Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mountain.A42-90Aspen Mountain Subdivision 4th Amendment A42-90 2739-182-85-001-005 �P ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gfa- (303)920-5090 14 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 -63250-134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL -63270-136 GMP/FINAL -63280-137 SUB/CONCEPTUAL -63300-139 SUB/FINAL -63310-140 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS -63320-141 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL County 00113 -63160-126 GMP/GENERAL -63170-127 GMP/DETAILED -63180-128 GMP/FINAL -63190-129 SUB/GENERAL -63200-130 SUB/DETAILED -63210-131 SUB/FINAL -63220-132 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS -63230-133 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS -63450-146 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00113 -63360-143 ENGINEERING PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113-63080-122 CITY/COUNTY CODE -63090-123 COMP. PLAN -63140-124 COPY FEES -69000-145 OTHER SUBTOTAL TOTAL Name: Address: Check # Additional billing: CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 6/29/90 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. 2735-182-85-001>005 A42-90 STAFF MEMBER*' PROJECT NAME: Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD 4th Amendment Project Address: Legal Address: Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Lots 1-5 APPLICANT: Savanah Limited Partnership, c/o Hadid Aspen Holdings Applicant Address: 415 E. Durant Aspen, CO 925-4272 REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells Representative Address/Phone: 130 Midland Park Place F2 Aspen, CO 81611 5-8080 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $1690. NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 3 Due TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: _ 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFERRALS: City Attorney y Mtn. Bell School District City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshal State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Building Inspector Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other Aspen Con.S.D. Energy Center DATE REFERRED: d INITIALS: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: City Atty � City Engineer �oning Housing Other: c FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: INITIAL: Env. Health ®L'%Al Joseph Wells NOV 2 8 590 Joseph \\'ells, AICP Land Planning and Design November 26, 1990 Ms. Amy Margerum Director, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen CO 81611 Dear Amy: Some time ago I wrote to you regarding the status of your review of the insubstantial amendments to the Ritz -Carlton, to determine whether those drawings could be recorded following City Council's action opting not to comment on the changes. You asked me to file new landscape architectural drawings which illustrate changes in the site work in conformance with the features shown on the architectural drawings previously submitted. In response to your request, I am forwarding revised drawings from DWI for sheets Ll through L4 and Sheet 6 for your review. In addition, I am forwarding a new Certification Sheet which will be signed by the appropriate parties prior to recordation. Would you please advise me of any additional changes which need to be made on either these or the previously submitted drawings so that we can make the changes, provide you with two sets of mylars and record these revisions as soon as possible? Thank you for your assistance. -__ incerly, Joseph Wells, AICP JW/b cc: Perry Harvey John Sarpa Ferd Belz Joe Imbriani Bob Hughes 130 Midland Park Place, Number F2 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925-8080 Facsimile (303) 925-8275 October 8, 1990 Joseph Wells Land Planning and Design 130 Midland Park Place, Number F2 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Fourth Amended Plat for the Aspen Mountain PUD Dear Joe: As you are aware the City Council approved a staff sign off on the insubstantial amendments to the Aspen Mountain PUD for the Ritz -Carlton hotel. The drawings as submitted are acceptable pending several conditions the ]Engineering Department would like to have placed on the Plat itself: � 1) i Any and all work which is performed in the public right-of- way (including previously approved below grade encroachments) requires a separate permit(s) from the City Public Works Agency. 2) The applicant agrees that any failure of the semi -truck height, clearance and turning movement designs will not entitle the applicant to the use of public rights -of -way for alternative delivery use sites and such use of the public rights -of -way shall not be permitted. In addition, any changes to the approved landscaping plan should be included in this 4th amended plat. I have not received any changes to the landscaping plan to date, but I understood it was the applicant's intent to do so. Please call me if you have any concerns with these comments, otherwise I will look forward to receiving final drawings with changes to the :landscaping included on the drawings. sincerely, Amy L. Margerum Planning Director cc: Perry Harvey MEMORANDUM To: Amy Margerum, Planning Director From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer Date: October 1, 1990 Re: Fourth Amended Plat for Aspen Mountain Subdivision and PUD The engineering department comments are derived from a review of Alan Richman's memo of April 18, 1990. Joe Wells letter of June 29, 1990, together with the submitted blueprints of the proposed Fourth Amended Plat apparently are intended to respond to Alan's letter of April 18. The follow comments on engineering related matters are referenced to Alan Richman's memo of April 18: 1. Comment #2, Sheet A 1.01 - ....tunnel.... I do not see any indications of a tunnel on the plat. The response of June 29 indicates that the tunnel has been converted to a storage space. We need to_ be clear that no unapproved encroachments ar-e_ occurring. The amended sheets of the plat do not appear to show a_ny_encroachments. The applicant is cautioned that below grad—eencroachments must be licensed the same as above grade encroachments. 2. Comment #2, Sheet A 1.03 and 2.13 - ....neckdowns.... ..neckdowns.... Please advise the applicant that the city will be concerned about approving a correct angle for the tapers to .9Srk the neckdowns which will provide the best situation for the streets department for snow removal and sweeping. The applicant is reminded that any and all work which is performed off of the applicant's private property and in the public right-of-way requires permitting outside of the building permit process and within the right-of-way occupancy permit process with a permit obtainable from the city public works agency. 