about the employee housing problems and to try and lead the way to some solutions. Jim Blanning said it sounds like the city is blaming the developer for a lot of problems that have developed over a number of years. Richard Roth said this project makes every problem in the community worse; the employee housing problems, the employee problem, highway 82, and air pollution. Roth said this project reduces everybody's quality of life and questioned why it should be approved. Roth said the Continental Inn has peeling paint, the pool was not finished. Eddie Reiner asked what the benefit to the community is when a project is allowed to go higher than 28 feet. Reiner asked if this would improve the employee housing, parking, traffic, will there be more access to open space. Reiner asked what assur- ances there are that this development will really be a hotel. Michael McBride said it seems like the community is trying to blame a lot of problems on the development of this hotel. McBride said Ritz Carlton offers Aspen leadership and something 18 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11, 1988 to be proud of. McBride said the developers should be given a chance to show what they can do. Bill Turnidge, Aspen Skiing Company, told Council the Company supports the request for an extension. Turnidge said they believe the town needs more hotel rooms of this quality and needs the kinds of facilities that are envisioned. Turnidge said there has been significant progress made towards a better project. Turnidge said the Skiing Company is opening a hotel in 18 months and welcomes the competition, new energy and new ideas that Ritz Carlton can bring to the town. Mari Peyton said she cannot see the benefit of allowing the Roberts approval to hang as a threat over the reviews. Frank Ross said he feels the threat is coming from the community in trying to force the developer to do something he does not want to do. Ross said the Ritz Carlton proposed plans are a vast improvement over the Roberts plan. Ross said the extension should be approved. Sandy Lynn said the Ritz Carlton would be a good addition to the community. Ms. Lynn said there is a new Aspen and the town should do the best they can with the Aspen they have. Dr. Whitcomb suggested another choice might be the type of unit that would be ecologically fitting for the valley. Whitcomb said the assumption is that there have to be so many beds without looking at the total impact on the community. Whitcomb said the valley has limited abilities to absorb things. Whitcomb said the city should be looking at what they can get with this quality that will guarantee an ecologically sound environment. Joy Caudill said she feels Aspen is in its eleventh hour; the town cannot handle what is going on right now. There are problems that need to be solved. Ms. Caudill said the impacts from this hotel and the Skiing Company hotel will be tremendous. Derek Maierhoff said he feels this plan is both economically and ecologically unsound. Maierhoff said this is over building for the community and the rooms will not be filled. Roger Hunt, P & Z member, said this property has lost 120 rooms. Hunt said it is time the project progresses forward. The city should approve the extension and get on to make this project work. Hunt told Council P&Z has only addressed how this project fits within the existing envelope because these are the parameters they were given. Hunt said this is located in the lodge zone, where lodge units belong. John Hamwi said he does not see the applicant not building anything. This is not a question of whether the town is going to have a hotel or not. This applicant seems to be willing to listen to the community, and the town should work with them. Charles Knight said it is important that Council make this a real hotel and not a condominium project. Knight said he would like to see the city limit the number of rooms to about 200. Knight 19 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11, 1988 said he feels the Council has the right to make these conditions. Ron LeGrow said the Roberts hotel has been approved, and the applicant is hanging onto that because the city is threatening that approval. LeGrow said this project is making the community discuss problems and possible solutions. Phoebe Ryerson supports the extension. Ms. Ryerson suggested the two hotels might help the city with underground parking at Wagner park. Frank Goldsmith said he feels this project has things to offer the community. Goldsmith urged Council if they negotiate the size of the project to also look into the quality. Goldsmith said he is in favor of this project. Jon Busch urged Council to grant the extension. Busch said there is much more than merely the design of the hotel, like the Aspen Institute. Busch urged Council to not only work on the hotel but to get some sense of the future of the Institute and Music festival. Dusty Stone said this is one hotel that he feels should be built. The town has a need for a facility like this. Stone said the influx of dollars into this town will be astronomical. Stone said the commitment by the Ritz will benefit this community. Glenn Rappaport told Council as an architect he met with the Hadid group and tried to give community concerns. Rappaport said the Hadid group is listening to these concerns. Rappaport said he would like to see some creative planning on this project. Jere Michael supports the extension in the best community interest. Michael said the reasons for the hotel are just are valid as they ever were. Michael said the applicants are willing to work with the community, to be involved, and to work this project out. Fred Smith asked if the developer can pull a permit on the formerly approved project. Mayor Stirling said the permit is an administrative issue, not a legislative issue. Smith said he is impressed with the efforts the developer has made to accommodate the community. Smith said he would like to see the project go on; however, he would like to put the threat of the previous approval away. Tim Cottrell said the applicant is willing to do a tremendous job in the private sector housing. That commitment is great, and the applicant deserves the consideration to keep working. Steve Crockett said there are 3 parties responsible for getting the community where it is today; the developer, the Council who has been out of touch with the community, and the community for not being more vocal about this 3 years ago. Crockett urged Council to protect the community from the developers, who has something the community wants. Richie Cohen reminded Council the Code asked if it is in the community's best interest to grant an extension. Cohen said this developer has done everything possible to work with the community and within the parameters that have been given by the community. 20 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11, 1988 Jim Colombo said the P&Z has not had an opportunity to look at scale and mass. Colombo said with the approval of the extension, it will put the P&Zina good position to look at these items and to work with the applicant. Colombo said if P&Z were not given an opportunity to look at mass and scale, he would not support and extension. Harry Teague said he feels the project does have the potential to be of great benefit to the community. This process should allow the community to be able to fulfill that potential. Teague supports the extension with conditions, like that listed by the planning staff. Teague said he would like to see a model of this building, also flagging of the building on site. Lee Miller told Council the hotel site has been a blight on the community for years. Miller encouraged the extension. Miller said he believes Aspen has a need for more first class hotel and conference facilities. Competition is good for the town and will stimulate people to raise their standards. Bob Grueter said Aspen will have to grow. Aspen has done a good job over the last 30 years from keeping growth from being rampant. Grueter supported the extension. Graeme Means expressed concern for the problems in town, and said the community has to work on those before they get into a project this size. Means said there are problems with the open space in the project, with a 4 story 360 foot facade and ignorance of the historical heritage of this town. Means said the scale of this project is wrong for the town. Mark Friedberg complimented Hadid development for a major transformation in the design for the hotel and for responding to the community. Friedberg said this town can use a Ritz Carlton. Friedberg agreed the hotel needs to be on a human scale, and the single massing does not fit in this town. Friedberg supported an extension with conditions to work on a smaller building. Charles Marsh said he has not heard any logical or fair reasons for not granting an extension. Marsh said he believes the town needs the hotel. Don Erdman endorsed the proposal for an extension with conditions that will produce positive results in changing the footprints and visual and stylistic aspects of the building. Danny Wardwell said this hotel represents something Aspen does not have, a first class hotel. Wardwell supports the extension. Howie Mallory supports the extension; the applicant has demonst- rated they are willing to work with the city and abide by changes. Bill Lipsey said the planning office has an excellent recommendation, to extend the permit with reservations. Lipsey said the most important reservations are scale, footprint and height. Lipsey said he would like to see a model included in the conditions for approval. Jim Curtis said his overriding concern 21 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11, 1988 is repeating this conversation in 180 days with the Roberts plan still outstanding. Curtis said researching the project with the applicant in greater detail will be beneficial. Connie Harvey said she has not been very happy about this hotel. Ms. Harvey said she would like to see a building that does not blot out the sun. Ms. Harvey said the town has to blame them- selves for the traffic and pollution as the town has permitted; however, it is time to draw the line. Wainwright Dawson said this process would be an opportunity for the town to solve a lot of problems. Dawson said what is needed is a private/public partnership where these things are worked out initially. Bruce Baldridge favors granting the extension. Baldridge said to help the parking and highway 82 problem, the city as well as employers should increase the subsidy to the buses. Mavor Stirling read into the record a letter from David White stating the mitz must pay its way. white suggested reduction in the mass. more open suace. new employee housing to be construe- tion- Mavor Stirling read a letter into the record from Mark Tve to stop and reassess this much too big hotel project. Mayor Stirling entered into the record a petition signed by about 15 Deople urging Council not to submit to threats by the developer and treat this application fairly according to the city's zoning codes. Perry Harvey entered a petition of 121 namms. owners or managers of businesses in Aspen favoring the granting of an extension for the approval process of the Ritz Carlton hotel proiect. City Attorney Taddune told Council if they decide to grant the extension. there should be a stioulation between the applicant and the citv that the vested rights provision do not apply to the extension. Taddune said this refers to the original approval. Bob Hughes representing the applicant. said this is not a new land use approval but an existina one. Taddune said there can be a number of conditions placed on the extension; however. there is no enforcement mechanism for following through on these condi- tions. Councilwoman Fallin said she would like the applicant to put the Roberts project down and get out a clean piece of paper. Councilwoman Fallin said if Council votes for this extension. they are extending the Roberts approval. Councilwoman Fallin said she would like to do awav with that approval and to work on the best project for the anplicant and for the community. Councilman Gassman agreed and said if the city approves another extension. they will be back at the table in another 6 months. Councilman cassman said the discussions and extension since 1985 have keep alive a not very good plan. rouncilman Gassman said as 22 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11. 1988 long as the city and applicant fails to look at fundamental land use issues. like how the open space works- how the building fits the street. public amenities. thev will continue the same cobbled together plan. Councilman Gassman said the community has to look at what is aporouriate for the site- Councilman Tuite said the applicants have the legal right to build the aDproved plan. Councilman Tuite said he has been listening to the community. who is split on this issue. Council- man Tuite pointed out the applicant is willing to work on thi s plan with the community. Councilman Tuite said he wants to see a good time line with the extension. Councilman Tuite said if the Council is going to grant the extension. he wants a model. Councilman Tuite said the citv has to start acting with vision on the other problems in the community and planning. Councilman Tuite said the applicants are Droviding housing for 60 Dercent of their employees. The code only requires 30 percent. which is ludicrous. The Council needs to reassess the code and the emplovee housing requirements. Councilman Tsaac said most people are close to the conclusion of seeing the process continue but aetting rid of the Roberts approval Councilman Isaac said he does not like having the Roberts approval held over his head. Councilman Isaac said he would like Council to pass a motion to continue to work towards a proper solution but to get awav from the Roberts approval. Councilwoman Fallin moved to continue the process without the Roberts plan. not asking the applicant to start back at concep- tual stage working on scale mass. height. footprint- number of units. including a model. letters of credit that this is a financially viable project; seconded by rouncilman Tsaac. Taddune said the effect of this motion would be to deny the extension. City Manager Rob Anderson said it is inspiring that so many People care about the community to come to this meeting. Anderson pointed out everyone is coming to the same conclusion but the laws are set up so that it will be hard to qet there. Sarpa said the applicant cannot let their zoning on this property ao; it is not an alternative. It is not financially feasible- Sarpa said the applicant will withdraw the request for a permit- This should ease the tension but not get rid of the apvroval rights. q'his would postpone excavation. Mavor Stirling said the Council Rhould have a motion to deny the extension and take the risks in terms of the permit and qo forward with the process as ravidly as possible. The other alternative is to grant the extension with conditions. 23 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11. 1988 Mayor Stirling moved to deny the extension for the amended PUD; seconded bv Councilman Cassman- Mayor Stirling said there are no guarantees to enforce what has been talked about. Mayor Stirling said Council and the anpli- cants should qo forward in good faith. Councilmembers Fallin- Gassman and Mayor Stirling in favor; Councilmembers Tsaac and Tuite opposed. Motion carried. Mayor Stirling moved to suspend the rules and meet for another 20 minutes; seconded by Councilman Tsaac. All in favor. motion carried. Councilman Gassman said because of the scale of the project and the commitments that have been made in the PUD agreement that require money to fulfill- the city would be foolish to let construction start without some assurance that it will be completed- City Attorney Taddune said this action would generate tremendous exposure to the city and the citizens. Taddune said the Council should defer anv involvement and let the administra- tive action run its course; it is not Drover for the Council to involve itself in the building permit process. Bob Hughes said the Council should follow the lead of the legal counsel- Hughes showed Council the PUD agreement- signed by the city. outlining the anplicant's rights underneath the agreement. Hughes said the applicant has certain obligations they are preoared to meet and no more. Hughes implored Council not to stonewall the permit process; it would expose the city to damaaes. Hughes said the anplicant is entitled to foll-ow the rules laid out in the PUD agreement. Councilman Gassman asked if Droiects bond to complete thinas. Taddune said because of the ramifications of the excavation. the city has requested bonding assurances on the issuance of this permit- maddune told Council the project has agreed to bond. even thought the PUD agreement does not contain this provision. to cover the cost of refilling the site. Taddune told Council the onerating principle is to treat this applicant the same as all applicants bia or small- HUghes said one of the conditions for pulling a permit is the postinG of financial assurance for landscaping improvements and the site plan- The applicant is prepared to do that. Sarna said the Drocess has now started in a conflicting role Rarpa said the applicants will work to qet the process back on track and talk about aood solutions. 24 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11- 1988 REOUEST TO USE ZOLINE PROPERTY - Polo Club Bill Efting. leisure services department- told Council when he talked to Josenh Zoline- he was not in favor of the Droiert. Since then- the Polo Club has talked to Zoline who is willing to lonk at the proiect. Eftinq said this project is a use for open space. There are some haying and water rights involved- which Zoline has. Pat Dobie told Council the Aspen Polo Club is interested in using this property because it is a good field. People living within the citv would not have to transport their horses down valley. Dobie told Council Zoline has some concerns because of the previous play on this Dronerty- Dobie said there would be no vertical structures or improvements other than to level the field. irrigate and maintain it. Dobie told Council the Polo Club has about 30 members and has been in existence more than 15 years. Mayor Stirling said this would a limited benefit to the com- munity. Mayor Stirling Dointed out the city is currentlv in some negotiations for the use of this property. Mayor Rtirling said this neaotiation should be worked ont before the Polo Club's request is addressed. Connie Harvey asked what the access to the plaving field would be. Dobie said it would be off the Staae road Lee galtonstall told Council the proposed use would not interrunt anv of the irriaation ditches- MS- Saltonstall said there is not a lot of traffic involved with polo- Dobie said they are aware of the Droposed use bv the Grand Champions club to use a portion of this property. Dobie said they feel the uses would be compatible on the site and would be hanpv to work with the crand Champions Club to make sure they can cohabitate on the Pronerty- City Manager Bob Anderson said he is negotiating with another group to qet as much lease for the Droperty as possible- Anderson vointed out the polo club is offering nothing. Dobie told Council there are two levels of use; one is to use the propertv as is. which has been done in the past- second is to develop the field to a tournament class field. This would involve levellinq some mounds- moving one irrigation ditch. and filling in holes. Dobie said this would cost abont $1 0.ono . Dobie requested permission to use the field until the auestion of the golf course is resolved. Jov Caudill said if the field is not irrigated properly- there will be a problem with the Droloerty below. If there is any realignment- this could flood the lower properties out. Ms- Caudill said she is concerned abont parking on the field and along the road and highway- This would be within the view corridor of the highway. Connie Harvey said she has a Droblem with â‚¬tage road and the traffic on it- Ms. Harvey said she would 25 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11. 1988 have a problem with any use that brought traffic to that road. The intersection of Rtage road and the highway is a very danger- ous one. Tom Cardamon said any use of the Zoline pronerty other that what is out there is a subtle change from hay meadows that the town is used to. to a cut hardened use. like aolf course or polo field. This could effect a highly visible piece of open soace. Cardamon said he is concerned about the use of herbicide that comes along with a golf course or playing field. Councilman Isaac suagested Council table this until there is a determination about the other applications for the Zoline pronertv. Mayor Stirling moved to suspend the rules and continue the meeting for 10 more minutes; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor- with the exception of Councilwoman Fallin. Motion carried. (Councilwoman Fallin left the Council Chambers) SUBDIVTSION EXCEPTTON - 820-822 East Hyman Cindy Houben- planning office- told Council this is a request to condominiumize two duple xes located in the RMF zone. This request includes a waiver for the six month minimum lease restriction. Ms. Houben told Council P&Z recommended the subdivision exception be approved with a condition that the six month minimum lease restrictions not be waived- This is located on the east side of town. and Council has made decisions in the recent past that this is a more permanent residential area and waiver of the six month minimum lease restrictions are inap- Dronriate. MS- Houben said the criteria for waiver of these restrictions in the new code are outlined in the Council packet. Ron Austin. representing the anplicant. told Council thev have done a survey in the area and found that in the immediate vici- nitv. 65 percent of the short term units are being rented short term Council waived the six month restriction on the 700 East Hvman townhouses. which is just one-half a block away. Planning recommends a line along Original be the boundary and on the east side of Original six month restrictions be imoosed. Austin said this proiect fits completely within the criteria of the new rode provisions in all aspects. Austin said to make an arbitrary division on nriginal would be to fly in the face of the land use code. Austin said this Dronertv is surrounded by units available for and being short termed. Austin said the other conditions are acceptable to the applicants- Ms Nouben said some of the projects that do not have six month minimum leage restrictions were built Drior to the enactment of that legislation- Ms. Nouben pointed out the comprehensive plan for the area states a mixed use is aporouriate in the area and a 26 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11. 1988 limited amount of tourist accommodations is aporopriate. Ms. Houben said 65 percent is more than a limited amount. AUstin said one of the former residences on this site has been short termed for some time. To impose a restriction changes the nature of that unit. MS Houben said the other unit on this parcel was a long term rental unit. One of the new criteria is that there be no displacement of lona term regidencps- Councilman Tuite said Council has approved short term occupancies to occur but somewhere the rouncil has to sav enough is enough- Councilman Tuite said he is concerned with more short term rentals. the city is Dronagatina the number nf Deople needed in town to work. This is a different scenario than long term residents. Councilman Tuite said he does not favor short term- Councilman Tuite moved to grant approval of the subdivision and condominium request with the following conditions; (1) the applicant shall submit a statement of subdivision exception which shall include the limitation that the units shall be rented for periods of six months- with no more than two shorter tenancies per year; c2) the applicants shall agree to join an imorovements district if one is formed for their area; (3) a plat shall be submitted Pursuant to Section 00-15 of the Municipal Code; (4) schematic floor plans shall be submitted to include individual units- common and limited elements. elevations of floors and ceiling- additional elements are required by the T.R. S ; seconded by Councilman Gassman. Mayor Stirling said this is a transitional area all the way from the river to the mountain. Mayor Stirlina said these are high end townhouses and the option to rent these short term should be available. Councilman Gassman said this Dart of town is under tremendous pressure to turn into tourist and short term lodging- Councilman Gassman said the ci tv has to be verv tonqh about thi s and if it does turn into short term lodging. the city will have lost an asset- Ms Houben said the comprehensive plan does have that line on Original showing it as a permanent type area- Austin suggested Council amend the code to make this clear so that there are no questions Councilman Tsaac said the Council has turned down other applicants in this neighborhood. Over the years- Council has been consistent to put on six month minimum leases. Councilman Isaac said he does not want to set a Drece- dent of having an erosion of permanent housing in this area. All in favor. with the exception of Mayor Stirling. Motion carried. RESOLUTION *9. 1988 - Recommending Endorsement Annexation Element 27 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 11. 1988 Councilman Isaac moved to table this to Anril 25- 1988; seconded bv councilman Tuite- All in favor- motion carried. RED ROOF INN PROPOSALS City Manager Rob Anderson said this is one of the best offers he has ever seen. Anderson told Council he does not see much down side to this Anderson told Council the city ought to negotiate on the lease for the Zoline Droperty- Anderson reminded rouncil the market value of the Zoline property as open space is $1.3no-000. Councilman Gassman asked how the golf course public/private would work. Chuck Vidal told Council it is not their desire to preclude the public and they do not want to discriminate. vidal said they do want to establigh the prices and may allow for memberships vidal told rouncil they are qoing to the highway deoartment to negotiate an easement between the two sides of the qolf course Andy Hecht- representing the applicant- told Council the intent is to make this an asset of the resort and the community Councilman Tsaac said when he voted to purchase the zoline Dronerty. he did so to preserve it as open space. Councilman Isaac said he does not feel a golf course is the same as a hay field. Vidal agreed Council has to resolve whether a golf course is a satisfactory use of open space and accomplishes the city's goals. Vidal said this Droposal is trving to address coals and not compromise the use of the Zoline property- Councilman Gasgman said he shares this concern and given the first choice would rather have the 7.oline property as a hay field. councilman Gassman said he is not sure how the citv is going to achieve that and Sl-300-000 for a hay field is a contradiction. Councilman Gassman pointed out there is some precedent for having golf courses on open space- Councilman Gassman said the city's first major open snace purchase was the city's aolf course. Councilman Gassman said golf course does keep the land open, landscaned and keeus it from development. Councilman cassman said the city can take this money and do something else with it. like putting it back into onen suace. Mayor Stirling moved to direct the city manager to enter into contract neaotiations at no less than $2-100-000 for the purchase of the ned Roof Tnns with the following terms and conditions (1) until and if the Provertv is returned the city nn some basis. that the lease on the zoline property once construction of aolf course begins would be $100.000 per vear; (2) all drainaae and erosions aspects associated with surrounding properties are mitivated acainst; (1) access be dealt with so that there are no 28 Regular Meeting Aspen rity Council April 11. 1988 more impacts on North Owl Creek road, (4) that the Droperty be used by the public for trails in the winter time with the question of who develons the trail system. and (f) there be some discussion of the use of herbicide on the property; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Councilman Tuite asked if PCPA has taken a position on this proposal. Fritz Benedict said PCPA has not taken a Dosition. One of the concerns is possibility of land slides- which is much less likely to happen if the irrigation is done with sprinklers- Councilman Gassman asked the condition about the course having public access be added to the motion. Mayor Stirling accepted that as part of his motion; seconded by rouncilman Tuite- Vidal said they have looked at various alternatives. One of these they have discussed with the county is relocating Rtage Coach road and making a "t" intersection. Mayor Stirling amended his motion to include that use by the M.A.A. be guaranteed for the summer nf '9R8 and for residential use in the winter of 1988-89; seconded by Councilman Tuite- All in favor, with the excention of Councilman Isaac- Motion carried- Councilman Tuite moved to continued the meeting to April 18. 1988. at 5:00 p.m. for the continued public hearina of Ordinance #5- 1988; seconded by Councilman Tsaac. All in favor- motion carried. Lon\4 1 4 40- Kathryn/S. Koch. City Clerk 29 mona-rs'n 4,11Â£01 0-1- li 1%1 , r,tail Â·f~ I 7 Â£664 r-- 1 U 1 4'.:1 I /,2rh krulk 4,Ue C 49 2 -92 3 1 9.., lulu- ; Fi relat ! "-2---J - 1 1 t C:====== -----1 +Ard JG:'5 laff -1, 4 - - - 26-R, 13 If; 1 1 11- I.' 1 11 04 r , A -- . Clcu,61 ) 1 1 L. , ~ ~ ramp ....Ir..~.9.~M.I.- apr.4 ,;61 1-53{386: 1- ' 1.-c i U 9 Lf t 1, -1.-.-4 1 =a .rf 1 :1==C Aff v<23#/fl ~ 0 * I T)...5.v'K.tpl.7. tki ekE, l. C.t.9 .~0 3> 9 421441-0 i = P N . Â¢lt ier- i ---- 4 -r---39 flk--A > # , 6.-J . 93} EN .. . ED L *Afl:iTa n -7 , , O. 7 . 14.9// - )trq . . . -,.Â«3~1:>,V ~~~~ IX--47-1 3/' ..> Z.1.-0 \va>4/ . - Â· /Â»/1 24 2 nu [1 4%,2 JEEE* ENTEr I2VZL PLAN . . - 392_ lk: MO - CLO= 1== . 14 AUm; 1.*CnprECIS, LL- E-r-1 1 -1 0 1 - 1--3 7 4-'----1< kv~-1* .Â« 3k r r\N / 1 27 1 \ ap j .. 9 Ng 0 <3 0 1 1-1 p ,-1-' ." 1 1.9\ ~ *T .T) 1 '* 3 11 [ / 7 3 ..12-4 6, c U 4 1 f ' h I . d. -1 ' , 1 1. -- . '% . I Z 0 11 +- ... ------0 4- - 61 d / .. .1/ 1: . P 1 \ 1 \1 1/ d .i -I-I - ----- 9 .-- - - - -1 - 244.jurl 1 A , F.-/ 1.1 ' 1 1441* 64/2/61 0q 1- litâ‚¬11 !21 [J L] i.~Ell'EFI I u , Ili---t[JA<D.-1[-Li/NE A [Â»El U L.JE-J L12:180<~---3- >'P6214(-tbilly 1 2 2 imiNE]El [JE*â‚¬Â£ ~ 1. it---Min)?JIMt 41-Ul-,Rei~} .T . 'UNT[-ju I 4 Ng --A-=34 ./ 1 ---~- ' 914 -_-IFf FLJ;721*~.Ii.-.1-- 8Z 2-0 U ...001/ Uk W 0 1,1 t. ..12 64 &#CJ I~>1 t" E-1 I r-0 43 b lt, 10 1 1 / 9 0 e /4 1 556 0 1 0 i 'CAL#41 0 / F ~4-,~~~4'1'~1 ~ 3'11 1[ 11 t:1 -12~kF4241* Â¢f â€¢ 1 5 la, 4 4 IC i irr ~ P 4 1 1 1 14Â© 1 fip~.1 1 - $ 1 - 44/ f ==3311 l L 1 . 12 1 0 , L b r., 1 -~ 1*1017 r * 4 4 Tilon,StÂ©11 1*frâ‚¬d.F , * - 0 'i. - - 11 4 99 -3 @ 1-4 g . L 1.1 1---LI Li---1.-~Ex_ i Modsl nxâ€¢,15 r, D - 1Â»Â» /-04 .6, 11 - - ~, r--1 + ., 1 X 9 ' V \,12- 1 1 .1 -1 -9 11{ (60=225) IJ i ID) . . - Ii=33 1 ?dll < 1 '' 75 4Â»=42 0 t E 1, Eltim us 4 1 D ~pÂ»--1-1 r. 4 .T / *11__1~112~...1 ~ 3 it L .,44 I fl' , ~_--helcull WLi~ r_--. Lu., 11 U+3162 -5 _1' U-4]_ _-Â©~ 14 It 1 r-- :- 4 461=LLY , ULL--11.--IL..Pb - 1 T-i= 1 244:- --JU Er ]INE" P $ .i p r.s U 644*+Awpi# 1 o.en ocr r ider Ad E f. 11 - 1--1 1 1 IT EL, - 1 6 . & 11 -- Â£ 6---L- Â·.1/ r . 1 i .,00-92 1. - 1- . Â«Em 1- 1- . /L.1-Qj.g~ ' 7 1 .- dÂ«_ laÂ·rac, rt=97-=2- *11 64 &22* I L_ HAD][Dj 1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN T< m= - Ce=câ€¢, A-of AUZKy AACMnICTZ, r.A- 74,4 11-- --' 1.Dr-~ZAt* 111 1 1 1. I: " i -1 4, 1 1 1 U â€¢ J -fr~ 7 611 69 02-1- 11 ! exiC. -9 i h _ * Ileleu 11 eD itc 6--.--4 .:; . 3~44%2 W A L- 4 1- t . 14 - - C Zi FLug~ 0 -- - -Â»i x= crf: Ar-i ; i21 -FE 'jilig u i :i #14 , - 116 *== -k ..121 al 4 - 2 1 :vand. ; - ~ %=r-r-r-_._*___ ~ 0. 1 1 74: b: ixl LA E ---0 -8 \\ -----..Ill -Ir 7-1 -V-&-I ---4---r-'-- .-- T' n E YNA UY + *irkS- St<IZI U -fen 3 --St--1 t2 i i JE i 949 1 1 7 11 . 9-/ #1''â€¢'Â·1-hiLI: - -11 i El i~' **l rk-/ Legrvoce Â· 1 1 -- - - -- - . 20 i t=7 - <LIEr -R R.-9 lit *:'fi Ii-: EP 1 7 27 Â· g ' maiel Â· 1 - -- N---- !91 -' Â·Tr;-C t --7.2 5 Q I . 1 1 3 'XE-_ 1 I 0 1 1 1 1 - ; I i I r<EL k. lÂ»i -19 HEEMilla .1 2:61 -- u. i I ! U L.1 111 1,%--611 ttli I,di-i liN x,. !,t3â‚¬ -Ill-/.I- 1~' 6 C . l . . ..- - nli 11 4<r ed~ S R O (AND 1FT. A (012 10)1[. A N 1 1 1 3. - - j - I. r -I .. - - -- ~-311 - - --Al- - Ir--37 l\ , :f 4 4 / 4 1 . / 11 ./. C 11 E - ~L------_21tl ~ i Joum I ~ 1 =Al l l 1 1 1 1 21---- F . 11 . 6 Cl 1 igu i#/pescyto,FIS 11 4 < L .2 'f t- loriclge - > li / r--1 1 te 1 1 5064Â·rpoynt _ i \\21 1 F 1 --- 11 1 *E 1 A .LI- 1.1 -r - - -- J. I 415 , -71; 3 1 . 11 .Al------- (i \. / / 11 1 1 C i / & 11 11/\ fl / 1--C; ivi-__-23 1 L T VEL 9_1 ddesrucÂ©11 FLAL .... - .iFC gle 1 1 /- - - - Â·Ir 1 . . ' - - -=-retai 1 retail E--' 1 . 1 \1 1 rt 71 0 { c :31--1 C I f 1 - - -- - th - - - .0- I.= 47Â¥ l I briclsâ‚¬ abue eirtj 1 -1.6,=9 C up - 1 #FR 1 AL#* 1 1 1% 21 .. 6 1 f -11 -rela-it fata~ n ---1 . 6 1 2. . ~ i i "al'llikfi- a .- B 4 1 . 4. , LivEL $56 *W-,2:,r UEW EL/gerAC L 5Ei-- . 1 rf ./ __up--i--j F---I-iLI--toIif-1--70--.7UH E--13 29~ 125/10Â»Il t-1 %719 1 .Ul =r O 11/ 1--/--1 11-de~ i.vÂ»oex >6x jvw >Cy' Ng<>1 Â£~32097)9<Ellk c.,ihe=1 1~32**U P---E-=--au 1 7-/N:.-<-/.../A l 1--grm-trITI~ imm rHil nta I 1~F=:2=~>999 416119*fi#*Leffi~.,rfrl~Eme~Ma/MIME=-1 -El Mi 4 U IMT t 11 1 111111 a Ill --- M'~MO+Bela 1 "111\.Illilittlitill Bititt...rt.Tritrilt![ ADA. A.