4. Comment #2, A 1.06 - ....pedestrian bridge.... This feature is located outside of a public right-of-way, therefore I am not clear that city engineering has any jurisdiction other than courtesy comment. In that spirit, let us advise the applicant that the three dimensional angles of a truck on the sloping Monarch grade entering flat Dean grade will cause i'LU� the rear of the truck to project higher into the air than the 13'-6" "flat" height. This problem has been made evident in a city right-of-way such as at the alley behind Main Street Bakery and Aspen Street, where ample evidence is seen in the scratches and gouges in the asphalt from delivery trucks scraping the rear bottoms of their beds as they enter the alley from Aspen Street. I have spent considerable time studying the Clark Tribble Harris and Li letter of May 31, 1990, for the semi truck design elements. I have studied design guides for truck turns and have talked with one consulting transportation engineer. I have a high level of discomfort about the truck related design_ details. The City rites -had an adverse experience with a similar design situation on a previous project. Therefore, in lieu of attempting to accept or certify a consultant's design, I would like to suggest that we require that the following language be written on the Fourth Amended Plat as a condition of approval: The applicant hereby agrees and covenants that the portions of this project which relate to the semi -truck loading dock and the pedestrian bridge clearance for semi trucks and the geometry of the area for accommodating said trucks and their turning movements shall be reconstructed at the applicant's own expense in the event that the constructed facilities fail to perform as designed We may need to meet with the city attorney about the language. GAM If the truck design as presented does not work, the project and_/,�L the city would be faced with accommodating the trucks and �p%Ivl deliveries within public right-of-way. We had a similar problem at the Hotel Jerome. Perhaps there should be bonding to guarantee the performance and reconstruction of the truck related project features. Perhaps the hotel would merely have to off- load supplies onto smaller trucks at some other location.�� The grade of Monarch street appears to be about 6% at Dean 'OA Street. I don't know if the feasibility of backing a semi up a 6% grade has been previously explored. If you want to get together to discuss any of this after you have ( rh1 read the memo, please let me know. Arts; cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director�ti� 5 CR/cr/memo_90.164 Ell A(,rz,�,---s TRA- MCP PC-( CA07 T�� �FA i L,U2 �drt NJD 'To P-tjIN6 �/j 6 Vt-�S(GN S F.4,FFr � C..10—; -OtEAPPL-lcqqi Thy US�� arr �d I PiOtTz- —0E- 0A fibs flLZMA VE L1 V Fzf-*y Us E7 S ITS Fv e u c- r-( GH 77 — 6 F _ w�,� �,Q D S u co USSF Ov- -mF C LL �)r- -e-F -pl�-gMli- v , Joseph Wells Joseph wells, AICP Land Planning and Design September 28, 1990 Ms. Amy Margerum Director, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen CO 81611 Re: Fourth Amended Plat for the Aspen Mountain PUD Dear Amy: OCT - 2 1990 I am writing to you to follow up on your September 24, Memorandum to City Council regarding the Fourth Amended Plat drawings for the Aspen Mountain PUD, having to do with Insubstantial Amendments to the Ritz -Carlton. On September 24, City Council decided not to discuss the proposed amendments, apparently deferring the decision to you as to whether the changes should be treated as insubstantial amendments. We would like to record these revised drawings as soon as possible. Could you advise us whether the drawings as submitted are acceptable? If so, I will have two sets of mylars produced for recording. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Joseph Wells, AICP JW/b cc: Perry Harvey Anna Goodrich Joe Imbriani Bob Hughes 130 Midland Park Place, Number F2 Aspen, Colorado 81011 Telephone (303) 925-8080 Facsimile (303) 925-8275 - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager FROM: Amy Margerum, Planning Director RE: Insubstantial Amendment to the Aspen Mountain PUD Information Item DATE: September 24, 1990 During the review for the final building permits for the Ritz - Carlton Hotel (Lot 1, Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision) there were several changes made to the hotel which require amendment of the PUD plan and associated plat. The Planning Office considers these changes to be insubstantial in nature, thus falling under Section 7-907 (a) of the Land Use Code, and is planning on signing off on the amendments administratively. In the past when a project is particularly controversial, the Planning Office has forwarded amendments to the City Council as an information item prior to final sign -off. 101100I1JXM1101:F An overview of the major changes proposed is noted below: - The original plans showed the ski shop located along Mill Street. The amended plans locate the ski shop internal to the hotel. This change is due to safety requirements of the Building Department which dictated the need for four new exit stairs around the perimeter of the ballroom area. We have worked with the architect and the Building Department and can identify no viable alternatives which would result in the Ski Shop location along Mill Street. - The pedestrain entrance to the garden terrace at the apres-ski lounge has been altered slightly. Staff feels it will be as open to the pedestrian as the previous plans. - The footprint of the Blue Spruce building has been altered slightly. This change slightly decreases the square footage of the building. - Various architectural features have been slightly altered but are in keeping with the original intent of the plans. A chimney has been added on the north side of the courtyard. Criteria for Insubstantial Amendment: The amendment to the recorded plat must fall within the criteria established for an insubstantial amendment to an approved development order as per Section 7-908 (A) as noted below. Insubstantial amendments are generally limited to technical and/or engineering considerations which cannot be reasonably anticipated during the approval process. 1. The amendment is not resulting in a change in use or character of the development. 2. The amendment does not increase the overall coverage of the structures on the land by 3% or greater. 3. The amendment does not increase trip generation or the demand for public facilities. 4. The amendment does not reduce the approved open space . 5. The amendment does not reduce off-street parking or loading space. 6. The amendment does not result in a reduction of required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and easements. 7. The amendment does not increase the approved gross leasable floor area. 8. The amendment does not increase the residential density of the proposed development. 9. The amendment is not inconsistent with conditions or representations of the project's original approval. The Planning Office believes the changes being proposed at this time are consistent with the above criterion. It was originally represented that the retail space would be located on the street facade. Both the Planning Commission and the Council expressed concern during the hearings on this project that it was important to have the retail store on the street and not enclosed within the building. However, due to the safety concerns of the Building Office, we feel we are imposing unforseen obstacles to the location of the retail on the street and consider this to fall within an insubstantial amendment. If City Council feels otherwise and/or desires more information, please contact me in the Planning Office. Joseph Wells Joseph \Xells, AICP Land Planning and Design June 29, 1990 Ms. Amy Margerum Planning Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 Midland Park Place Aspen CO 81611 Dear Amy: I am forwarding for your office's review revised Plat draw- ings which reflect the changes to the Ritz -Carlton project (Lot 1, Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision) which we have been discussing with your office. We believe that these changes fall within the standards of both Section 24-8.26 Amendment of the PUD Plan, as described under the land use code in effect prior to May 25, 1988, as well as Section 7-907(A), Insubstantial Amendment of a PUD Development Order of the current land -use regulations. These revised plat drawings are submitted in response to Alan Richman's memo of April 18, 1990 which outlines his comments following his review of the construction drawings for the Ritz -Carlton currently on file with the City. I have included a narrative responding to each of the points raised in that memo. Please let me know at your earliest convenience when your staff has completed its review. We will prepare two sets of mylars for recording as the Fourth Amended Plat once your office authorizes us to proceed. ince ely, i Joseph Wells, AICP JW/b Enclosures 130 Midland Park Place, Number F2 As en, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925-8080 Facsimile (303) 925-8275 I. FAR calculations: FAR calculations have been revised throughout the attached drawings, including the total square footages for the project which are listed on Sheet A4. These confirm that the FAR square footage complies with the limitation under the prior approval of 190,000 square feet and that the total square footage ("gross floor area," or "G.F.A. ") complies with the limitation of 285,000 square feet, not including 92,000 square feet of subgrade parking area, garage mechanical space and loading dock space (see Sheet 3 of the Third Amended Plat). II. Site Dlan issues: A. Sheet A1.01-Tunnel: Tunnel designations have been removed from the plans and this area has been relabeled "storage". B. Sheets A1.03 and A2.11: 1. Ski shop location: I am forwarding for your review some of the correspondence between the architects and the Building Department regarding 1 the exiting requirements from the ballroom/meeting room level of the hotel. You will note that in CTHL's letter dated January 26, 1989, the architects thought that there was agreement that exiting could be calculated on the basis of one person per 15 square feet. The Building Department's response dated February 21, 1989 required that exiting be calculated on the basis of one occupant per 7 square feet, thereby increasing the exiting requirement considerably. As noted in CTHL's May 31, 1990 letter, in order to address the Building Department's requirement, it was necessary for the architects to add four new exit stairs around the perimeter of the ballroom area; further more, the code requires that these stairs exit directly to the exterior at finished grade. Because of these building code constraints, it is necessary to maintain the exit stair alongside Mill Street, where the retail space was previously located. As more detailed information has been developed regarding the existing grade, it has become clear 2 that existing grade extending up Mill Street is somewhat higher relative to the entry elevation of the hotel than previously mapped. Therefore, even if the retail space could be constructed in this exterior location, any windows in the Mill Street facade would be surrounded by a relatively deep (and possibly unattractive) well. We are presently proposing a finish grade in the area of the new exit stair some 8 feet above the lobby floor elevation. We intend to add trees adjacent to the facade to further soften this wall and see this as being of greater benefit than would a window in a deep well. The higher existing grade has the effect of bringing the windows of the second floor rooms down so that they relate more to pedestrians than was the case before. (Note relationship of grade to second floor on Sheet A11.) 2. Planter at Mill and Dean: The planter areas have been expanded in the area of the pedestrian entry at the corner of the building. The planters in the area are now located at grade, as illustrated on the accompanying rendering of this area. 3 3. Pedestrian entrance to garden terrace at apres-ski lounge: Two large-scale elevations of either side of the entry to the courtyard are included at the back of the bound drawings. The plan on Sheet A3 illustrates the more direct access to the court- yard presently incorporated into the design for the garden terrace entry. This can be compared to the previous design on Sheet A3 of the Second Amended Plat, which included low walls around the perimeter of the entry area and the entry off to one side of the courtyard; we believe the prior solution was less inviting to pedestrians than the current entry to the courtyard. C. Sheets A 1.03 and A 2.13: 1. "Areaway" on Monarch: The areaway is a subgrade vault which serves as an air intake to the laundry below. It is covered by a grate and will not be a source of noise, odors or smoke. 2. Elimination of curb "neckdown": This change was an oversight and the curb design has been changed back to that shown on the previous plans. (Sheet A3) 4 D. Sheets A 1.03, 1.04 and 1.05: 1. Footprint of the "Blue Spruce" building: While the footprint of the Blue Spruce has been revised slightly, the overall FAR square footage has not been increased. The intermediate level plan reflects the footprint most accurately and as listed in the tabulation on Sheet A4, the FAR square footage of this level has been reduced from 7552 square feet previously approved to 6930 square feet. A change order has already been filed with the Building Department to reflect this change. E. Sheet A 1.06 Location of pedestrian bridge abutments: The actual location of the abutments have not changed; however, pedestrian movement through the abutments has been modified because of the change in the footprint of the Blue Spruce as well as the grade of the loading dock ramp. Truck clearance and turning radii have again been reexamined; the conclusion is that maintain- ing 14'-0" of clearance at the curb line is adequate; turning radii are also adequate to accommodate the trucks which will be servicing the facility. Correspondence from CTHL and Bob Gish's letter of 5 June 20, 1990 signing off on the clearance issue are enclosed for your review. F. Sheet A 1. 07 , A 2. 44 , A 1_08 and A 2.2 Service doors in Ritz -Carlton Suites: These doors are included in the plan to assure that these suites can be serviced without disturbing the guests in the suites. It is important to note that there is not a separate bathroom in the area of this door that would facilitate separate rental of this portion of the suite under any circumstances in the future. The following note has been added to A6A and A7: "Ritz-Carlon suite is tabulated at one key only. Additional door is to be used as service access only for the pantry and dining room." 2 III. Architectural elevations: A. Sheet A3.01-Dean Street Elevation: 1. Horizontal precast banding (see also A3.02 through A3. 08) : A single horizontal band of colored precast has been maintained at the top level floor slab and the other bands of precast have been eliminated (See A10 through A18). A colored rendering of a section of the facade is included for your review; the bands are over -emphasized on this rendering as the material has been changed to a rock -face brick in a color which matches the other brick on the facade. 