*s~ 1 1 E-~--ililt-~RT-1=1 HES,=1/'*1~~m ~ O 1 ~ I t,rHEITR~MITENER[ 1 a.:,"7",0--N= - - ---ilitit~--9-=aS1-5=.er=- -M--4- - 1.t,h.ihih,,11..iltt 1 1 - r-- /CS=====~51 ID rf-l - e - - 7~,CS-Q~~-~-~-~ilEL- *Wpekl- COL AllÂ¥52Â£01 4=N rre=m -__ APR 20 '88 18:22 AUB V ARCH I TEST! , PA V â„¢ Doremus & weLis an association of land planners 0 1- 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Ritz Team FROM: Joe Wells RE: Employee Housing Mix (4/5/88 Agreement) DATE: April 7, 1988 The employee housing mix previously established for the Aspen Mountain PUD was 56% low-income and 44% moderate-income based on the following four projects: Total Low Moderate Alpina Haus 46 46 Copper Horse 43 43 Ute City Place 37 37 Airport Business Center 69 20 49 195 (100%) 109 (56%) 85 (44%) No mix was called out when the Hunter Longhouse amendment was approved, so it has been suggested that we use the mix establish- ed previously for the Airport Business Center. Under the 4/5/88 amendment, the obligation for Phase I is 164.1, except that if we proceed on the basis of cash-in-lieu, the obligation is 168. Given the mix of credits already in place, which is heavily low-income, it is not possible to meet the target percentages in Phase I. The numbers are as follows: Credits Available: Low Moderate Alpina Haus 46 46 Copper Horse 43 43 Hunter Longhouse 69 20 49 158 109 49 f'.1 608 oast hyman avenue n aspen, colorado 81611 ci teler,hone: 303 925-Â·6866 r 1.1 11 Memorandum April 7, 1988 Page Two Phase I Cash-in-Lieu Option: Low Moderate Alpina Haus 46 46 Copper Horse 43 43 Hunter Longhouse 69 20 49 Cash-in-lieu 10 10 168 109 (65%) 59 (35%) Phase I Constructed Housing Option: Alpina Haus 46 46 - Copper Horse 43 43 Hunter Longhouse 69 20 49 New Construction 6.1 6.1 164.1 109 (66%) 55.1 (34%) For Phase II the obligation established is for an additional 48.4 employees, or a total of 212.5, although this number is likely to be lower with any concrete proposal for Lot 5. The theoretical mix for Phase II using the new requirement is as follows: Total Low Moderate Alpina Haus 46 46 Copper Horse 43 43 Hunter Longhouse 69 20 48 Other 54.5 10 44.5 212.5 119 (56%) 93.5 (44%) Using the 1987 guidelines (which are likely to be raised soon), the additional cost for the cash-in-lieu option is as follows: Employees Category Cost/Emp Total Cost Phase I 10 Moderate @ $13,300 = $133,000 Phase I and II 44.5 Moderate @ $13,300 = 591,850 10 Low @ $20,000 = 200,000 Phase I and II Total $791,850 It is obviously essential that the method to be used to calculate total employment when the audit is performed be clearly estab- lished in the amended PUD Agreement; the basis should be full- time equivalent employees at 2,080 hours per year. JW/b Il U 608 east hyman avenue ti aspen, colo i-ado 81611 n It .Ic :i , I ic,1-ie : 303 925-6866 CITY OF ASPEN RENIDENITAL GROWIH MANAGEMENT PIAN SUIMISSION POINrS ALJOCATION - TATJY SHEET Project: P&Z VOI'ING MFMHERS Welton Jasmine Roger Ramona David Mari Mickey Jim Average 1. Public Facilities and Services (12 pts) a. Water Service b. Sewer Service c. Storm Drainage - d. Fire Protection e. Parking Design - - f. Road SUBIUrAL 2. Quality of Design (15 pts) a. Neighborhood Compatibility b. Site Design c. Energy d. Trails e. Green Space - SUBICIAL 3. Proximity to Support Services (6 pts) a. Public Transportation b. Community Comml Facilities SUBIUTAL 4. Employee Housing (20 pts ) a. Low Income ___ __ b. Moderate Income c. Middle Income SUBIUTAL SUBIU[AL CATEGORIES 1-4 5. Bonus Points (7 pts) TOTAL POINTS 1-5 ~ APR 7 MEMORANDUM L---*.-------.-- -- . ----- .... TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Bob Anderson, City/County Manager FROM: Jay Hammond, Public Services 25~ DATE: April 7, 1988 RE: Ritz Carlton Encroachment (Withdrawal) Following review of the Ritz-Carlton request for encroachment licensing of tiebacks for their excavation shoring and subsequent to conferring with Paul Taddune, staff has determined that licensing is not necessary. The Ritz Carlton request involves licensing of steel tie-backs for the on-site pile shoring of the excavation walls. The tiebacks are drilled outward into the right-of-way and bolted to the shoring to help support the sheet pile. Prior to backfill, the tiebacks are released from tension and serve no further purpose. While they continue to "occupy" the right-of-way, they serve no function and, should the City ever require use of the area occupied by the tiebacks, they could be severed and removed with minimal effort and no impact on the hotel structure. Staff therefore withdraws the request for encroachment licensing. JH/co/Memo67.88 ..... -1.1- CC: Alan Richmarth FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE GENERATION THE GRAND ASPEN HOTEL PROGRAM FULL-TIME FTE EMPLOYEES ELEMENT EQUIVALENT PER PROGRAM EMPLOYEES ELEMENT 1. LODGE OPERATIONS(159 KEYS) a. LODGE ROOMS 155 b. LODGE BDRMS IN SUITES 4 c. LODGE LIVING ROOMS @25% 1 TOTAL koons: 160 58.5 emps .366 emps/room 2. FOOD AND BEVERAGE (192 SEATS) a. INDOOR DINING SEATS (74) 2150 b. OUTDOOR SEATS (60) 1600 c. LOUNGE SEATS (58) 1600 5350 SQ.FT. 24.42 emps 4.56 emps/1000 SQ.FT. d. CONFERENCE SQ.FT. 3475SQ.FT. 4.00 emps 1.15 emps/1000 SQ.FT. SUBTOTAL, FOOD & BEVERAGE 8825 SQ.FT. 28.42 emps 3. ACCESSORY RETAIL a. SHOP SQ.FT. 750 SQ.FT. 1.33 emps 1.77 emps/1000 SQ.FT. TOTAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT EMPLOYEES: 88.25 emps .55 emps/LODGE ROOM 0110 / f, Uâ‚¬i_ -. Ve@-1 .f UKI, Lil< U ! D,fi- e. 46 ' 14/-79Â£/LS-- LM7 / 34,g Pt ~2~ / 00-4~ / -MIEflj>Age *S' %*--.... Y ./ ///r 1 1 Ipo' â€ž1 / - - - 10 1 lize. - - -I- - IL â‚¬ DITAN T NIIA- C PL- 34|) R?(,(JIDUS D?JI Â¢>,M. / 1 - piot-64- <2 l 1â‚¬ AO ./.- '14 66, d 161 41' If f fi -- IL 4 1 *- 2- 191 LI- ST (<t (0017 93 1ID' LY MILL ST f,1.0.1 it Cop, r i Â¢0 (~ DPAN 1 Mill 1*0 0 KE< 1 k.)0 1 CATL 91*0-( lA_ (f- (%,114 WS E-l,Â»Mesgtdo , w A,;De,6.~22, Â£_,1,6 F e. 41 41 â‚¬5 44. NAâ€¢Alt - 55 . ttiortit) #N A,4.0,444144 40* Tfltl*l. 06\ 1#.ird,- 4 'DBAN t Ne,AJA,1,Â¢ H'. I ' MEMORANDUM TO: James Adamski - Housing Director Alan Richman - Planning Director FROM: Hadid Aspen Holdings RE: Employee Housing Revised Submission DATE: March 27, 1988 In the submission of amendments to the Aspen Mountain Lodge, we proposed employee generation numbers based on the Ritz-Carlton staffing guide for the Aspen hotel. We converted those numbers to employees per 1,000 square feet, using gross program square footages, to correspond to the Housing Office method of calculations. This approach was not accepted by the Housing Authority. Changing to the previously approved format of net square footage and employee generation factors, we have recalculated our employee housing requirement. The accompanying chart (Attachment B) gives the revised, net square footages based on additional information provided by the architects. This conforms to the format employed by the Housing Office and compares favorably to the previous calculations by Jim Curtis (see Attachment A). You will note that we have used the generation factor of 12.8 per 1000 square feet of food and beverage space, as previously approved in the Aspen Mountain Lodge. This is a high generation figure but is endorsed by the Housing Board as the number which should be used for the hotel. The major change in the program is the elimination of the restaurant on the Blue Spruce site; at 6,900 gross square feet, this facility was the largest of the dining areas proposed. The food and beverage factor of 12.8 has made this restaurant economically unfeasible. The residential calculation changes because the three units proposed for the Blue Spruce site have also been dropped pending submission of a redesigned project for that site. Any units proposed for this site in the future will be replacement units. Attachment C is Jim Curtis's 1985 chart of employee generation for the entire PUD broken out for Phase I and Phase II. Attachment D is the same chart with the latest Ritz-Carlton revisions to facilitate your comparison. The enclosed housing analysis for the PUD (Attachment E) demonstrates that housing for 158 employees is provided and that there is a requirement for 161.5 employees. The additional obligation of 3.5 employees will be met through a cash-in-lieu payment or production of new housing if a site is located prior to the beginning of construction. ATTACHMENT DATE SOURCE CONTENTS A 9/15/82 Real Estate Worksheet documenting esti- Affiliates seats and square footages for food and beverage areas, Phases I & II of the Aspen Mountain Lodge. B 3/28/88 Doremus & Revised food and beverage Wells square footages for the Ritz Carlton and summary of com- parisons to Attachment A. C 1/30/85 Real Estate Analysis documenting Phase I Affiliates & II employee generation; used for final approvals. D 3/28/88 Doremus & Comparative Phase I & II Wells analysis; compares to Attachment C. E 3/28/88 Hadid Aspen Phase I & II employee Holdings housing obligations and commitments. ATTACHMENT A .. Atrv~ WkY\. UAâ€¢*. CA;age.I d.â€¢123 ) /4/'Uf te,ec6*cl ~ .-1*J ,/ Dey,1&19 fjvt'.1 ~leflIEL__62%,Wo= l- f ;45~8 ~~EÂ»L &(6/ sue Â£345715 Pth#'0 9 3160 .4,1 1 116Â£99 4, 47Â· 1~' Ictoâ€ž 11 Ill/fae 14015 94- i O , 3660 9 6.90 1 5 te' rk/4 _1,12-5 4Â«Â» 9 -~L-J-N- . $16 5 01Â«TO(2441) \\,0~ i' 66;'/9) %4050 4,66)26â€¢,0 thien Â®1-el loÂ°16 * | 9 4480 4 114 61 ul,419 * 3 1~ 700 fatt,/0 GAT tb D r 6Â¢0 440 (/-94 4,00o 4, UÂ°=14 1,026*4* . 5,44 4 1 1,619Â°Q 4. 9 I t 0020 484~17 g'll' _190Â°1~ ArÂ«-1-- 04 l-la-~*in--&4,614, -3,0- 4, 1Ut 8,03, Ablel tÂ»f 16,5 -30' 4 A â‚¬1- 1 56-Y, 1 4* 4. L \Â© g-r /\~0394, // \.4 21~.Irc) ~GtH<> A5â€ž44/5, v~ Wee-1-1 4 4-nfÂ«1'70h 676 +4 14{ 460 44 ]44 , : 1 - L_RL *54-0 9 let'ne-1 - 16 4.9--4 al $11 3 376 *A.-0 net 76241,/ 44 _aL_f-â€ž0 /4Â£4t Â· 1-3 & pb 11 Q.ef 2 (fLE, #u--4/ 1<44 0-01Â» lau Â«41]0 376 4&47 Mit _.~El-2'v f.,lo~ Al. 144 CO\\\ 196 1~ & CLUL)R44 ]+C 3/28/88 D&W ATTACHMENT B Amendment for the Ritz-Carlton, Aspen Revised Food and Beverage Square Footages Program Sq.Ft. As Submitted Revised Function: (Pg. 104) Net Sq.Ft. 1. Dining a. Cafe 3,440 2,500 b. Dining Room (Grill) 3,600 1,600 c. Private Dining 400 400 d. Monarch/Durant 5,000 -- 12,440 4,500 (4,500 SF/204 seats = 22.1 Sq.Ft./seat) 2. Kitchen a. Main 4,900 3,400 b. Monarch/Durant 1,900 -- 6,800 3,400 (6,800 SF/204 seats = 16.7 Sq.Ft./seat) 3. Lounge a. Apres Ski Lounge 3,000 2,400 b. Dining Room (Grill) No breakdown 800 C. Lobby Lounge 3,000 500 6,000 3,700 (3,700 SF/240 seats = 15.4 Sq.Ft./seat) Subtotal, 1, 2 & 3: 25,240 11,600 4. Conference 20,500 20,000 TOTAL 45,740 33,700 ATTACHMENT B, CONTINUED These net square footages are comparable based on the number of seats proposed currently and under the previous scheme: 1. Dining A total of 204 dining seats are anticipated in the three dining areas remaining in the program, an average of 22.1 net sq. ft. per seat. Jim Curtis' worksheet dated September 15, 1982 (Attachment A) estimated 575 dining seats and 11,000 square feet of dining area in Phases I and II of the original hotel proposal, or 19.1 net sq.ft. per seat. 2. Lounge A total of 240 lounge seats are programmed for the two lounge areas in the Ritz-Carlton, at 15.4 net sq.ft. per seat. In the Curtis worksheet it was anticipated that a total of 450 seats would be provided and 6,000 sq.ft. of lounge space in both phases, or 13.3 net sq.ft. per seat. 3. Kitchen Net kitchen square footage in the Ritz proposal is 3,400 sq.ft. or 16.7 sq.ft. per seat. Under the Curtis analysis, 8,500 sq.ft. of kitchen space was anticipated, or 14.8 sq.ft. per dining area. In all three categories, then, the net square footage estimates per seat for the Ritz-Carlton exceed those under the prior analysis prepared by Jim Curtis. Note: Under final approvals, food and beverage space for Phase I and II was reduced to 14,000 square feet of restaurant/ lounge space and 8,000 sq.ft. of kitchen space; number of seats were adjusted accordingly. ATTACHMENT C ' 1/30/85 R. E.A. EMPI.OYEE GENERATION A. Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP Phase I Phase II Total 1. Lodge Operations Lodge roams 260 rms. 118 rms. 378 rms. 1-bedroan suites 25 44 69 Tbtal Bedroans 285 162 447 Living Roams @ 25% 6 11 17 291 173 464 Existing roams -113 -162 -275 Net new roans 178 -- - 11 189 Enployees per roam .36 .36 .36 Net new erployees 64 74 -6Ej GMP employees housed 60% 60% 60% Employees housed 39 2 41 2. Accessory Food/Beverage Fbod/beverage 9,000 sf. 5,000 sf. 14,000 sf. Kitchen 6,200 1,800 8,000 'Ibtal 15,200 6,800 22,000 Existing food/beverage -4,900 -5,100 -10,000 Net new fbod/beverage 10,300 1,700 12,000 Enployees per 1,000 sf 12.8 12.8 12.8 Net new employees 132 22 154 (MP enployees housed 60% 60% 60% Brployees housed 79 13 92 3. Accessory Retail Tbtal retail 2,455 sf. 462 sf. 2,917 sf. Existing retail - 700 - 0 - 700 Net new retail 1,755 462 2,217 Employess per 1,000 sf 3.5 3.5 3.5 Net new. 8*loyees 6 2 8 GiP enployees housed 60% 60% 60% Employees housed 4 1 5 Subtotal Employees housed 122 16 138 - L ATTACHMENT C 1/30/85 R. E.A. EMPI~OYEE GENERATION B. Non-Accesory Commercial GMP Phase I Phase II Total 'Ibtal retail 0 sf. 2,952 sf. 2,952 sf. Employees per 1,000 sf 3.5 3.5 Net new employees 10 10 GMP employees housed , 35% 35% Enployees housed 4 4 C. Residential GMP 1. South Galena Street a. Free-market units 4 units @ 4 bedroans b. Employee units 4 units @ 2 bedroans 9 â‚¬mp. 9 â‚¬mp. 2. West Wing a. Free-market units 1 unit @ 1 bedroom 2 units @ 2 bedroans 5 units @ 3 bedroams ~6 units b. Employee units 6 units @ 2 bedroams 13.5 employees _1 unit @ 1 bedroan 1.5 employees 7 units 15.0 enployees 15 emp. 24 ap. C. Employee Housing Replacement Melville II building 10 employees Black residence 2 Townplace apartments 4 1978 Aspen Inn expansian 13 HillsiÂ£le-Holiday exchange O Mine Durps apartments O 29 GROSS EMPLOYEES HOUSED 175 amp. 20 emp. 195 amp. ATTACHMENT D 3/28/88 D&W EMPLOYEE GENERATION Using prevously approved factors, reduced food & beverage space and reduced residential unit count. A. Aspen Mountain Subdivision Phase I Phase II Total 1. Lodge Operations Lodge Rooms 264 1-bedrooms suites (26) 26 2-bedroom suites (2) 4 \ 9 1 Total Bedrooms 294 , 9.6 Living Rooms @ 25% 7 Total Rooms 301 (Unchanged) Existing rooms -120 Net new rooms 1-81 \,9,Â·H Employees per room .36 Net new employees 65.2 GMP employees housed 60% Employees housed 39.1 2.-6- 41.1 2. Accessory Food/Beverage Food/beverage 8200 sf Kitchen 3400 sf Total 11600 sf (unchanged) Existing Food/Beverage 4900 sf Net new Food/Beverage 6700 sf 499. f Employees per 1000 sf 12.8 Net new employees 85.8 GMP employees housed 60% 4 3.-4 L Employees housed 51.5 13.0 64.5 60.7 -,2 J 3. Accessory Retail ------*-*- 'CE,4 Total retail 2300 sf Existing retail -700 sf Net new retail 1600 sf (unchanged) 039 f Employees per 1000 sf 3.5 Net new employees 5-76 9 GMP employees housed 60% Employees housed 3-24 1.0 4.4 Subtotal Employees Housed 94.0 16.0 110.0 OAST .5 11 1 I . ATTACHMENT D, cont. 3/28/88 D&W B. Non-Accessory Commercial GMP Phase I Phase II Total Total retail Employees per 1000 sf Net new employees GMP employees housed Employees housed O -4.6 T76- C. Residential GMP 1. 700 South Galena Street a. Free-market units 4 units @ 3 bedrooms b. Employees housed -8.-7 0.0 -8.7 2. Ritz-Carlton, Aspen a. Free-market units 2 units @ 2 bedrooms 3 units @ 3 bedrooms 5 units b. Employees housed 9.8 0.0 9-.8 Subtotal for Employees Housed 18.5 0.0 18.5 D. Employee Housing Replacement Melville II building Black residence Townplace apartments 1978 Aspen Inn expansion Hillside-Holiday exchange Mine Dumps apartments 29.0 0.0 29-.-0 GROSS EMPLOYEES HOUSED (3/28/88): 141.5 20.0 161.5 ATTACHMENT E 3/28/88 HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC. EMPLOYEE HOUSING COMMITMENT Alpina Haus 46 Employees Copper Horse 43 Employees Hunter Longhouse 56 Employees Hunter Longhouse (Future) 13 Employees Total Employee Credit: 158 Employees Less 700 South Galena Obligation (8.7) Credits Available: 149.3 Less Phase I Obligation (132.8) Credit Available for Phase II 16.5 Phase II Obligation (Unchanged) 20.0 Additional Employee Requirement for Phase II to be addressed with cash-in-lieu commitment: 3.5 === 2 7 9 &' \jo 1/......Il ., â‚¬aftz'.,>: ~1,~ ' \ IMR 3 1 @88 DoremUS & WeLLS 1% 1.7 an association of land planners March 31, 1988 Mr. Alan Richman Director, Aspen Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan: You have requested additional information comparing parking for the Ritz-Carlton to that provided for the Aspen Mountain Lodge. As discussed beginning on page 48 of the January 29, 1988 Amendments for the Ritz-Carlton, the revised parking scheme has been based on TDA's March 30, 1984 Parking Study submitted with the Preliminary Submission for the Lodge, dated October 8, 1984. The architectural program on which TDA based its parking figures is included in that submission on page 20 and 21. The east wing and west wing total unit counts and square footages are as follows: Lodge units: 447 Lodge bedrooms: 454 Food & Beverage (seating area): 14,000 sq. ft. Conference: 21,000 sq.ft. Retail/Health Club: 10,219 sq. ft. Residential units: 1-BR: 1 (with 1 bedroom) 2-BR: 4 (with 8 bedrooms) 3-BR: 9 (with 27 bedrooms) Total units: 14 Total bedrooms: 36 The current program for the Ritz-Carlton, as you know, has been revised in some respects since the submission of amendments -- most importantly by the temporary elimination of the building on the Blue Spruce site. The program presently is as follows: 608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 otelephone: 303 925-6866 -1 0 0 Mr. Alan Richman Director, Aspen Planning Office March 31, 1988 Page Two 1/29/88 Submission Page 6 Lodge units: 292 6 Lodge bedrooms: 294 Revised Food & Beverage (gross seating area): 10,250 sq.ft. 6 Conference (gross sq. ft.): 20,470 sq.ft. 6 Retail/Health Club: 5,884 sq.ft. Revised Residential units: 2-BR: 2 (with 4 bedrooms) 3-BR: 3 (with 9 bedrooms) Total units: 5 Total bedrooms: 13 The factors used by TDA to determine parking supply are as follows: Lodge Rooms The peak parking demand factor used by TDA for the lodge rooms is that for the summer (see Appendix A, page 7). .66 spaces per lodge bedroom @ 90% occupancy Food & Beverage TDA calculated a demand of 15 spaces for the 14,000 sq. ft. of food and beverage space (See Appendix A, page 8): 15 14,000 sq. ft. = 1.07 spaces/1,000 sq. ft. Conference TDA calculated a demand of 20 spaces for the 21,000 sq. ft. of conference space (see Appendix A, page 9). 