2. Pointed Element added to facade at roof: This element, which does not exceed the height of the nearby dormers on Mill and Monarch, is necessary for the proper termination of the roof over those two dormers. 3. New planter walls shown at ground level: These features on Dean Street have been removed from the revised drawings. 7 4. Change in the rhythm of arched and peaked dormers: Apparently there is general agreement that these changes are insubstantial. 5. Window eyebrows and other detailing changes: Upon further study at a larger scale, the design team concluded that the appearance of the facade was unfinished and that further articulation was appropriate. The color photocopy of the rendering illustrates these revisions more clearly. 6. Detailing of abutments on either side of pedestrian bridge: An opening has been reintroduced in the west side of the south abutment to reduce the massiveness of this element. Pedestrians will not be able to pass directly through this archway, however, because of the grade change which occurs as a result of the ramp down to the loading dock. The archway on the west side of the north tower has not been added back in because of the revisions in the floor plan of the Blue Spruce building and the resultant changed relationship between the south facade of the Blue Spruce building and the west side of the Bridge. 7. Elevator height: In order to understand the situation regarding the currently approved height of the elevator towers, it is necessary to go back to the early correspondence regarding the previous Insubstantial Amendments (Second Amended Plat). My March 27, 1989 letter (attached), outlining our request for approval of Insubstantial Amendments (and modifying my February 28, 1989 letter on the subject) included our proposal (Item #8) to increase the height of the elevator penthouses from that shown on the First Amended Plat recorded on October 3, 1988. At that time, we were proposing to increase the height of the penthouse at the northwest corner of the Main Building from 101.33 to 103.92 feet and to increase the height of the penthouse at the north end of the South Wing from 107.83 to 112.58 feet. Q9 Alan Richman's March 30, 1989 letter (attached), outlined those amendments which he felt he had the authority to approve and those which he could not. In his letter, he denied approval of the proposed increase in height of the elevator penthouses. I believe that his reasoning was that because the penthouse heights of 101.33 and 107.83 exceeded the maximum height limit of the zone district, the First Amended Plat drawings established the extent of the variation previously granted by City Council and therefore only the City Council could grant further variation from the height. In my June 8, 1989 letter (attached), responding to the March 30, 1989 letter, I acknowledged that we had been able to reduce the height of the elevator penthouses to that shown on the First Amended Plat drawings by relocating the machine rooms to the mezzanine level. There was no need for further correspondence on the subject beyond that point because we had agreed to maintain the height established for the elevator penthouses under the First Amended Plat recorded on October 3, 1988. 10 The height of the elevators as shown throughout the Fourth Amended Plat set has been maintained at the approved height of 101.33' and 107.83'. B. Sheet A 3.02 - Mill Street Elevation: These issues have been discussed above. C. Sheet A 3.04 - Courtyard Elevation, View to North. 1. New chimney on north side of courtyard: A chimney has been added on the south -facing (courtyard) facade of the main building. This chimney is required for the fireplace in the lobby of the hotel which has been designed to be on axis with the main entry (see Sheet A3). The fireplace is located in that portion of the lobby which is a one-story element which extends into the courtyard. The facade of the hotel rooms above the fireplace is to the north of the fireplace and it is not possible, given the constraints of the building code, to "bend" the chimney back to the north so that it can be located internal to the building above the lobby level. 11 Nor is it possible to shift the fireplace further to the north, because it would then disrupt the circulation in the lobby, which is a relatively small space to begin with. Even if this could be done, we believe the potential visual impact on the community would be greater, since the chimney would then have to extend up above the upper roof of the building, and be visible to the north. Because of the chimney's location within the courtyard, we believe it will have an insignifi- cant visual impact, as it will only be seen by pedestrians on Mill Street looking into the courtyard between the South Wing and the Main Building. For the most part, it will read as another architectural element within the overall facade which will extend on both sides of the chimney. The only other location from which the chimney can be seen is from Juniata Street, which as you know functions more or less as a private parking lot for the Dolomites, even though it is technically a public right of way. 12 D. Sheet A 3.05 - Courtyard Elevation Looking East The height of the elevators has been discussed previously. 13 CLA i'i. TiI E: 11 May 31, 1990 Mr. Gary Lyman Chief Building Inspector Aspen / Pitkin Regional Building Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Reference: Ritz -Carlton Hotel Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Lyman: Confirming our telephone conversation, the following items were discussed. During the previous code review, the City of Aspen required the assembly spaces at the ballroom level to be calculated at seven square feet per person, not fifteeen square feet per person, as submitted. Based upon the new calculations, the required exit widths were increased, and four (4) additional exit stairs were required. Due to the site configuration, very few areas are available to allow these additional stairs to exit directly to grade or an exterior court. The architects have placed these stairs in the most direct and logical positions. The locations required the reduction or elimination of several public spaces, including the retail and ski shops in the main building. Enclosed are copies of the previous correspondence with the city. It is our understanding that your office shall issue a letter confirming the building department's interpretation of the exit requirements. We appreciate your timely response in this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me directly. Very truly yours, :CLAZRK7IBBLERRIS & ARCHITECTS Brian L. Venable, AIA Associate W 709C.00 cc: Ms. Anna Goodrich, Hadid Aspen Holdings Mr. Perry Harvey, Hadud Aspen Holdings Mr. Joe Wells, Joseph Wells Land Planning _=5J 2=:1n S.reer ,N.W re 3S,C .'.'ashincron. DC 20037 CLAmi HA.S & LI lkd-A t IV January 26, 1989 Aspen Pitkin Regional Building Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attention: Mr. J. Robert Heien Deputy Chief Building Inspector Reference: Ritz -Carlton Hotel Aspen, Colorado Building Code Review Gentlemen: He appreciate the time taken by you and your staff to review building code questions. To confirm our discussions, we agreed upon the following: 1. The project shall be considered as one building, even with three buildings on the site. 2. Project shall be classified as Type 1 (one). 3. Building assembly groups shall be as follows: a. Main Ballroom b . Meeting and Board Rooms c. Storage, Employee Areas d. Office Space e. Parking Garage f. Restaurants g. Lobby, Offices h. Kitchen i. Retail j . hotel - A2. 1 - A2.1 - B-2 - B-2 B-1 - A-3 - A-3 - Assessory to A-3 B-2 - R-1 4. City of Aspen is legally under 1979 UBC code, although City currently follows 1985 UBC, but will officially adopt the 1988 UBC during the year. If adopted before submittal for building permit, we shall be required to follow the 1988 code. 5. Ballroom and meeting room assembly calculated at one person per 15 square feet. Fire Marshal may require signage limiting occupancy, based on exit widths provided. 6. Service corridor from ballroom must be maintained free of furniture and/or service items to be considered as exit corridor for meeting spaces. 7. Architects proposed 2'-10" door to guestroom entry. City to review, if acceptable, or may require 3'-0". Nq Clark Tnpt, Harris & Li ArchaeVYs widelines for handicapped ns is 7% of total rooms, with half fully accessible and half convertible at later date. 292 x (.07) = 20 rooms 10 handicapped 10 adaptable Architect must file application to City of Aspen Building Appeal for approval of the above requirements. 9. Elevator lobby on typical guestroom floors must be separate from exit corridor. Hold open doors acceptable. 10. Width of stair exits shall be measured in whole units (i.e., 3 feet, not 3.5 feet). 11. One stair per building shall extend to the roof. City confirmed that roof hatch acceptable per Section 3306 (M) and 3306 (0). 12. Ramp width to garage acceptable. 13. Central plant shall require one hour separation. 14. Operable windows satisfy code requirements for make-up air to fan coil units. 15. Plywood framing for roof not acceptable per type one construction. As discussed, the City agreed to review and process a submittal for a structural superstructure and building shell package. This would permit PCL to continue the construction of concrete and steel structural system. If any of the above comments do not agree with our discussions, or you have other questions or comments please contact the undersigned. Very tru BBLEy yours, CLA IS A ARCHITECTS Brian L. Venable, AIA Associate sab. cc: Mr. Ferd Belz - Hadid Investment Group, Inc. Mr. Richard Prilop - Ritz -Carlton Hotel Company Mr. Shaun Yancey - PCL Construction W709C.00 ASPEN/PITRIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET .ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 920-5440 February 21, 1989 Mr. Brian L. Venable, AIA Clark, Tribble, Harris & Li Architects C/o PCL Construction Services 200 Filmore Street #300 Denver, Colorado 80206 Attentions Mr. Shaun P. Yancey Project Manager - Ritz Carlton, Aspen Dear Brian, Enclosed please find responses to your letter of 1/27/89 receipted by this office 2/8/89. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify code items effecting your design. As discussed at our 1/19/89 meeting, Building Department responses to your questions pertain only to those matters of code Involving .the OBC and other related ICBO codes as locally adopted. We do not address items of land use, zoning, P City Council approvals nor do we address items of the PDD. It is possible that code requirements may dictate a design at variance with approvals of the above parties and groups. It will therefore continue to be -your responsibility to detect such items and bring them to a successful resolution with all Involved parties. We are looking forward to working with you and to the successful conclusion of your project. ■ Responses to letter 1/26/89, Clark, Tribble, Harris & Li 1) For building code purposes, all connected structures shall be considered one building. Structures which are physically separate shall meet the required wall and opening protection, roof covering requirements of UBC (1988), Section 504 (c). 2) The building shall be classified as required by UBC (1988), Section 1701. Since details of construction were not assessed at our 1/19/89 meeting, a type of construction can not be fixed at this time. however, since Type I construction is allowed unlimited area and height by Tables 5-C and 5-D a design to these requirements will be conservative. Please note the use of area separation walls by UBC (1988) , Section 505 (e) may permit the building to be classed to a lower order of construction. 3) (a) A ballroom with an occupant load >300 and no stage shall be A2.1. (b) Meeting and board rooms may be classed as A2.11 A3, or B2 as a function of occupant load. See UBC (1988) Table 5- A. (c) Storage of hazardous materials shall be within a H occupancy as described by UBC (1988),'Chapter 9 and meet the requirements of the fire code. Storage of non -hazardous materials may be within a B2 occupancy. (d) Office shall be B-2. (e) Parking garage shall be B-1. (f) Restaurants shall be B-2 if OL<50s A-3 if OL>50 but <300 and A2.1 otherwise. (g) Lobby and adjoining offices shall be A-3 for OL>50. (h) Kitchen accessary to A-3 shall be A-31 no separation is required. See UBC (1988), Section 503 (a) 2.D. (i) Retail shall be B-2. (j) Hotel shall be R-1. 4) City of Aspen is currently under UBC (1979). We anticipate adopting the UBC (1988) and related codes this Spiing. Since your project is proposed as a fast track, each phase submitted for permit shall meet the requirements of the code edition in effect at that time. However, for consistency and reduced confusion it is suggested the entire project be designed under UBC (1988) and related codes. Please note plumbing and electrical codes are as required by the state and are the 1988 and 1987 editions respectively. Fb ) Occupant load factors are per U unction of use. As such, dance floor e calculated on 7 sf/occupant. In t) ost restrictive shall apply. See U ection 3302 (a) 1. Exit width shall 3303 (b). Occupancy by signage construction. See UBC (1988), Section 3C (1988) , Table 33-A as a s and auditorium uses shall ie case of a mixed use, the BC (1988), Section 103 and be by UBC (1988) , Section is not permitted for new 3302 (b) . 6) Corridors shall meet requirements of UBC (1988), Section 3305. Exiting through storage areas is prohibited by UBC (1988), Section 3303 (e). 7) Cuest room doors shall meet the requirements of UBC (1988), Section 3304 (c) , (I), (j) and W . Door width is not regulated except for those units required to be handicap accessible. Handicap guest room doors are required to be 360 in width by state statute. Reference standard ANSI 1980 4.13.5. 8) Handicap room count shall be as required by Aspen City Board of Appeals. 9) See item C in WL Thompson letter of 1/27/89 (copy enclosed). 10) Stair widths are to meet the minimums of UBC (1988), Sef:tion 3306 (b) such that the basic width of exitinq required by U.T3C (1988), Section 3303(b) is maintained. The concept of units of exit width as addressed in the Life Safety Code is not used by the UBC. 11) Stairway to roof is required by UBC (1988), Section 3306. Such stairway must meet the requirements of UBC (1988), Section 3306 including headroom. The reference to hatch requirements is meant to apply to roof slopes greater than 4 in 12 where such hatch would still be required although stairway would not. Therefore roof access shall be through a door meeting requirements of UBC (1988), Section 3304. Please note, UBC (1988), Section 3306(m) requires all required interior stairways extending to the top floor to have an approved openable hatch. This requirement is removed for stairways placed in smoke roof enclosures. 