20 21,000 sq. ft. = .95 spaces/1,000 sq.ft. El] 0 0 0 Mr. Alan Richman Director, Aspen Planning Office March 31, 1988 Page Three Retail/Health Club TDA assumed these facilities are oriented entirely to Lodge guests or those within walking distance (see Appendix A, page 9). No parking for Retail/Health Club Employees TDA calcualted a dmemand of 10 spaces for employees (see Appendix A, page 9). 10 454 Lodge BRs = .022 spaces/lodge bedroom Loading TDA assumed a demand for 5 truck loading and 11 guest loading spaces for phase I and II (see Appendix A, page 10). 16 spaces 454 Lodge BRs = .035 spaces/lodge bedroom Residential TDA calculated demand from the residential units (see Appendix A, page 10) at: 1 space /unit for one- and two- BR units 2 spaces/unit for three- and four- BR units Based on the current program, and applying these factors to the various uses, the revised parking requirement for the Ritz- Carlton is as follows: 1. Lodge bedrooms: 294 BRs x .66 spaces/BR x 90% = 175 2. Food & beverage: 10,250 sq.ft. x 1.07 spaces/1,000 = 11 3. Conference: 20,470 sq. ft. x .95 spaces/1,000 = 19 4. Retail/Health Club: no requirement = 0 5. Employees: 294 BRs x .022 spaces/BR = 7 6. Loading: 294 BRs x .035 spaces/BR = 10 7. Residential: 2 two-BR units x 1 space/unit = 2 3 three-BR units x 2 spaces/unit = 6 33-0 0 0 9 . -- râ€¢â€¢---7-Wr '"iÂ© -Te:'r;'-1. Mr. Alan Richman Director, Aspen Planning Office March 31, 1988 Page Four The comparative parking requirement is therefore currently 220 spaces in the structure with 10 surface loading spaces. As you know we recently represented to P&Z that with the temporary elimination of the Blue Spruce Building, the parking requirement was reduced to 240 subgrade spaces and 9 loading spaces. We failed to account for other program adjustments which have occurred in the meantime when we made that representation. If you perceive that it is a problem to revisit the number to be provided at the present time, we would suggest that we maintain our commitment at 240 subgrade spaces (but increase loading by 1 space) and then discuss the total number to be provided if we pursue the tandem parking solution or when we come back in with a proposal for the Blue Spruce site. Let me know if you need additional information. Sincerely, ~Il vvells, AICP JW/b 608 east hyman avenue Â¤ aspen, colorado 81611 o telephone: 303 925-6866 PARKING ANALYSIS The table below compares the approved parking plan for the two phase 447 room hotel and proposal for the amended phase I Ritz-Carlton. The parking commitment for Lot 5, the Grand Aspen remains unchanged from the prior approval. USE CODE APPROVED RATIO # OF SPACES AMMENDED RATIO # of SPACES Guest Rooms 1:1 .66:10 .66:1 90% Occ. 280 @90% OCC. 175 Food and Beverage -0- 15 19 Conference -0- Â° 20 29 Residential 1:1 .5:1 12 .5:1 8 Health Club -0- -0- -0- Employee -0- 10 9 Truck Loading -0- 5 2 Guest Loading -0- 11 7 TOTALS 353 249 * References 1). Tabulation~of data from Lodge preliminary PUD and subdivision submission October 14, 1984, See attached, 2). Aspen Lodge., Top of Mill; 700 South Galena and Summit Place parking study by T.D.A, March 1984. See attached. 3). 1987 Hotel GNP / PUD / Subdivision Amendment. 6.rE..g 4. +6 1.!APID yrâ€¢ resâ€¢| . .. 0 0 46 431Â£,AL.c,rw pl.Â£}, Sk,f. : A. SHORT-TERM PRIORITIES Short-term priorities focus on the community's most immedi- ate needs; in many cases these actions will remedy current shortfalls in the Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails system. These actions can be accomplished in a five year period with the use of the capital improvement program; I Park Development - The Plan Element identifies a shortfall in park space and playing fields. We are recommending the development of five areas as follows: 4. Koch Lumber Parcel - Located at the base of Aspen Mountain, the Koch parcel consists of approximate- ly 1.5 acres. Action - The Koch Parcel should be developed in accordance with the concept plan illustrated by Figure 5. The attached Koch Parcel concept proposes that this parcel function as a neighbor- hood park and also as a trail head or trail park because the base of the mountain trail corridor and the Garmisch pede strian corridor intersect at Koch- i '-JOIN 050...- 51#Avow MTN. A55oci a-r<Bo COOPER I C.JI (StyÂ®l n At B<.â€¢silut ,+ 1 at 425-3 520 or &4 141 PA.K...0 Cltowle t Us f , 100 6.1.'V#MAN. IVE. 0Â£4 90,0 n 6-0.1 addrÂ«j, aVOLLâ€¢Â¥-u S J - 1, 9 -- T COURTS pke# 4, 51<1113, opi./143,16â€¢6, - ~ POUCIPLAN grc. A 5,4101( C.l4â‚¬.k 115/2 \\NX I i.Â¥06(â‚¬ 11 3hdow MtH. Assoc. Â· w, u 14â‚¬,ip ceuer B.ops, 1,141*110~ s 1 DURANT 1 4941. It 10.6 0 106. 4 Yes, 1 46 14,0 â€¢6: 0,14â‚¬â€¢d . Se i .fts / KOCH PARK get F râ‚¬ Pda... Nod) . ~ CONCEPT PLAN CONtliMI~Et : -rle,L â€¢A.Q. 4*!05!!Py 5 0:1~6% a.bl Â© 064 +4 &4145 el 564â€¢,u M+Vt, 148Â·'A 066'Â·wusl~ 1 7+4 3,0 52Â£*taÂ¢ Jellâ‚¬Ht,5 60 &tudg.1,~4 -l UAA. AnA w.,1 : JU TACA 1 4.- 9.13 'M#off Brd, 16 KOEW PARK is Uni dr. 0 Le'Al. i 0,1 Sul,diuisi,+ p.6.3 0 -Pbe 1* 44 lue,ll.. 11.0 \<CCH will fook. like a. 59Mlo ~tituAB444 . A UAL. 14 hâ€¢ch (Lk di#.6,0,- 50 , c 30-' WQ. GkÂ®{11& 64 a.d , 8~3@wf2t~A Q.d- .2-60cf, ue 4 aa 944. 1 <9~~~~1~~~jAL. crio- dli Mair Raki ou. P.k Am a. /925.14Â· 0 STREET 1 1+6 5,119 20, +Imâ‚¬ alain , #ilglp ... Thi silâ‚¬.1 NOISE of G ZEED !! 1, Page 16-A The Aspen Times March 24, 1988 Ritz claims it will house its own 0 1, HA(lid has introduced plans to the on uur fia< H .FARK 1 touseeD+41233trtrf-0,31 ,~0 - property in the southwest corner of town. ~"=' The land, a vacant parcel at the wes~ ~ELF Ug FIGUT T+115 MONSEK/56/ ern end of Durant Street known as the 1 Koch Lumber property, was deeded to I \ 5&8&19 4 589 3AY Ef #uk Mad&, 1 L eaLyltlttlf~~21 %2:7:M~ 11' 't' k hotel site and related parcels. Haixey--s~W the land already has ~ been identined as appropriate for City council reveals housing by the planning and zoning p commision and he claimed that neigh- . bors of the propM8313Wnhouses have agenda for March 28 endorsed the idea. And PlanningLA \< Fle.e 7 Director Richman endorsed the town- 5:00 Council Meeting Amendments I. Call to order d) Ordinance 7, 1988: Solid be.-thâ‚¬,4 ' house proposalas a bette-i~Â®fidifiG* A \@r-- II. Roll call Waste Regulations (Rick $0 66~11 having.-Hadid--pa-"ieu" 3 02- III. Scheduled Public Bossingham) over the dispute about how many ,'Appearances VIII. Action Items empIBF@@i~*m-Ned-tolENE@d. a) Sister City Report a) Wheeler Box Office (Bill As_an enticement to gain city b) Roxanne Eflin: Historic ,Â£~- - 2 apFroval of the propE;ed townhouses, Preservation Specialist TaR@quest to use Koch IV. Citizens' Comments & 1LUI Property for Employee ~~ Harvey said, Hadid will build a park Petitions IHoi (Paul Taddune) on most of the acre and a half parcel, as V. Special Orders of the Day --e EN-SmreEr'STTverking well as link the park to the city's trail a) Mayor's and Council Mem- Drive (Ron Mitchell) system for use by residents at large. ben' Comments d) Housing Guidelines (Jim 9 Harvey called the proposal "a big c) City Manager's Comments Adamski) 1 benefit to the city... and it gets them VI. Consent Calendar e) Mall Leases (Ron Mitchell) using that open space actively." a) Liquor Licr -9 Renewals: f) Water Or/:nances (Jay Charlemagne f , Koch) Hammond) If approved and built, Harvey said b) Reque nation g) Ordir hibiting : ght-of- 7 the units would house upper and ofCompu' 'lict Construe' * ~iddle managen~nt oeoofer~-~iR@r Resolu+ Way (A ramiITEs - or singles living as c) h)' 'ng Ur roommates. FACT.- OPINICN -I--'ll--- -.... i â€¢ &+ADID |A45 Id*--2-la"JÂ· 1 ; . 74 kbcu PAM_k A- 71, 5â€¢4444~ WBÂ¥ dees 4 4(30 tu.â€¢+ cur st.f@ 4, Pifid, 4- A PaptÂ¢ 7 I+Ns other la'& 15 Wâ€¢944, F.Ad -w '-to lib,2,2 - litea-pokiual!!c'~ 4>â€¢ â€¢A,â€¢,pf, 113, ~ Is 661ikated -AD d20Â¢1Â¥4- 1 C 174 PLAN ... 4-AL C,+01 â€¢ -[4 2.buts ~81Â¢+" w..6 be' . It '37-@;-71Â¥u.(41 pragut PE.rk, +.* purre",1 14.M .tru. i KaÂ£64 6Utâ€¢ AM O kcid'+* 5% 6" 1.1< . 16 <6 -tl~â€¢ r;11,~ t +tuAH 1 a 1 Yke 14 4 14,011. 0+ktr k,d< Cou'lci I neeJ 6 e ter 44Â£01/# 4 ~ p$, 64. " Wkâ‚¬ 14 44,0.1 Sap~'641 -Car 719 h t~ 4+ 914.1 . diseâ€¢4.0 ad under.:trâ€¢Â¢1 Â«56*3,04. I " ~ 0 111. 1'|AtuDOW M.â€¢MÂ¥ 16 . ,Reber t, 5.'." ..& Cot,ned 'ametta" M 6- hek d& Â· 11.0 ps#â€¢ +im' 10& shotu 1â€¢ 16- 1(MU b.*A is ' d.,A - g LL|'Pe,4 - ' d.9, kip 5&#<- /&,Â» ~&1 < ~A#~ -rk 0,~~a,t(. <-hME.Ted b 4â€¢ 718Â§- pmrâ€¢.5. 1 56.64 /4>,4044 }*f!&.Nes FITall 11.. I.LIAL 14 . <|~ |||1 Central Bank .11.Â® Aspen, NA February 23, 1988 Mr. Robert Anderson City Manager City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen CO 81611 Re.: Letter of Credit #12753 in Favor of Hadid Aspen Holdinus, Inc. Dear Bob: In review of the above-mentioned letter of credit, I noticed that the expiration date is listed incorrectly as October 23, 1987. This letter of credit should expire as originally intended July 20, 1988. I've enclosed a copy of the original letter of credit plus an Amendment to the Credit showing the expiration being changed to July 20, 1988. This later date was the date that was originally requested from the application by Hadid Aspen Holdings. The bank had made a mistake by typing in the earlier maturity date. Will you please make this amendment a part of your files. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Otherwise, I'll presume that you are in agreement with this change. Yours very truly, Lttca-Â·-0Â« I. Howell Mallory 41,3~ Executive Vice President IRM: ck Enclosures 420 East Main Street / P.O. Box 3318 / Aspen, Colorado 81612 / (303) 925-1450 - Central f Bank 1 000Â¥ P.O. BOX 5548 T. A DENVER CO 80217 993-3456 X COMMERCIAL APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO LETTER OF CREDIT Â£ STANDBY October 23 , 19-87 (Date) E CABLE We request you to AMEND by the irrevocable Documentary Letter E AIRMAIL Of Credit No.: 12753 I n favor of: City of Acpen For account of: Hadid Aspen Holdings, Tnc. Please amend this credit as follows: Expiry Date should read: July 20, 1988 (Not October 23, 1987) It is understood that this amendment is subject to acceptance by the beneficiary. All other terms and conditions of the credit remain unchanged. HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC. Applicant -3343 A U Fri Â£- Author,&ed Signature ~ ApproverÂ·1 k...,16,---' a_â€¢_,-n cw-Â£0~ Lending Officer ISD-2 :APA 821 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Ritz-Carlton Review Schedule DATE: March 18, 1988 In response to your request, the purpose of this memo is to provide you with the agenda for our discussion tonight, to insure that we move forward from this point on. I have discussed this matter with the applicant, and we would like to skip architecture/design tonight, to allow some additional time for the studies you requested to be completed. The applicant requests that you set a second meeting this week (Thursday the 24th?) to address architecture/design issues. Our intention tonight would be to begin the discussion where we last left off, at item 1.e, FAR and other area and bulk issues. Following this item, we would intend to go through all of the site planning and technical issues, with the exception of employee housing. We would also like to complete your review of the rezoning of the former Blue Spruce site. The "extra" meeting would be used for architectural review only. Then, on March 29, we would address employee housing and GMP rescoring. Finally, on April 5, a resolution would be prepared for your consideration. Please note that if you schedule a meeting for March 24, I may have difficulty getting the GMP rescoring out the next day for you to review, which would undercut the entire reason for having the extra meeting. With regard to the technical issues, there are several additional comments I would like to make as follow-ups to the initial memo. These comments will reference the issue number and page from the original memo for your convenience. Please bring your packet from the March 8 meeting as we are not reproducing it herein. Item 2.b- Parking area access The recent drawings of the development at the corner of Monarch and Durant have flipped the proposed building and parking entrance. The new entrance is next to that of the Mountain Chalet, which could cause some conflicts. However, the City Engineer supports the relocation and our prior objections have therefore been addressed. Item 2.d Residential units within the hotel/Rezoning When we commented to you on the request to rezone the site previously occupied by The Blue Spruce from L-1 to L-2 to permit construction of three residential units, current elevations had not been submitted. However, we were informed that the building was to be a modest, two story structure with a restaurant on the lower floor and three residential units on the top floor. When the new elevations were presented last week, we were quite surprised to find that the tower would rise to 48 feet and that the building had a huge skylight which appeared to approach this height. We have reviewed the approved design and found it also was about 50 feet to the peak of the roof, but it contained three floors of lodge rooms and the restaurant. The thirty-six lodge rooms in this building helped to reduce some of the massing elsewhere in the project. We point out to you that the height limit in this zone district is only 28 feet. It seems inappropriate to allow a height 20 feet in excess of the Code for a two story building which could be designed in compliance with this limit. The fact that this is 0 a PUD does not mean that we disregard the Code and let the design determine the regulations; instead there must be a community benefit achieved by any variation granted. We see no such argument made by the applicant and recommend that the building comply with the limitations of the L-2 zone district. Item 3.b- Revisions to parking program The applicant has informed me that all 261 spaces are to be provided on-site, and that the cash-in-lieu payment is no longer an option for this project. Item 3.c- Coordination with improvement district Since we wrote our initial memo, there has been some discussion with Council about the timing of the Galena Street Improvement District. Some residents of the area want to insure that nothing delays implementation of this district in 1988, and Council appears to concur with this feeling. One action which could delay the district would be if the Ritz project is not committed to going forward with all of its utility installations in the spring or summer and it is decided that the area should only be torn up once. To avoid this situation, we recommend requiring that the applicant commit to installation of required utilities at the same time the improvement district construction occurs. Item 3.g- Construction schedule and impacts There have been further meetings between staff and the contractor in recent weeks. Based on these meetings and our current knowledge of the project, the key issues with respect to the construction schedule are as follows: a. Excavation and pile driving will be highly disruptive to the community in terms of noise and traffic. We should require these activities to be virtually complete no later than June 15. If this is not possible, construction should not be permitted to begin until September. b. When street closures occur, adequate alternate access routes for residents and for emergency vehicles must be provided, with proper signage in place. C. Fencing should shield construction staging sites, especially at highly visible sites along Durant. d. All construction should be prohibited from 10 PM to 7 AM. e. Construction cranes which protrude over public property must receive a permit from the City Engineer; when located over private property, permission and indemnification must be obtained from the owner. f. Pedestrians walkways will be set up along Mill and Monarch Streets on the opposite side of the street from the construction. This will temporarily eliminate some on-street parking, but the applicant is considering opening to the public the newly built lot west of the Grand Aspen to mitigate this impact. g. For review of the construction worker housing issue, please see page 20 of the original memo. Should any additional issues be brought to our attention, we will comment to you verbally at the meeting. ritzsched2 At the initial meeting, the staff identified four issues with respect to the design of the hotel. First, we felt that the massing of the project, particularly along Mill Street was too great. We suggested that there be greater "transparency" created in the building's facade, by either breaking the building into pieces, varying roof heights to a much greater degree (lower in some places and higher elsewhere) or some other technique to reduce the overall scale of the project. We continue to feel that the project is out of scale with Aspen, but P&Z members were generally satisfied with the tecniques used in the design and did not request any of the changes we recommended. The second issue was that we felt the squaring off of the building at the upper section of Monarch, along with the reduced setback from 15 to 8 feet, would have a negative impact upon neighbors and reduce sunlight onto the street. We suggested either restoring the angling to the corner of the building or stepping its height down to a greater degree. The P&Z agreed with this assessment, but identified a different mitigating technique, requesting that the building be moved back further from Monarch Street. The applicant will respond to this request today and we need to focus on just how far the building has been moved and if this action alone will accomplish the desired end. The third issue was our concern with the architectural style of the building. We recognized that this building, as a permanent addition to the town, should not try to emulate its neighbors, many of which will be rebuilt during the life of this building. We felt that it should try to pick up elements from some of Aspen's permanent buildings, rather than bring an entirely foreign architectural style to the community. These elements could be Victorian, they could be Western, they could be Alpine, but they should relate better to Aspen than do the current window, balcony and other detailed features. Those who felt we were suggesting that the building be "psuedo-Victorian" in style were simply missing the point, this being that the project's style should be sympathetic to our design traditions and scale. Some members of P&Z concurred with this position, while others were very comfortable with the design as presented. One other P&Z idea on the building's style was to "dress up" the pedestrian entrance to have it stand out to a greater degree as the prominent corner of the hotel. The applicant has responded to this suggestion, but I would note that the peak of the roof is proposed to go to 62 feet, versus the 52 foot height presented to you last week. We think this is simply too high for this feature, particularly since heights elsewhere have not come down correspondingly in any other location. The fourth issue was the actual height of the hotel. Staff pointed out that the peak heights of the proposed building are significantly lower than those in the approved plan. We also noted that heights in the original design far exceeded the Code limitation that the peak of the roof could be no more than 5 feet above the midpoint. The proposed design also exceeds this limit, but to a much lesser degree. We suggested that a more acute angle in the roof might result in a lessened visibility of its peak. We also asked whether P&Z wanted to limit the peak of the roof to no more than 5 feet above the 42 foot limit established previously, or if you would grant a variation from this require- ment. Some P&Z members expressed concern about the form of the roof, both its mansard shape and its feeling of having a "false front" or "Hollywood stage" appearance. All were quite comfort- able with the actual height of the roof and appeared willing to vary the five foot limitation. A fifth issue has arisen since the meeting which is how the building will appear at the pedestrian level and whether the building contains too many "blank walls". I have spent a good deal of time reviewing the drawings to evaluate this issue and have also met with the architect who has prepared drawings which respond well to this issue. The issue of the walls at the pedestrian scale breaks down into two separate questions, first how are pedestrians treated in Dean Street and second, how are pedestrians treated along Mill Street and Monarch. In terms of Dean Street, our original impression of the building is that it is somewhat forebidding, with dark recessed areas under the porte cochere. Those of you who participated in the prior review may remember that the hotel included a pedestrian arcade wrapping around the front, and that we went so far as to exempt this space from FAR calculations to encourage its construction and ensure that storefronts could never be brought out across the arcade. I believe that by walking you through the design for Dean Street, you will find that pedestrians are being handled adequately in this area, which is not apparent on the elevation. On Mill and Monarch, however, actual changes are required. Here, the facade is a blank wall, particularly in the area of the elevated walkway. I am pleased to state that the applicant has responded with several modifications to improve these walls, including opening the one shop in the building to the street, and adding windows at the street level. We support these changes which are to be presented to you and also suggest that you look at other ways of breaking the scale for the pedestrian, such as by adding balconies at or near the street level as was previously employed. ritzmtgnotesl Hotel Presentation Notes 1. Introductory Remarks A. Tonight's objectives 1. Overall project presentation by applicant 2. Review architecture/design changes B. Meeting Format 1. Applicant presents project 2. Staff presentation of issues, just arch. tonight 3. Applicant response to staff comments 4. P&Z discussion/public comment period 2. Project Review -&5 -44.1, , A A. New Project versus amendment tv â‚¬k -ah LÂ»bl- fk k JLD U.,1-7 ~Al &.Ac Â£6 2 o 1. When the new owner took over this project last summer and we recognized that the project was not going to be built along the lines of the prior approval, we realized the City would have to decide whether to treat the application as a new project or as an amendment to an approved development. 2. The applicant provided us with the preliminary revised development program. From that information, it was apparent that most of the basic project parameters- unit count, FAR, height, building footprint, open space, parking ratios, etc. would be within or similar to approved levels. 3. Based on this finding, we recommended that if Council granted the applicant a GMP extension to reView the changes, that they be processed as an amendment and not as a new project. The Council concurred with this recommendation last September and granted an extension until April 15. 4. The project as submitted is consistent with our prior findings. It contains many changes, but fundamentally is a similar development. In our opinion, the major changes are in the areas of architecture, employee housing and construction schedule, and our review comments concentrate on these features. 5. We have stayed away from addressing conceptual issues such as unit count, building size, growth impacts and the like because of the decision that this remains an approved project. If and when this decision is questioned, we will be prepared to provide information in these areas as appropriate. Michael G.Â»man Architect Box 740 Aspen, Colorado 81012 303 025 2005 March 9, 1988 Welton Anderson Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 So. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Welton, I was a bit surprised, to say the least, at the flaccid review the Planning Commission gave the proposed Ritz-Carlton Hotel last night. While it may be true that the Commission has been "worn down" by this proposal, as one member opined, I implore the Commission to ignore it's personal lethargy and ennui and to acknowledge that you are making decisions, perhaps tacitly, that will affect-life in Aspen long after you all have gone on to other pursuits. The project you are considering is approximately 3 times the size of either The Hotel Jerome or the Ski Company hotel at Little Nell. It will have a big effect on the town, and while some if its impact is inherent in it's being built at all, there are other planning and land use effects which are influenced by it's design; and it is in these areas that the community is relying on your Commission to look out for our best interests. It is small consolation to us for you to tell us you are tired. If the Commission looks at the drawings with it's usual more critical eye, keeping in mind that you are our last line of defense, I think you will note some unusual features. I have noticed some! 1. Except for some entrance doors and one small commercial space the entire perimeter of the building abutting Mill, Dean and Monarch streets consists of blank masonry walls. Some of these blank walls are ... J- 4 , Page 2 behind other blank walls, but the fact remains that almost the entire street facade is a blank wall. Is this what you want for the streets of downtown Aspen? I think it is pretty well established that our perception of an urban building is overwhelmingly determined by whathappens on the street. It can be alive and inviting and creative, or static and dead like this proposal. Reread Jane Jacobs. I'm sure you've followed the controversy about the Portman Hotel in Times Square. Don't let them make the same mistake here. 2. One of the two most prominent corners of the building facing downtown Aspen is a loading dock. Again I ask, is this what you want for our streets? Trucks and garbage? Take a look at Clark's Market and then ask yourselves how that building would look and perform if it had commercial space instead of trucks and dumpsters on Mill Street. 3. The other street level corners are either garage entrances or cooling towers. Think what it's going to be like to walk around this thing, and it's going to be a long way around. Think of your worst memories of our worst cities; blank, dead walls, sterile garages, and loading docks. Don't you think we can do better here? We pretty much always have. There are probably other significant changes which should be made in the proposal, in fact some were suggested at the first public hearing, but were not given much credence in the enthusiasm to get the review over with. Please don't let your understandable weariness with this project and your desire to be a "good guy" and not impede "progress" blind you to aspects of the project that will be affecting the Aspen of our children long after you and I are gone. Hang in there! ,Bestrr egards, Â¢ 4-4 Michael Gassman MG/ml ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION HOTEL GMP/PUD AMENDMENT (LOT 1) A Comparison Analysis With Approved Plan APPROVED AMENDED APPROVED AMENDED Owner John H. Roberts, Savanah Ltd. Architectural: Jr., et. al Partnership Building Height - Overall (Highest)* 58',700,67',53' 52',50',54',48' Hotel Units: To Midpoint No Change Rooms 271 264 Fire Protection No Change 1 Bedroom Suites 14 26 Structural System Steel Concrete 2 Bedroom Suites 0 2 Conservation Measures - Total Hotel Units -785 717 + 2,406 Energy No Substantial Change Water AMENDED - P. 27** Residential Units: Concept No Change 1 Bedroom 1 0 Design - 2 Bedroom 3 5 Plan (Footprint) AMENDED - P. 75 3 Bedroom 10 3 Facade AMENDED - P. 75 Total Residential Units 1-4 8 - 44 Landscape AMENDED - P. 92 Construction Schedule - Accessory Space: Commence Spring '86 Spring '88 Conference 14,328 sf. 20,470 sf. Complete Early '88 Early '90 Health & Recreation 5,343 sf. 3,592 sf. Food & Beverage 9,574 sf. 18,173 sf. Utilities: Accessory Commercial 2,582 sf. 2,291 sf. Water System No Change Other 107,752 sf. 83,683 sf. Sewer System No Change Total Accessory Space 139,579 sf. 128,210 sf. *4141 Storm Drainage - Storm Sewers No Change Floor Areas: On Site Detention AMENDED - P. 67 Included in FAR calculations 188,340 sf. 202,496 sf. Mountain Flow AMENDED - P. 67 Exempt from FAR calculations 92,681 sf. 99,951 sf. Streets, Trails, Sidewalks - Total 280,985 sf. 302,447 sf. i- 7% Improvements No Change Open Space: 24,000 sf. 40,000 sf. _p_~4 Electric, Telephone, TV Cable Completed Parking: Employee Housing: AMENDED - P. 103 On Site 222 261 + /72 Off Site Aspen Mountain PUD No Change General Committments: Continental Inn Upgrade Completed Improvement District Defeated - Not Applicable * Measured in this order: Dean Street, Monarch Street, Mill Street, Durant Street ** Page reference to 1987 Amended Application. February 26, 1988 RESPONSE TO P.U.D. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULING CONCLKNS As a Colorado contractor whom is familiar with mountain work at resort areas, PCL Construction Services, Inc. is extremely sensitive to the numerous logistic problems a project of this type ariel size can create if not properly managed. PCI appreciates the location of the project, the sensitive adjoining properties. and the summer and winter lourlst seasons. With our experience and resources, and with the help of the City, We 2.re confident that all of these potential problems can be overcome. Be assured that PCL is commited to take the appro- priate measures to ensure the overall impact of this project is minimized to the fullest extent. The following information is offered as a preliminary plan to deal with many of the logistic challenges that are unique to this project. Final details for each of these items will be worked out with the help of City staff to ensure that the impact of the construction process is minimized. 1) Estimate Of The Number Of Construction Workers We have enclosed a revised copy of our manpower loading graph for the project. The revisions in this graph reflect the use of precast and structural steel in lieu of cast-in-place concrete. As depicted in thls graph, we anticipate an initial labor force of approximately 30 workers. The force will build to approximately 65 workers during the summer of 1988, and then to 120 workers by the end of 1988. The average number of workers during the 1988-1989 ski season is anticipated to be approximately 170. The work force will peak in June of 1989 at approximately 235 workers and decline slowly until November of 1989. 2) How Many Construction Workers Will Be From Out Of Town? Although it would be convenient to obtain the major portion of the work force locally, PCL anticipates that there will be a shortage of local trades people due to ongoing coBstruction in the Aspen area. PCL will make every attempt to recruit qualified local personnel. Nonetheless, it is PCL's realistic belief that the majority will be recruited from outside Aspen and the neighboring communities. 3) Where Will The Construction Workers Be Iloused? PCL is acutely aware of the cur'rent housing shortage willin the City of Aspen. We are working with the City staff to ensure that the construction of the Ritz Carlton does not create further hardship on the current housing situation. (2) To a large extent housing will be provided iii Aspen through the use of existinj properties under the control of Hadid Aspen Holdings. Under the terms of the PUD, the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse lodges are to be deed restricted as employee housing upon issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the Ritz-Carllon. Currently these properties are used for short term guests. During 1988 housing will be provided for 46 workers at the Alpina Halls and up to 43 at the Copper Horse. These two facilities will be made available throughout tile construction of the Rltz Carlton Ilotel. During the summer tourist season of 1988 we only anticipate an average of 65 workers. Some of these workers may be recruited locally. The remaining personnel will be housed in units provided by Hadid. When the workforce grows to a point that it exceeds the facilities available through the Alpina Haus and the Copper Horse, housing for the remaining workers will be provided by the use of the two following options. The first option is to utilize the Aspen Meadows facilities. From June 1st to September 1st tile Aspen Meadows facilities are entirely for the use of the International Design Conference and the Aspen Institute. However, during the other nine months these rooms and apartments may be available for housing crews of workers. Thus the only shortfall will be for the workers in excess of 90 for the three months of June, July and August of 1989. While this presents a challenge, it is during the months where travel on Highway 82 is the safest. Wherever the temporary housing is located, bus transportation will be provided to minimize highway impact. The second option is for PCL to construct a temporary mobile trailer housing facility down the valley. The temporary trailer housing facility will be erected somewhere in a neighboring community. Most probably the facility will be adjacent to an existing mobile home park. We have com- pleted some preliminary research regarding this facility and feel that this is a very workable plan. 4) Barricading & Provision of Pedestrian Protection A six foot high security fence will be provided around the entire cons- struction site and any remote staging areas required. The approximate location of this fence is shown on the enclosed site plan. Jersey barriers will be provided along 5nowploW routes to minimize damage to fencing. During non-working hours, gates to the site will be locked. Appropriate signage will be provided for pedestrian convenience as well as safety. All pedestrian walkways will be designated and clearly marked. Courtesy signage will also be provided to direct guests to the neighboring properties. (3) 5) Maintenance Of Adequate Public Vehicular Access and Circulation Appropriate signage wl 11 be installed to ensure the smooth flow of ve- hicular traffic around the project site. During isolated incidences when work must. be performed from outside of the project site, flagmen, signage, and barricades will be provided to minimize any inconvenience. Only Dean street will be closed for the duration of the project. Mill street will be closed from approximately June 1, 1988 to December 15, 1988. As noted above, courtesy signage will be provided to direct guests to the neighboring properties. During the majority of the project the following streets will be utilized for vehicular access and circulation: -The Dolomite and 700 S. Monarch condominiums will have access from Summit and Monarch streets. -The Alpenblick, Fashing Haus, Fifth Avenue and Aspen Inn apartments will have access by means of Mill street, or Summit & Galena streets. During a three week period of time in the fall of 1988 a portion of Monarch street will be closed to facilitate the precast erection. During this period of time Mill street will be reopened to provide two access routes to the Dolomite, 700 S. Monarch, Mountain Queen and Silver Shadow condo- miniums. 