12) Ramp Width to garage if used as exiting from that level shall meet the requirements of UBC (1988), Section-330(b). 13) Boiler rooms in R-1 occupancies are required to have one hour separation by UBC (1988), Section 1213, consistent however with the general fire resistant requirements for Type I construction outlined in UBC (1988), Table 17-A. 14) See item A) W.L. Thompson reply (enclosed). 15) Plywood roof framing is not acceptable by UBC (1988), Table 17-A and UBC (1988), Section 1802. However, when used as part of a tested class B roof assembly as required by UBC (1988) , Table 32-A, its use will be permitted. m, i3 130 south galena street J U N 5 1990 aspen, Colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 -- June 20, 1990 Clark, Tribble, Harris and Li Architects 1250 24th Street, N.W. Suite 350 Washington, D.C. -20037 Attention: Mr. Brian L. Venable Re: Ritz Carlton Aspen, Colorado Dear Brian: In response to your letter and fax dated May 31, 1990, the city of Aspen Engineering Department is in agreement and approves your height. clearance for truck entry under the arch as indicated on the attached drawing. This agreement is not an approval for any other bu8ldiny height or feature as detailed on the drawing. All building dimensions and architectural appearance features shall be approved through the building, planning and zoning departments. The City of Aspen will not be responsible for damage to your building due to trucks damaging the sides or arch of the building. I also visualize a traffic congestion problem at your loading area with forty foot rigs backing into the dock area. Very truly yours, abort F. Gis Publ is Works irec:tur RFG/mg/Ritz 1 CC. Amy Margerum Gary Lyman Anna Goodrich CT- 1UM T%rE 9S May 31, 1990 Mr. Bob Gish Public Works Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Reference: Ritz -Carlton Hotel Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Gish: Confirming our discussions regarding the bridge clearances at Dean Street, our current design provides 14'-0" clearance at the curb line. The clearance provided at the loading dock is 13'-10" to the overhead door. This dimension is based upon the anticipated service trucks, and from data obtained in Graphic Standards (copy attached). Dean Street and the ramp to the loading dock have been designed to accomodate the trucks and their required turning radius. Please review the attached diagrams that outline the above. It is our understanding that your office will issue a letter confirming acceptance of these clearances. We appreciate your timely response in this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me directly. Very truly yours, CLARK BLE H RIS & LI RCHITECTS Brian L. Venable, AIA Associate cc: Ms. Anna Goodrich, Hadid Aspen Holdings Mr. Perry Harvey, Hadid Aspen Holdings Mr. Joe Wells, Joseph Wells Land Planning eel N W n " 2003 _ .rim m 56 Truck and Trailer Sizes L+ SEE TABLE FOR MAX. LENGTH AVERAGE • 65'-0" X 8'-0" WIDE REAR SEMITRAILER LEAD SEMITRAILER 20'-0" TO 28'-0" 20'-O" TO 28'-O" LG I AVERAGE • 27'-0" ZA. .3'O': GOLLY CONVERTER 1 �_Y/ DOUBLE SEMITRAILER AND TRACTOR 1—IM18 al OHIO !�N 01' • VAN DELIVERY TRUCK DOUBLE SEMITRAILER AND TRACTOR -MAX. ALLOWABLE LENGTH 65.-0 In all states except those below 55'-0" Ga., Miss., N.J., N.Y. 60'-0" Iowa, Minn., Mont. 70'-0" Alaska, Nev., S.D. 75'-0" Idaho, Ore. 85'-0" Wyo. NOT PERMITTED in Ala., Conn., Fla., Me., Mass., N.H., N.C., Pa., R.I., S.C., Tenn., Vt., Va., W.Va., Wis., Washington, D.C. SEMITRAILER AND TRACTOR - MAX. ALLOWABLE LENGTH 55'-0" In all states except those below 56'-0" Va., Me. 57'-0" Ind., Ky. 59'-0" Wis. 60'-0" Ark., Calif., Del., Mass., Minn., Mont., Neb., Ohio, Ore., Vt 65'-0" Alaska, Ariz., Colo., Idaho, Kans., La., N.M., N.D., Okla., Texas, Utah, Wash. 70'-0" Nev., S.D. 85'-0" Wyo. STRAIGHT BODY TRUCKS- MAX- ALLOWABLE LENGTH 40'-0" In all states except those below 35'-0" Colo., Ky., Mass., Miss., N.H., N.J., N.Y., N.D., Wash., Wis. 3-0" Ind. 42 -0" III., Kans. 45'-0" Me., Texas, Utah 55'-0" Conn., Ga. 60'-0" Vt., Wyo. L+SEE TABLE FOR MAX. LENGTH AVERAGE- 55'-0" X B'-O" WIDE CITY TRACTOR 1�14OAO TRACTO R ROAO TRACTOR OR CITY TRAC' CONVENTIONAL SEMITRAILER n L = SEE TABLE AVERAGE 45'-0" X 8'- O" WIDE X 4 W LG • SEE TABLE O O< 4 �J O �t#- O O SEMITRAILER AND TRACTOR TIRE SIZE APPROX. 41" 1 DIA. X 10• ! WIOE L L • SEE TABLE FOR MAX. Q IS'-O" TO i7'-O" ' IS.-O..X 8'-O- LENGTH ^ 1!1 x 8'-O" WIDE b ry Q I RA II._9.. TO 21'-O" 3 O.. 10' TO 12' 2� 4'-O' 9'-4" 2' O" 2' er 2' STRAIGHT BODY TRUCK CITY TRACTOR ROAD TRACTOR AVERAGE DIMENSIONS OF VEHICLES TYPE OF VEHICLES DOUBLE SEMITRAILER CONVENTIONAL SEMITRAILER STRAIGHT BODY TRUCK VAN DELIVERY Length (L) 65'-0" 55'-0" 17'-0" to 35'-0" 15'-0" to 20'-0" Width (W) 8'-0" 8' 0" 8'-0" T-0" Height (H) 13'-6" 13'-6" 13'-6" T-O" Floor Height IFH) 4'-0" to 4'-6" 4'-0" to 4'-4" T-0" to 4'-0" 2'-0" to 2'-8" Track (T) 6'-6" 6'-6" 5%10" 5'-0" to 5'4" Rear Axle (RA) T-0" to 4'-0" 4'-0" to 12'-0" 2'-3" to 12'-0" - VEHICLE HEIGHT -MAX. ALLOWABLE AVERAGE SEMITRAILER 13'-6" In all states except those below DIMENSIONS 12'-6" Ky., W.Va. 13'-0" Colo. 14'-0" Idaho, Nev., Wash., Wyo. 14'-6" Neb. LENGTH OF SEMITRAILER (ONLY) - MAX. ALLOWABLE LENGTH Unrestricted in all states except those below 35'-0" Ore. 40'-0" Calif. 45'-0" Alaska, III., Me., Mass., Minn., Ohio, Utah, Wash., Wis. i \ PATH OF / • O LEFT FRONT c -- J.O., � ��' \ \ WHEEL a \ \ r1 ( \ (-' PAT H OF 1 1 I OVERHANG t I H I ..O - I ♦S O" I IN. 1 I PATH OF PRACTICAL TURNING RIGHT REAR R I RAOI US TO CENTER I SIDE POINT OF LEFT- ( O ) p FRONT WHEEL I m O • ~ f TR 0,, X 8._O.. STRAIGHT I 8._O.. c: 33'-0" STRAIGHT BODY TRUCK MIN, PRACTICAL TURNING RADIUS OF 46'-0" Robert H. Loranz, AIA; Preston Trucking Company, Inc.; Preston, Maryland The Operations Council, American Trucking Association; Washington, D.C. TDAAICDrnn—.— — Ai O in 0 f g- 4'- LENGTH(L) 27'-0" 40'-0" 45'-0" REFRIG. 40'-0" Floor height (FH) 4'-2" 4'-2" 4'-2" 4' 9" Rear axle (RA) 3'-0" 5'-2" 5'-10' 4'-5" Landing gear (LG) 19'-0" 30'-0" 34'-6" 29'-5" Cubic feet (CU) 1564t 2327t 2620t 2113t eo• PATH OF LEFT FRONT WHEEL I\/ PATH OF 1 OVERHANG PATH OF RIGHT REAR SIDE g I I I¢ WHEEL \ I 0 0 \ I N 45--O" SEMITRAILER F� � X 8'-0" UNIT I \ ~G \ I � 0 I me \ml m 1 ! -4.8'-0 55'-0" SEMITRAILER AND TRACTOR COMBINATION MIN. PRACTICAL TURNING RADIUS OF 50'-0" _.. Mae _.._.■_.._.._.. _.._... .._.._.._.._.. r.._.■_... SKI SHCr F/ = t� ,m m tow aim �.�.