6) Excavation Access And Large Truck Traffic Circulation Initially the excavation access will be at the corner of Durant and Monarch street. As the excavation and foundation work progress a second excavation ramp will be installed. Access to this ramp will be through the Mill and Dean street gate. iruck routes for the project shall be as follows: -For destinations west of 'town, trucks will proceed west on Durant to Aspen street, north on Aspen street to Highway 82 and west on Highway 82 out of town. Deliveries coming from the west side of town shall follow the same route in reverse. -For destinations east of town, trucks will proceed east on Durant to Spring street, north on Spring street to Cooper Avenue, east on Cooper to Highway 82 and east on Highway 82 out of town. Deliveries coming from the east side of town shall follow the same route in reverse. With the revised designs the total amount of excavation has been signif- icantly reduced. It is anticipated that approximately 20 trucks will be utilized from May 1 to June 15, 1988 and 6 trucks from June 15 to July 15, 1988. Pile driving is plonned to be completed by June 15, 1988. (4) 7) Staging Areas The staging areas for the project will include the Blue Spruce site & Dean street adjacent to the project. During the period of time in which Mill street must be closed, this area w111 also be used for staging. The top of Mill street and the area north of the Grand Aspen Hotel may also be utilized as a lay down and staging area. Staging areas will be fenced and secured. These areas will be kept clean and orderly, as to minimize any adverse impact on adjoining properties. A tennis screen material may be applied to the fencing to further mitigate any impact. 8) Disposal Of Demolltion and Excavation Material It is not anticipated that anj/ significant volume of demolition debris will be created as a result of the project. However, any subsurface debris encountered may be disposed of at Elam's Pit, or an alternative site which is acceptable. We are currently estimating the need to remove approximately 90,000 CY of excavated soil from the site. We will work with the State Highway Dept., the State Game and Fish Dept., the Ski Area Operators and the City to dis- pose of the material. Based on some preliminary research, we bel leve that disposal of the entire amount of material can be accomplished at numerous sites adjacent to town, pending final City approval. A crew of people will be assigned to keep the streets clean and a water truck will be utilzed to control dust if necessary. PCL is sensitive to Aspen's commitment to a clean and attractive city environment. Every effort will be made to maintain the city's high standards. 9) Delivery and Storage Of Major Construction Equipment The project will be coordinated as to minimize the extended storage of construction materials. All construction materials will be stored in the project staging areas or within the structure itself. Upon completion, the parking garage will also be utilized for construction storage. Mat- erial delivery routes will be the same as previously mentioned in item above. 10) Construction Equipment Access and Storage All construction equipment will be stored onsite. Access will be through the gates designated on the enclosed site plan. 11) Contractor Vehicle Parking Contractor vehicles that must visit the site will be parked off street north of the Grand Aspen Hotel. Bus service to the site will be provided from the worker housing locations. . (5) 12) Compliance With City Noise Regulations No exterior work will be completed during the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. All construction equipment will be equipped with sound attenuating mufflers. Electric tower cranes will be utilized during the early structural phase of the project. PCL will work closely with the Building Def)arl.Ifierit to ensure compliance with the noise regulations and minimize tile project impact on adjoining properties. PCL CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC. 1988 02 25 CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Pa9e 1 of 3 ES 880C06 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEGEND Planned RITZ CARLTON 5 DaY Work Week ASPEN. COLORADO 1 1 1988 ; 1989 GMP- A M J J A S O N C J F M~A M J J A S C~ND MOBILIZATION ; 1 BULK EXCAVATDON 1 } SHOÂ«ING i STRUCTURE - FOOTkNGS I. FOUNDATION WALL ' 1 Â· 1 1 1 1. - MAIN FLOOR SLAB Â·i . 1 -PARKING 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 - LEVEL 1 1 - - LEVEL 2 - 1 - LEVEL 3 - 1 ' it 1 1 4 - 11 - LEVEL ROOF/POOL . 1 1 - 1 - S.O G. MAIN LEVEL t--7 - - - I :Ill - SO G. PARKING LEVEL 1 1 - BACKALL FOUNDATION WALLS {:WTERMITTENT) 11-1 1 - SECONO FLOOR SLAB - S.O G. BALLROOM - PRECAST TOWER A/B Â£\ - PRECAST TOWER ClD i - STRUCT. STEEL @ BALLROOM IPREORDERED) -1 1 &1 11111'1 ACâ‚¬FING - TOWER A./3 - TOWER C/C 11 + i 1 j i . i j , 1 1 1 PCL CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC. 1988 02 25 Page 2 of 3 CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ES 88C006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 LEGEND , Planned RITZ CARLTON ~ 5 Day Work Week ASPEN, COLORADO 1988 1989 GMP - AMJJASONDJF M A MJ~ -1 AS~OND 11 111 EXTER*DR WALL ~ !, - TOWER A/B , 111 PERIMETER BACK-UP/WINDOWS. DOORS 1 111 - TOWER C/D PERIMETER BACK-UP/WINDOWS, DOORS ~ ~ - TOWER A./3 - EXTERIOR FACACE 1 1 1 - TOWER C/D - EXTERIOR FACADE 1 1 1 - MANSARD R COANG 1 1 ANECMANICAL/ELECTRICAL ROUGH-*1 i. 1 A MSHE S 19 1 - TOWER A/B LEVEL 2 ' ~ k ' 1 1 1 - LEVEL 3 - LEVEL 4 ; : 1 1 1 i ,, , - LEVEL 5 - TOWER C/D I lilli - LEVEL 2 1 k .1,1 - - LEVEL 4 lilli , MAIN LEVEL f B , 1 1 1 L' 11 111['11 1 1 i i SITEWORK/EXTERICR FINISHES 11 1 1~11'lilli i PCL CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC. 1988 02 25 Page 3 of 3 CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUC-nON SCHEDULE ES880CC6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEGEND , 1 Planned RITZ CARLTON 1 5 Day Work Week ASPEN. COLORADO 1988 1989 GMP - A MEJ J A S~O N~O JF M.A MJJASO N~D RESTAURANT/DISCO f SUBSTANTIAL CO-UmON X CO-AISSIOPâ€¢NG U I 1 l i 1 -1 9 + 1 . U 11 1 1 -1 n 2 -- - ..9 11[1'~: -2 156 1 ,=3 ./ Il~ # FBI*ICIP#t Doremus & weLLs 1,1, 'it/\ 1 lilli i \1 I an association of land planners 0 0 February 15, 1988 Mr. Alan Richman : Director, Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan: On behalf of Savanah Limited Partnership, we are forwarding the attached information in support of the rezoning request for Block 84 Aspen Townsite. This information is intended to supplement the information included in the submission of amendments for Lot 1 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and to comply with the requirements of Section 24-12.5 of the Aspen Zoning Code regarding rezoning requests by private landowners. Please let us know if you need additional information. Regards, x--75 / ill .#0 // UL/!f UC~11/------ C Joseph Wells, AICP ,/ SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ~~i AA l) (jIUL,-7 Perry Hafvey ,/ Directot, Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc. JW/b Enclosure 0 Eli 608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 o telephone: 303 925-6866 1. Compatibility with surrounding zone districts and land uses: The L-1 zone district presently extends to the east and west of the site; the L-2 zone district is immediately to the south of the site. Wagner Park, to the north of the site is zoned Park. A mix of land uses surrounds the site, including a small lodge to the northwest, a restaurant and adjacent condominium project to the west, another condominium project to the southwest, the future mixed-use project on the balance of Lot 1 to the south, a Lodge to the east and Wagner Park to the north. The current approval for the site includes 36 lodge rooms on three levels above a restaurant on the ground level. The hotel ballroom is on a lower level beneath the restaurant. Approved uses for the site are therefore considerably more intensive than those proposed under the rezoning request. Area and bulk requirements for the L-2 zone district are the same as those Eor the L-1 zone. 2. Impacts of rezoning on traffic, parking and utility service: Traffic and parking impacts of the revised development proposal for Lot 1 have been reanalyzed in the submission of amendments beginning on page 48. Because of the program reductions 1 anticipated on this portion of Lot 1, it can be assumed that there will be a consequent reduction in traffic and parking impacts under the rezoning request. Utility improvements committed to under the amended proposal, described in the submission beginning on page 27, are comparable to those previously approved. 3. Impacts of rezoning on air and water quality: No change in air and water quality impacts are expected as a result of the requested rezoning. As stated in the submission, the number of woodburning devices proposed will comply with City regulations in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. Revised storm drainage commitments are outlined in the submission beginning on page 35. 4. Community need for the proposed rezoning: The Planning Office is presently sponsoring a code amendment to combine the L-1 and L-2 zone districts into one zone district in which both lodge and residential uses will be premitted. This sponsorship lends support to the argument that the need to maintain a distinction in permitted uses in lodge districts in order to preserve overall community balance no longer exists. 2 5. Compatibility of rezoning with the General Plan: Under the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, the site is within the Recreation/Accommodations land-use designation. The intent and purpose of this designation is: "To allow for the recreation and accommodation needs of the visitor to Aspen in an area that is especially suited for this because of its unity with, and identity to, the proposed transportation system, the ski area and the central area ..." Following the City's approval of the Land-Use Plan, L-1 zoning was subsequently applied to only a small area of the Recreation/ Accommodations land-use designation along Durant Avenue; on most of these sites, condominium projects had previously been developed, ruling out the possibility that lodges would be developed in the area in the future. 6. Whether the rezoning promotes the health, safety and general welfare of residents and visitors: The site at Durant and Monarch is the portion of Lot 1 which is most visible to the largest number of residents and visitors to the community. 3 The proposed rezoning will accommodate an amendment to a presently approved development proposal for the site which will result in less intensive use of the site; the rezoning is consistent with the Planning Office's currently recommended code amendment proposal. Because of these circumstances, the proposal promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the Community. 4 28- kES PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. TItle Ineurano, Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 1987 (303) 925-1766 ' JOSEPH WELLS ' 130 MIDLAND PARK PLACE ' ASPEN, COLORADO 8 16 1 1 Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies the following list is a current list of adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the subject property set forth on Schedule "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tax Rolls. NAMES AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND ASPEN MEUNTAIN P.U.D. MOUNATIN CHALET ENTERPRISES, INC. LOTS E, F, G, H, I, BLK. 84, ASPEN 333 EAST DURANT AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 8161] CITY OF ASPEN RUBEY PARK, AND BLKS 7 AND 8, EAMES ADDITION 130 S. GALENA SrREET WAGNER PARK ASPEN, COLORADO 8]611 ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY RIJBEY PARK 20101 HIWAY 82 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 LEROY G. PAAS lars C,D,E,F,G,H,I, ELI(. 77, ASPEN 228 EAST Ca)PER AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ASPEN MNOR I~)GE, LTD. LOTS P,Q,R,S, BLK. 77, ASPEN 411 SarrH H)NARCH ST. ASPEN, COLORADO 8]611 OLIVER S. TRAVERS UNIT 2D, SOUIH POINr CONDO MARY JEAN TRAVERS SUITE 304 106 WEST PENNSYLVANNIA AVENUE WASON, MARYLAND 21204 ROGER M. DIXON UNIT 3H, SOUTH POINr CONDO DIXIE H. DIXON 6th FLOOR, LEE PARK CENrER 314 1 HOOD SrREEr DALLAS, TEXAS 752]9 NORVA M. BRAY UNIT iJ, SOUrHPOINT CONDO UNIT IJ, 205 FAST IURANY AVE. ASPEN, CO[ ORADO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Tillâ€¢ Inourance Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAMES AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION PAUL E. PENN UNIT ID, SWIH POINr CONDO SUSAN W. PENN i 9505 COPLEY DRIVE INDIANAPOLIS, INDLANA 46260 CHARLES E. BAKER, JR. UNIT IE, SCUIH POINr CaTDO BARBARA H. PRITCHARD 333 EAST 75th. NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10551 SOUIH POINI'-SUMNER CORPORATION UNIT 3F, SOUTH POINT CONDO 4 4828 FORT SUMNER DRIVE i BEIHIESDA, MARYLAND 20816 RICHARD J. GARRET ' UNIT 34 SOUTH POINr CONDO -AM S. GARRET Â·''t 405 ALLENS CREEK ROAD , 7 4 . ROCHESIER, NEW YORK 14618 . 6 FRANK HARDISON ' I UNIT IA, Sami POINr CONDO Â· VIRGINIA HARDISON 121] EMERALD BAY | LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 9265 ] 1 PHILIP G. HERSHBERGER UNIT II, Sam{POINT CONDO 2737 CLUB TERRACE '' FORT WAYNE, INDIANA 46804 . 9 NANCY IQJILGREN UNIT 2C, SOUTH POINT CONDO ' UNIT 2c 205 EASr HRANT AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 SrUART A. POTrER . UNIT lB, SOUTH POINT CONDO WILLIAM S. REED C/O POrrER-REED GROUP SUITE ]00 ELSA 'FISCHER ' UNIT 28, SOU[H POINr CONDO MARTHA FISCHER :* FREIDA FISCHER Â» ' . 525 WEST HALLAM STREET ,:,. ASPEN, CaORADO 81611 .. FRANK KONSr UNIT ]G, SOUTH POINT CONDO AFr 104, ' BAY TREE CON]*MINIUM ' ' 8635 MIDNIGHT PASS ROAD Â· SIESTA KEY, SARASEAC FLORIDA 33581 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Inâ€¢uranco Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAMES AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION KARL HEFLEY .I UNIT 3_I, SOUTH POINT CONDO 607 OCEAN DRIVE, #1]K 1 KEY BISCAYNE, FLORIDA 33149 HUGH S. HATCHER UNIT 2E, S(lrIH POINT OlIn JENNIFER M. HATCHER 191 RACE SIREET DENVER, CCU)RADO 80206 |, .. SALLY RAE GLENN ' UNIT 3D, SOUTH POINT CONDO L L ' 504 WEST HAUAM STREEr '.111:6Â· ASPEN, CaORADO 8]611 ' c 2 DAVID COUINEY EVANS UNIT IF, SOUTH PC)INr CONDO P.O. BOX 952 | , Â· S -Ir: ASPEN, CIDRADO 81612 UNIT 2I, SarIH POINr Caq[)0 .:- ~'9"..'0.3 SERRA GRANDE 615 ' v 1 ;3; = MEx[Co 10, D.F. .1 , '....',Â· PAUL ICK UNIT 38, SOUrH POINT CONDO 7 F t THE DELL , Â£}UE, VIRGINIA 22636 O CHARLES M. SCHAYER, III UNIT3E, SOUTH POINr CONDO KAREN JANE HORTON , ' 588 SO. PONE[AC WAY. : if Â· DENVER, COLORADO 80224 CARL F. I.EVY UNIT 2G, SOUTH POINT CONDO HELEN J. LEVY 17 NORFOLK ROAD LONDON, NW 8 6 HG. U.K. PEGGY LINTON . UNIT IC, SOUTH POINT CONDO 692 EASTBRROK LANE , ROCHESIER, NEW YORK 146 ]8 LIC. C.M. SCHROEDER, JR. ' UNIT 2A, SWIH POINr CONDO ~ ':* BEITY ANN SCHRCEDER 4 3629 ROCKBRIDGEROAD L u., CalMBIA, SOUIH CAROLINA Â·29206 : Â·Â· WILBERT T. WOODSON JR. UNIT 2J, SourH POINT CONDO , 'C. TATJANA D. CODSONÂ· .1 1 11 P.O. BOX 9708 ,., ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Inourance Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAMES AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION MRS. MAUDE M. TWINING UNIT 2H, SOUTH POINT CONDO ARIHUR HAROLD SIR[MBERG FREDNA C. STROMBERG 205 EASr DURANT AVE. UNIT 2H ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 HAROLD V. VAN TONGEREN UNIT 3J, SOUTH POINT CONDO ' ~ LIDIA M. VAN TON(EREN BO THWSAND CIEES?!AN EAST L 2000 EAST 12th. AVENUE , 4 DENVER, COLORADO 80206 5 1 , A ,.2 RIA MARIE BEYER UNIT 1 H, SaTIH POINr CONDO , ; 0 1335 RIVERSIDE, DRIVE ~ i '~ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - t,t: ,:'.;,: RICHARD BaJNDY UNIT 3C, SOUTH POINT CONDO 1 w, (ERALDINE M. BOIJNDY 4.-2.i 906 W. SUGNET ROAD $ :2. i Â©' DEDIAND,'MICHIGAN 48640 , SCUIH POINf CONDO ASSOCIATION ' UNIT 2F, SOUTH POINT CONDO " ; 205 EAST DURANT AVE.. : COMMON AREA , 6ASPEN, COLORDAO 81611 , ' ~ ~RALPH P. MELVILLE Â· :' I LOTS K,L,M,N,O, BLOCK 77 :, 1'Â·' 333 EASr WRAM AVE: , ASPEN, COLORADO 81611. . t ' -2 HERBERT P..BAIDERSON ' LOTS 6,7,8,9, BLK. 3, EAMES JOSEPH P. CABELL 708 SPRUCE STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 DONALD L. FEINSTEIN UNIT 3, AZTEC CONDO SANDRA S. FEINSIEIN 1415 WINDRUSH CLRCLE , , BLACKLICK, OHIO 43004 (ENIRY REAL ESTATE CORPORATION 0 UNIT 6, AZTEC CONDO 2.4 3 10 ELLIS BLVD. JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI 65101 , . , RATH*ID E. LOCKHEAD .': UNIT 4, AZIEC CONDO Â·Â· Â· EMILY M. IOCI<HEAD ~'' Â· UNIT 2, AZIEC CONDO T.. 10 18 RUSSELL BLVD. Â· .. : ST. I,OUIS , MISSOURI 63104 ' PATRICK A. SMITH .6 . UNIT 5, AZTEC CONDO P.O. BOX 688 BLOCMFILED HULS, MICHIGAN 480]3 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Inourance Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAMES AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION FRED G. SMITH UNIT ], AZIEC CONDO 131 EAST IURANr AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 AZE COND(MINIUM ASSOCIATION CO+ION AREA 131 EASr DURANT AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 8]611 JOHN P. KLEINER 1 UNIT 6, TELEMARK CONDO 55 SECOND STREET C(LORADO SPRINGS, Ca ORADO 80906 MARGERY P. KLEDER UNIT 5, TELEMARK CONDO P.O. BOX 4191 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 EFFIE M. Ea<LUND IERNER, TRUSIEE UNIT 3, TELEMARK CON[JO ' C/O BRIAN RIORDAN 4 th FLOOR TRUST DEPARIDENY CONTINENrAL BANK 30 NORTH LA SALLE STREET 1 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60697 |RICHARD L. CYS UNIT 4, TELEMARK CONDO KAREN L. CYS GREGORY SCHU.LER 5301 CHAMBERLAIN AVE CHEVY CHASE, MICHIGAN 20815 TELEMARK COND(MINIUM ASSOCIATION COMN AREA C NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE) PRESTON H. HILL ' LOTS, 4 & 5, BLOCK 1, CONNORS ADDITION CLAUDIA R. HILL * AND UNIT 2, TELE~RK Cal[)0 3910 S. HILLCRESr DR. DENVER, COLORADO 80237 JOHN.DOLINSEK ' LOrS 6,7,8,9,10, BLOCK 1, CONNORS ADD., FRANK DOLINSEK, JR. , AND LOTS 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1]BLK. 8 EAMES ADD P.O. BOX 275 ASPEN, Ca[DRADO 81612' t~-- 4-f , PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company 801 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 EMIBIT "A" ATIACHED HEREII) AND MADE A PART HEREOF....... ....... LEGAL. DESCRIFrION LOTS A, B, C, BLOCK 84, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN C*TIY OF PITKIN, SrATE OF COLORADO. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director 1 i. RE: Ritz-Carlton Aspen Hotel- Review Schedule DATE: February 26, 1988 I would like to propose the following review schedule for your consideration of the Ritz-Carlton Aspen Hotel: March 8: Applicant's overview of changes; review of Planning Office analysis, beginning with architecture/design issues. March 15: Continuation of review of Planning Office analysis, including site planning and technical/service issues; consideration of applicant's rezoning request. March 22: GMP rescoring of lodge and residential allotments. March 29: Planning Commission resolution. The above is a very ambitious schedule. If it is to be met , the Commission will need to meet from 4:30 to 7:30 and use its time wisely. Staff and the applicant are committed to providing you with the resources required to meet this schedule. However, if issues arise during the public hearings which require additional time or study, we may need to provide for additional meeting time during March, or extend the project's review into April. Given the April 15 deadline for the applicant to obtain a building permit for the project, you can understand that the applicant would like to at least be before Council when April arrives. We will not, however, sacrifice any of the quality of the review in the interest of meeting this type of deadline. ritzsched C C PUBLIC NOTICE RE: THE RITZ-CARLTON ASPEN GMP REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 15, 1988, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M., before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 1st Floor City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO, to consider a request submitted by Joe Wells on behalf of his client, Hadid Aspen Holdings for a rezoning of Lots A,B,C, and D of Block 84, and the adjacent northerly half of Dean Street, comprising -- approximately 14,800 sq. ft. of the Aspen Townsite from L-1 to L-2. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow three residential dwelling units to be built on the second level of that portion of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel at Durant and Monarch. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 225. s/C.Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on Feb. 25, 1988. City of Aspen Account. Â·U'â‚¬ . 472 ~- ~- ' F Aspen/Fit,fri 2 .*.ding Office Â· x 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Returned For Bcdor Address STUART A. POTIER WIILIAM S. REED 42 (/0 POTTER-REED GROUP SUITE 100 1, py,1 4%*-7 0 . 1 MAR 3 l I IA [)11) Asi)011 I loklings, Ine. March 2, 1988 Mr. Robert Anderson City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Bob, As you are aware the approved Aspen Mountain PUD contained specific language regarding the construction of 22 units of moderate income housing for 37 employees at Ute City Place. During the foreclosure this property had a seperate lender and is therefore gone from our control. The enclosed letter outlines a proposal made to the housing authority for the use of the Koch Lumber property for employee housing. I have presented this concept to the housing authority and the Parks Association. Both groups have endorsed this idea. I am therefore writing you to request council review. If council concurs I will present this to the planning and zoning commission as a segment of the employee housing plan for the Ritz-Carlton PUD amendment. The Koch Lumber property consists of two parcels. Lot 1 was traded to the city by John Roberts for certain lots in the Capitol Hill Addition. Lot 2 was given to the city by John Roberts. Thus, the property has been subdivided into two lots by ordinance 30, series of 1985. This ordinance has a condition that the entire property be dedicated to park / open space / recreational purposes. John Roberts has agreed, and will execute, a release on his part of this condition if the land is used for Ritz-Carlton moderate income housing. As successor in interest to the Aspen Mountain PUD, Savanah Limited will also release the city from this condition. 1.1"112Â·,:, Cr,aper St,ret Siii:,Â· 2(111 -hÂ·prn (..#,1.-11:1,1,1 41611 I.{frh ""S 1''T-'' 1-:txÂ· ('143) (1'5 13-97 Mr. Robert Anderson March 2, 1988 Page Two of Two The basic plan is to construct a maximum of twelve, three bedroom units on a portion of the property in return for a park on the balance. Because the land was given and traded to the city I do not believe use of this property for employee housing need go to a public vote. There should be no need for a subdivision but a lot line adjustment may be required to position the housing units and make the park completely accessable from the neighborhood. This housing will be designed as rental units for the Ritz-Carlton. This is a far more preferable solution to cash in lieu for the employee housing. The Ritz-Carlton will need housing for a range of employees well into the future. The Alpina Haus and Copper Horse will take care of hourly employee needs. To accommadate the upper and middle management the Ritz-Carlton must provide housing of an adequate floor plan and close-in location. The use of the Koch Lumber property would be ideal for this purpose. The time table will be to construct in the summer of 1989 and to install the park at the same time. We will work with the Park's Association and the City to design the park with input from the neighborhood. The park will be landscaped with a sprinkler system and recreational features. We will maintain the park in accordance with city standards. Please review this proposal and call me with the next step. Sincerely yours, 1pway huÂ»r Perry Harvey, Director HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC. CC: William Stirling Alan Richman Enclosure PH/ld . Ill\1)11) Asi,en [Ilc. February 1, 1988 Mr. James Adamski Pitkin County Housing Authority 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Jim: I am writing to outline a proposal which will be a mutual benefit to the City of Aspen and the Ritz-Carlton IIotel. It involves the Koch Lumber Company property which was traded to the City by John Roberts. We are proposing a joint venture regarding this property. The Ritz- Carlton would like to build and own ten to twelve two and three bedroom units for housing of middle and seiii-or management employees. As we know, land near to the hotel is at a premium or unavailable and conversion housing is extremely expensive. Tile structure would be for Ritz-Carlton to construct twelve units on a portion of the property under a ninety year land lease with the city. The amount of land needed is approximately 15,000 square feet and the housing would be restricted moderate income with first rights going to Iti.tz-Carlton employees. In return for the lease we would dedicate a trail easement along the base of Sliadow Mountain and would create and maintain a park on the remainder of the property for the benefit of the neighborhood and the City in general. To bu-i I.d .six two bedroom 1111its of 1,000 square feet and six three bedroom units of 1,200 square feet requires that a portion of the property be zoned RAIF with the balance being zoned park. Access to the RMF should be from Garmisch so the park has access from Garmisch, Cooper and First Street. A trail easement will connect town with the new pedestrian bridge over Castle Creek. l~ '941 PM' /' 15' 1Â·iÂ·: 04479 1/0 James Adamski February 1, 1988 Page two of two This concept will benefit the Ritz-Carlton in providing housing three blocks from the hotel and will benefit the City by creating a park 011 the most useable portion of the property. I have spoken to Hal Clark and Jim Mollica regarding this and they were at once supportive and cautious in terms of the nei.ghborhood reaction. Please discuss this concept with the Housing Authority Board and let me know the reactions and questions. I am available to meet with you at your convenience. Sincerely yours, Perry A. Harvey, Director HADID ASPEN HOLDINGS, INC. PAII/ld MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director 4~1~ RE: Ritz-Carlton Aspen Hotel- Review Schedule DATE: February 26, 1988 I would like to propose the following review schedule for your consideration of the Ritz-Carlton Aspen Hotel: March 8: Applicant's overview of changes; review of Planning Office analysis, beginning with architecture/design issues. March 15: Continuation Of review Of Planning Office analysis, including site planning and technical/service issues; consideration of applicant's rezoning request. March 22: GMP rescoring of lodge and residential allotments. March 29: Planning Commission resolution. The above is a very ambitious schedule. If it is to be met , the Commission will need to meet from 4:30 to 7:30 and use its time wisely. Staff and the applicant are committed to providing you with the resources required to meet this schedule. However, if issues arise during the public hearings which require additional time or study, we may need to provide for additional meeting time during March, or extend the project's review into April. Given the April 15 deadline for the applicant to obtain a building permit for the project, you can understand that the applicant would like to at least be before Council when April arrives. We will not, however, sacrifice any of the quality of the review in the interest of meeting this type of deadline. ritzsched . .1. 29* f ir.7-' -:- 8\ 1 j Doremus & weiis FEB 231988: h ' an association of land planners j\VÂ· O El February 22, 1988 Mr. Alan Richman Director, Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan: Recently a question has arisen regarding the manner of calculat- ing floor area under the new FAR language. Specifically, Bill Drueding is unclear whether exterior covered areas which are at- or below-grade are to be counted in square footage calculations under the new regulation. As you know, I followed the FAR language adoption process closely and made specific suggestions regarding the exclusion from FAR calculations of exterior areas which are at- or below-grade. In my opinion, the language that was adopted left no doubt that exterior terraces and similar features which are at- or below- natural grade are to be excluded from FAR calculations. Bill has apparently taken the position that there is some ques- tion about whether the covered exterior areas on the lowest level of the 700 South Galena project are exempt from FAR calculations. If necessary, could we get together with Bill to resolve this issue? The architects are proceeding with construction documents with an eye toward pulling a permit by the April 15 deadline. Regards, \ ~~ .Joseph Wells, AftP JW/b CC: Bill Dreuding John Sarpa Perry Harvey Michael Thompson C Eli 608 east hyman avenue c aspen, colorado 81611 otelephone: 303 925-6866 Doremus & weiLS an association of land planners February 15, 1988 1 5 ~~b<i FEB 15 Mr. Alan Richman Ic- Director, Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena M-7 Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan: Our letter is to request that we be scheduled for an initial presentation to the Planning & Zoning Commission Of the Ritz-Carlton amendments on March 1. We understand that you will not have completed your review of the submission by that date and that it is therefore unlikely that P&Z will be able to offer any reactions to the presentation, but in light of the fact that multiple meetings Will be required to resolve the City'S concerns, we believe that such a presentation would save valuable time on the March 8 agenda to start addressing some of the specific issues of concern. In short, the presentation has to be made at some point, and we would like to save as much time as possible on subsequent agendas to resolve issues, particularly in light of the time constraints created by previously established deadlines. We would also appreciate an update as to the status of City Council's expected attendance and/or participation in joint meetings with P&Z in order to expedite the review process. Re g,ar-~, 300494 Wells, AICP 0".4/b CC: Paul Taddune John Sarpa Perry Harvey Jim Pavisha Bob Hughes Brian Venable Roy Haggard 608easthyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 mtelephone: 303925-6866 hi i 1 1 \ FEB 29 i k\\ CARIBOU CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Ll UL 701 South Monarch Mailing Address: 0/0 1030 Cemetery Lane I Aspen, Colorado 81611 February 26, 1988 Welton Anderson, Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: RITZ-CARLTON Dear Mr. Anderson: It has come to our attention that the matter of the Ritz-Carlton is coming to a vote by Planning and Zoning in the next few weeks. The Caribou Condominium Association is unanimous in its opposition to the building plans which were publicized in the local newspapers several weeks ago. We are concerned about both safety and aesthetics. First, Monarch Street is largely a residential neighborhood, unlike many streets in the T-Tourist zone. Secondly, it is a major access street to Lift ]A by both pedestrian and automobile traffic. The street is unusually narrow, and snow buildup narrows it further. We have problems during the winter months with trash vehicles and private automobiles slipping on the steep grade, and with parking along the street during the winter months. Even without the addition of a 300-room hotel, we are concerned about access by emergency vehicles. It is totally inappropriate for these reasons that trash removal and purveyor delivery be located on Monarch. Equally important, however, are the aesthetic considerations of a building along Monarch Street fifty to fifty-five feet in height with little setback from the street and no open space. Not only would such a building be out of place from a design standpoint in a neighborhood such as ours, but the snow and ice buildup with the deprivation of normal sunlight along that street would make our current situation seem like Paradise. We join with the Azte Condominium Association in requesting a scale model of the hotel and nearby buildings to show the impact of the building on the surrounding neighborhood. Very truly yours, CARIBOU CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dorothy Wildman, President CC: P&Z Commission Members Mr. Perry Harvey Hon. William Stirling Aztec Condominium Assn. Mrs. Pat Fallin Dolomite Condominium Assn. Mr. Michael Gassman Mountain Queen Condo. Assn. Mr. Tom Isaac Silver Shadow Condo. Assn. Mr. Bill Tuite 700 Monarch Condo. Assn. Mr. Alan Richman Caribou owners AZTEC CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIAT Post Office Box 827 Aspen. Colorado 81612 Thursday. February 18. 1988 / FEB,9 Â· Mr. Wendell Anderson, Chairman , U l JL Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 6-- - -- 130 South batena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Hadaid Aspen Hotel Dear Mr. Anderson, Presumably by now you've had an opportunity to look at the new drawings of tne proposed Haddid Aspen hotel. 1n the plans which I was shown by Perry Harvey last month, the Receiving/Trash Compaction and Removal Area has been moved trom the previously approved location on Dean Street to a new location on Monarch Street. Mr. Harvey told me that Monarch Street is the only possible location for this potentially noisy, congested and unsightly use. Since the Haddid Group controls property on both sides of Mill street, we suggest that they should be required to place the service area on Mill Street so tney can better control the parking and not impact the low density residential units on Monarch Street. At the time of the Roberts hotel PUD approval we and other residents of Monarch Street were assured by the City Council that this Trash/Receiving area would not be allowed on Monarch. 