� 1—• may 11■� l�u■� 101 • aaI ■�E-r-a•: P* Doremus &weu.s an association of land planners March 27, 1989 Mr. Alan Richman Director, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Insubstantial Amendments to the Ritz -Carlton PUD Development Order Dear Alan: My letter is to modify my letter of February 28, 1989 regarding our Insubstantial Amendment request for the Ritz -Carlton to include some additional items as we disussed. These have been incorporated into this new memo by adding new Items 4, 5, 7 and 20 and renumbering the old items accordingly. Language has also been added to Items 6 and 13 as renumbered. I am also incorporating some new drawings as well as some revised sheets into the set submitted on February 28 to reflect these changes. We believe that these changes fall within the standards of Section 7-907(a), Insubstantial Amendment of PUD Development Order, which limits such changes to technical or engineering considerations which were not anticipated during the approval process. The measurements which are given in this memo have been arrived at by scaling the distance between various points on the building and the top floor elevations as stated on the revised elevation drawings, to establish a spot elevation at that point on the building. These are then compared to similar measurements made from the recorded drawings. It is important to note, however, that the target elevations shown on the recorded drawings govern; scaling drawings is generally not a good idea and that is certainly the case with this project, as well. As you know, work on the foundations for the building is well underway. While all of the items listed are important, we would like to make a final decision on the loading dock (item #6) as quickly as possible, since it is affecting progress on the construction documents. 608 east hymar avenue = ascen. ,:c craao 81611 teiephcre 303 925-6866 Mr. Alan Richman March 27, 1989 Page Two In any case, the owners are not presently contemplating going back to City Council for review of any of these changes because of the construction delays that such an approach would cause. They are requesting that you consider each of the items individually and determine whether any of them fail to meet the standards for your signoff. The following outlines the revisions included on the drawings: 1. Typical dormer heights on the upper level of the Main Building and South Wing have been raised by between l'-0" and l'-8" from the top floor slab to maintain the minimum ceiling height of 7'6" for habitable space required under the building code. [Section 1207(a)]. At the Blue Spruce Building, the necessary increase is l'-8". 2. Typical window sizes for the rooms have been increased throughout to meet the building code exit requirements (Section 1204) as well as the requirement for glass areas of a minimum of 10% of room floor area (Section 1205). The relationship of window to brick per room module was approximately 26% on the recorded drawings; that relationship is now about 33%. 3. Dormers have been added to the 4th floor at each end of the Dean Avenue facade and at the north end of the Monarch Street facade to meet the glass requirement and minimum ceiling height for these rooms. A dormer has also been added to the east of the Dean Street/Mill Street corner tower to maintain minimum ceiling height. The floor plans on the plat drawings clearly anticipated that these corners of the building would be useable floor space (see Sheet A6). 4. The inlets to the leader boxes (which enclose the gutters) have been enlarged at the request of the snow consultants to increase the surface area and capacity for roof runoff. These are typically located between all of the dormers. 5. The plans and the west elevation of the Monarch Street wing have been revised to reflect the changes presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Following the redesign of this wing, which resulted in the elmination of the notch in the exterior facade and the shortening of the overall length of the wing, the plans were not modified properly prior to recording of the amendments to reflect steps in- the facade as approved. Mr. Alan Richman March 27, 1989 Page Three The steps in the Monarch Street facade have now been correctly added to the plans and the northern double -arched dormer has been moved one bay further to the north to reflect this change. 6. The loading dock has been extended toward Dean by 6 feet so that the door to the loading dock can be kept closed when small trucks are in the loading dock. This also allows the use of a larger trash compactor so that we can be sure to avoid problems with trash service similar to those occuring elsewhere in town. This is, of course, the main entry to the hotel and once it was determined that the shift in this area did not affect pedestrian movement or the turning radii for trucks as previously agreed, it was viewed as a positive change for all concerned, including neighbors of the project. There is now only one door on the loading dock and the windows along the Monarch Street side of the loading dock have been rearranged. The detailing over the windows along Monarch Street (Sheet A-12) at the loading dock has been changed to an arched shape to reflect the detailing elsewhere in the building at this level. 7. The vertical bridge support on the south side of Dean Street has been shifted approximately five feet to the south from that shown on the First Amended Plat Drawings to provide for greater clearance for vehicles passing under the bridge between the Main Building and the Blue Spruce Building. 8. The two elevator penthouses have been increased in height and width to meet code requirements and to provide for machinery requirements. The elevation of the elevator tower facade in the northwest corner of the Main Building is now 103.92 feet, compared to 101.33 as shown on the plat. The width of the tower is now 31 feet along Dean (unchanged from the plat) and 30 feet along Monarch (the elevator tower was not shown on the Monarch Street Elevation on the plat). The elevation of the tower facade in the south wing along Mill Street is now 112.58 feet. The tower on the plat was at 107.83 feet. The width along Mill Street is now 24 feet, compared to 15 feet previously. The last-minute change during the review process to eliminate rooms and create a separate south wing caused the addition of this elevator core. In the intensive effort to produce drawings for recordation, there was inadequate time to properly study the design of this added feature. Mr. Alan Richman March 27, 1989 Page Four 8a. In three locations, stair towers and the adjacent section of the facade between dormers have been extended to allow access to the roof to meet the Building Department's requirements (Section 3306 m,o) -- along Mill Street at the Main Building, the tower is about 1'-8" higher and at the north end of the south wing, the tower is about 5'-6"higher; at the south end of the Monarch Street elevation, the tower is about 6 feet higher. We had previously anticipated that this requirement could be met with a trap door and ladder as approved elsewhere in town. The windows in the stair towers have also been reduced in size by the Structural Engineer because of shear requirements; the stair stringers also would have been visible with the previous stair tower window layout. 9. Circular vents have been added to each dormer as the only means to get air into the cold roof area, since there are no roof overhangs in the design. 10. The concrete balustrade has been eliminated at the lower level of rooms along Dean Street of the Main Building and on the Durant and Dean Street facades of the Blue Spruce Building so that the railing detail is the same as the other rooms without balconies. The balustrade is retained where balconies do occur. 11. In two locations, the facade has been extended approxi- mately 6 feet in order to maintain the required minimum ceiling height of 7'-6" -- above the Dean street bridge and at the South Wing of the Mill Street facade. These areas are of limited width between two dormers in both cases. Again, use of these areas was anticipated on the floor plans (Sheets A6 and A8. 