1+ the plans as approved were to be modified. the entire PUD would be invalidated. Further, the previously approved hotel had angled corners and sloging roots to minimize the perceived mass of the structure. Monarch. above Dean Street is a very narrow street. The combination of the squared off building and the variance allowing minimum set back will create a virtual wall +1+tv to fifty-five +eet high along Monarch. There are no provisions for gr-een space or set backs along Monarch to soften the impact on those of us who built to the 28 foot height limitation required by code. This deorives the owners of Aztec units and other owners on Monarch Street of their view of the Mountain and most 0+ the normal sunlight. Finally. per our phone conversation. I think it would be reasonable to require that the Haddia Group prepare a scale model of tne hotel and surrounding buildings to show its impact on the community. Respectfully, Aztec Condominium Association Patrick A. Smith. President PAS/+s cc P&Z Commission members CC Mr. Perry Harvey Hon. William Stirling Caribou Condominium Association Mrs. Pat Fallin Dolomite Villas Owners Association Mr. Michael Gassman Mountain Queen Condominium Association Mr. Tom Isaac Silver Shadow Condominium Association Mr. Bill luite 700 Monarch Condominium Association Mr. Alan Richman Aztec Owners PUBLIC NOTICE RE: THE RITZ-CARLTON ASPEN GMP REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 15, 1988, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M., before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 1st Floor City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO, to consider a request submitted by Joe Wells on behalf of his client, Hadid Aspen Holdings for a rezoning of Lots A,B,C, and D of Block 84, and the adjacent northerly half of Dean Street, comprising approximately 14,800 sq. ft. of the Aspen Townsite from L-1 to L-2. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow three residential dwelling units to be built on the second level of that portion of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel at Durant and Monarch. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 225. s/C.Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on Feb. 25, 1988. City of Aspen Account. ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020 Date: ~6 ~20.- \99-9 Ae Â· 'Sot utics eqt MAW) (bRAL) 10) tltll RE: CAL G-X.U. 900(6-e A--4.-3 Dear '39 e This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application IS NOT oompl ete. Additional items required include: Disclosure of Ownership (one oopy only needed) . Adjacent Property Owners List/Envelopes/Postage (one copy) Additional copies of entire appl ication Authorization by owner for representative to submit appl ica- tio n 1/'~ Response to list of items (attached/be:bow) demonstrating compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specific materials A chehk in the amount of $ V~ A. Yolic application is comprgte and we have scheduled it for review by the %*'2- on 0,1 A. ML- 9 . We will call you if we need any addi tio nal information prior to tha t date. Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and make available a oopy .of the memorandum. Pl ea se no te tha t it IS NOT your responsibility to post your pro perty with a sign, which we can provide you for a $3.00 fee. B. Your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it review at this time. When we receive the materials we have. reg uested, we will place you on the next available agenda. If you have any questions, please call A-1 4 Lel - the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE A~-9 4-M Li-f J U MEMORANDUM TO: Joe Wells FROM: Alan Richman 6~ RE: Ritz Carlton GMP/PUD Amendment DATE: February 2, 1988 Although I have initiated the referral process for the Ritz Carlton, there are still a number of items that I know I will require to complete my analysis of the project. I will need the items listed below on or about February 15. 1. Please provide a drawing showing the height from grade, demonstrating that the project complies with the 42' and 55' height limit as stated in the application. Please also show a line for the height of the previously approved building for comparison purposes only. Lastly, I would like to know if and when a model is prepared so that I can use it in drafting my written comments on the project's design for P&Z. 2. Please provide me a drawing illustrating the areas you believe should be counted in open space, demonstrating that approximately 40,000 s.f. of the site will meet current reg- ulations. Please also designate those areas where the open space will meet current, but not proposed regulations. 3. Please submit a detailed response to the requirements for rezoning of Block 84. 4. It is not possible to verify any of the commitments made with respect to design of the service delivery area on page 142. I will need to see detailed drawings of this area to understand how it will accommodate vehicles in the manner suggested. 5. The application completely glosses over the impacts of the construction schedule on the community. I recognize that in the prior submission, detailed construction schedules were not required for review by P&Z or Council. In the three years since the project was approved, the community has gained a great deal of experience as to the impacts of construction. I would like specific information provided on those matters identified on page 4 of the PUD agreement. I would also like a specific estimate of the number of construction workers anticipated and, if they will be from out of town, where it is expected they will be housed. 6. As a general comment, I would note that the entire document reads more like a conceptual GMP submission than it does like a detailed amendment in anticipation of imminent construction. As you recall, I asked City Council if this project should be treated as a new submission or an amendment, and the decision was made to treat this as an amendment. Therefore, I will not be responding to the analysis of the status of the short-term accommodations inventory in Aspen. What I will be addressing is Aspen's capability to absorb the proposed construction schedule, given the other projects which have come on line and the changes which have taken place in the community over the five years since this project was initially submitted. 7. I would also note that when we look at the original approval and the new project, I need a specific comparison of the two, noting all of the changes made and the impacts of these changes on the community. As an example, the conference and food and beverage areas of the new project are substantially larger than approved, and the commercial space labeled as "non-accessory" has been eliminated. Why are these changes appropriate and what do they mean in terms of impacts on the community and design of the facility? I expect that you and I will need to meet at some time midway during the review process to scope all of the changes before my review memo is written. In sum, while I believe that the application is adequate in terms of addressing the issues to begin the referral process, I believe there is still much work to do between now and the first review by P&Z on March 8. I also want to be very clear that by referr- ing this application, I am in no way commenting on the adequacy of the responses, but merely that the basic issues appear to be addressed. As comments are received from referral agencies and i as I begin to develop my review comments, I am sure additional requests for information will be made. I hope we can continue to work cooperatively, as we have in the pre-application phase, to permit a comprehensive review to occur, while also remaining sensitive to the project's needs for an expeditious review. 1*,1 1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshal FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: The Ritz-Carlton Aspen GMP and PUD Amendments Parcel ID# 2737-182-00-001-004 2737-182-91-001-004 DATE: February 2, 1988 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Joe Wells on behalf of his client, Hadid Development Companies requesting GMP and PUD Amendments to the Aspen Mountain PUD with respect to the Ritz-Carlton Aspen Hotel. The proposed changes for this submission are summarized on pages 8 & 9 and then detached in the subsequent pages. Please review the material that was provided to you and return your complete written comments no later than February 23, 1988 in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z. If you have any questions before that time, please contact me prior to February 9 or after February 16 or please contact Joe Wells for clarification. In particular, I would like to speak with Jay Hammond and Jim Adamski on or about February 17 to see how your review is coming along and to discuss your concerns at that time. Thank you. CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: ///4/gr PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: a \ D \ 9-9 044-82 STAFF MEMBER: A L Arv PROJECT NAME~41,tit -CAdt-k'44 68\61700 kend# f 14 6 Project Address: APPLICANT: AD 6 110-ld'AÂ® 1 rn f Applicant Address ttalft h 11*-2.[A .l/0 0(eli REPRESENTATIVE: , jou lipa,LK ,-rs' -E. Â·C~~jlwa-4 Â·fut-, kiof,1 \ .CO K [60 Representative Address/Phone: 0/04 ' 6. GY(06 PAID: 60* No AMOUNT: 4/,79/.24 1) TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: ~ 2) IF 1 STEP APPLICATION GOES TO: P&z cc PUBLIC HEARING DATE: \AA,1-JAg (' hitÂ£O- r 3) PUBLIC HEARING IS BEFORE: , f puz CC 11/A DATE REFERRED: 0-%15.0 A INITIALS: - REFERRALS: V , City Attorney ~ 7 Mtn. Bell School District 4 r City Engineerj Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas v~r Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Â« Aspen Water ,/' Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) , City Electric Fire Chief Bldg:Zon/Inspect 4. Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Roaring Fork 4 Aspen Consol. Transit Energy Center S.D. Other FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Bldg. Dept. Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: t Aspen/Pitle*Ye NaÂ»ing Office 130 sjili-t~tr~alein-*Â¥street i.v< -:Â·Â·:J fiÂ·kt,J. '.'Â·*9â‚¬ .4 4* â€¢ f .. :A.;32Â£16.44*tar aspen**610-radji 81611 January 4, 1988 Mr. Perry Harvey Hadid Aspen Holdings 415 East Durant Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Perry, The purpose of this letter is to relay to you my initial thoughts on the design of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. As you know, it is most unusual for the Planning Office to put anything in writing about a project until we develop our written recommendation for the P&Z. I am taking this unusual step because of the importance of this project to the community and our mutual desire to see the review process flow as smoothly as possible. I would greatly appreciate it if these comments remain between me and the project team, and are not discussed in public or with the press. Please also recognize that my comments are preliminary, in that they are based only on reviewing the drawings you provided to me, and not on a full analysis of your entire submission. Therefore, my comments could easily be taken out of context, since they will not address issues of service impacts, consistency with adopted plans, etc. I will concentrate solely on architectural themes, since this is the most obvious change found in the materials you have provided to me. As you know, I reviewed the drawings with Bill Poss, the arch- itect we have hired to help me analyze your project. Bill helped put into words many of the concerns I was feeling and helped me to see specific areas where improvements might be made. I would also point out that I am hearing many of these same concerns from members of the public who have taken the time to voice their opinions of the project to me. I will organize my comments into three basic categories, these being concerns regarding the building's scale, its architectural style and its prominence. Please recognize, however, that while virtually all of the comments which follow will be critical of the project's design, I continue to support your hotel/conference center concept on this site. In fact, of those in the public who have made critical comments to me, none have questioned the importance of having a major hotel on this site. The real issue is what tradeoffs are required and whether they are reasonable. Regarding scale, my most important comment is that the building does not respect one of the principal objectives of the prior design, that it read like several smaller hotels. Paraphrasing some of the comments from my meeting with Bill and from others: * The penetrations from the building's facade are so minimal (18" to 2') that the elevations read like one straight wall. * The elevation along Mill Street is too long without a significant break. The terrace does not appear to serve the function of breaking the elevation as did the prior design. A greater setback in this location could help to create the feeling of several smaller structures. * The project walls the town off from the mountain, rather than drawing the mountain and the town together. * The scale of the building is out of context with its neighbors to a greater degree than was the case with the prior design. * The roof form will be perceived as additional bulk as compared to the sloping form previously approved. Our reading is that the entire roof facade only sets back about 4', and that most of this occurs in the last 1/3 of the roof, in the dome. Not only does the total elevation seem out of scale but, in particular, the tower will be a focal point of controversy. The prior approval showed the highest sections (55 feet) well back on ?9Â· the property. These heights were required for elevators, and were therefore reluctantly approved by Council. The new proposal moves the highest point of the building (67 feet) to one of the most prominent corners of the property, and does so for reasons of " identity" or "architectural statement", rather than function. It will be most difficult for you to justify such a large variation from our height limit (which is 28 feet, requiring a 39 foot variation) 'in such a visible location for the reasons that have been stated for the tower. Regarding architectural style, I understand that you have looked at many buildings in town and tried to use elements of these buildings in your design. However, just having elements echo other buildings does not make for a compatible design. Another way of saying this is that in this case, the whole does not equal the sum of its parts. By taking a feature from another building (such as the Elk's Building dome) and then reinterpreting it throughout the structure, the building no longer harkens back to the original architectural style, but instead creates a style all its own. Virtually everyone I talk with feels that the architecture does not fit with the style of the town. While this building might fit magnificently in such grand cities as Paris, New York or Washington, it bears no relationship whatever to Colorado or to Victorian architecture. I believe the correct term for this architectural style is Beaux Arts French Revival, which is certainly not found elsewhere in Aspen. It is our opinion that if you are going to use a style of architecture which is not found in Aspen, it should be an entirely new style, not an example of a foreign style from another geographic area. One feature which is missing from this design, which was so successful in the approved design, was the "play" in the roof and other facade features. The proposed design uses massive, multi- story features to obtain this variation, whereas the prior approval used features more in keeping with traditional Victorian themes. We can point out to you many prominent hotels in Colorado and elsewhere which are in the Victorian tradition, should you want to consider this style. The final concern is the architectural prominence of the struc- ture. I recall quite vividly the comments the project team made to me about creating a permanent structure, one which truly looks and feels like a hotel, and doesn't try to blend in as just another lodge. While I understand and respect this feeling, given the investment being contemplated, it concerns us that this building tries to be grander in scale and design than any of our most prominent public and historic buildings. There is a western tradition that the courthouse be the tallest building in town, and while I believe the hotel does not exceed the height of the Courthouse steeple, its tower is so much higher than neighboring buildings, and its base elevation is such that it may be perceived as the tallest building in town. Further- more, the public and private sectors have recently made large investments of their own in renovating the Hotel Jerome, Wheeler Opera House and Courthouse. The community takes pride in these historic structures and may be reluctant to have a new building, however costly and important, overshadow these grand buildings. You may need to rethink the concept that this building be so prominent and move back toward a structure which is more in keeping with the scale of the neighborhood. Perry, I hope you recognize that I have given a great deal of thought to these comments and I do not take lightly how critical I have been. However, if the applicant pursues this design in the process, I will have no choice but to follow this line of thought in my recommendations. I suggest that I meet with you, Mr. Sarpa and anyone else from the team you feel would be appropriate to map out a way to bring the project more in line with community policy and attitudes. Please give me a call as soon as you are prepared to have this meeting. Sincerely, P 147\ Alan Richman Planning Director