12. The arched double bay dormer which occurs twice on each of the three exterior facades has been increased in width to maintain minimum ceiling heights and to resolve problems in detailing the leader boxes (gutter enclosures). 13. The roof design of the Apres-Ski Lounge has been modi- fied so that it is now approximately five feet lower. A chimney has been added for a gas log fireplace in the Apres-Ski Lounge. Height is as required by Code. 14. On the east facade of the Blue Spruce Building, a dormer has been added at the second floor to accommodate the stair. Mr. Alan Richman March 27, 1989 Page Five 15. The elevator tower at the Blue Spruce Building has been eliminated because of a change to hydraulic elevators in the building. Use of these much slower elevators is possible only at the Blue Spruce because they only service two levels above the ground floor. Landscaping Changes: Upon approval of these proposed amendments, the drawing which has been submitted to reflect changes to the landscaping will be spliced into Sheet L-3 of the First Amended Plat and the other Landscape drawings will be modified to reflect these changes. 16. In the courtyard, a number of changes have been made to respond to structural limitations and the code design standards which have been established for that area by the building department. These include a reduction in the number of trees in the lower terrace area, a redesign of the grand staircase from the lower to the upper terrace, and a design change in the pool area. 17. The southwest garden area has been expanded and the quantity of trees increased to blend with the surrounding landscape. The stairway into this area from Monarch Street has been shifted downhill to the north to reduce the number of stairs. 18. At the pedestrian entry and Porte cochere at the north side of the main building, the number of trees has been reduced to ease pedestrian and vehicular circulation. The number of planting beds has been increased to compensate for the loss of trees in the area. 19. In the area of the Apres Ski Lounge, changes in the layout of the stair and the gardens have been made for ease of access into the building. 20. The paving pattern is proposed to be modified in several areas as indicated by the shaded areas to the north and east of the Main Building and around the Blue Spruce Building. It should be noted that although plant materials are being reduced in some areas of the plan, the total count of plant materials throughout the site will at least equal that shown on the amended plat. Mr. Alan Richman March 27, 1989 Page Six It is important to recall that t` e t,37.•D: of the First Amended Plat has bee.i es any necessary Code -related measurement Actual elevations taken in the :ieid al,, generally higher, however, and this has the relationship of some building alemen example of this is the Monarch Street p- southwest garden and Courtyard. Please let me know at 925-8080 : _ !Du regarding any of these changes. Regards, Joseph Wells, AICP JW/b 608 east Nyman avenue = aspen. cc - 1a Aspen/Pitk 130 s a s p e Mr. Joe Wells Doremus and Wells 608 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Joe, i 10,nning street Office .81611 March 30, 1989 Following is my response to the modified application you have submitted, requesting insubstantial amendments to the Ritz - Carlton PUD development order. I have performed a detailed review, pursuant to Sec. 7-907 A of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, of the 21 items identified in your letter dated March 27, 1989. I hereby approve item # 1, dormer heights,q/�`r leader boxes, #5, Monarch Street elevation, #9, circular vents, #10, concrete balustrade, #13, Apres Ski Lounge roof design, and #15, elimination of Blue Spruce elevator tower. These approvals are subject to submission of replacement drawings, which must be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits. All other requests are hereby denied for the following reasons. 1. Item #2, window sizes, affects the representations made about the overall look of the facade. The windows are much more prominent than previously. The requirement of the Building Code should have been anticipated during the review process. Please contact the Building Department to identify other solutions or submit as a formal PUD amendment. 2. Item #3, added dormers, #11, facade extension, #12, arched double bay dormer, and #14, Blue Spruce stair, all affect the representations made about stepping the building down to the ground. The look of the building is significantly changed, and, in my opinion, is not as effective as the prior design in reducing perceived bulk. Please consider other methods of meeting the building's requirements and submit the resulting proposal as a formal PUD amendment. 3. Item #6, loading dock and #7, vertical bridge support, are acceptable in concept, and I had given you a verbal indication the loading dock change would be approved. However, the new elevations you have submitted are quite different than those submitted in the original package received on March 1. Because of the substantial change in the design and location of the bridge supports and the Monarch/Dean corner of the hotel, please submit these changes, along with documentation that the pedestrian movements and truck turning radii are not affected, for review as a formal PUD amendment. 4. Item #8, elevator penthouses and #8A, stair towers are not eligible for staff approval, because they exceed the maximum height limit of the zone district. The variations granted to the project were specific to the approved design. Further variations will require City Council approval. 5. Items #16 through #20, landscaping amendments, do not provide the necessary detail or justification for approval. Item #16, courtyard landscaping, results in 8 less trees being provided, without compensation. Item #17, southwest garden area, suggests that there are more trees, but appears to show fewer trees and more shrubs. Item #18, pedestrian entries, replaces trees with shrubs because of circulation problems. However, no documentation of a problem is provided for this reduction. Item #19, Apres Ski Lounge layout, results in the loss of trees. Item #20, paving pattern modifications, is not well documented or detailed. It is possible that some of these proposals are not as severe as I have described them herein, but the lack of a key on the drawing and the lack of supporting information leads me to reject the requests. These proposals should be submitted for formal PUD amendment, which supporting documentation. Once you have had a chance to discuss these decisions with your client, I would be happy to meet with you to explain my reasoning or to discuss the options which are available. Please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, A an Richman, AICP Planning Director wellsltr %I . DOMMUs & weLLs an association of land planners June 8, 1989 Mr. Alan Richman Aspen Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Insubstantial Amendments to the Ritz -Carlton PUD Development Order Dear Alan: My letter is to provide you with an update regarding our previous request for approval of insubstantial amendments for the Ritz - Carlton, Aspen and to request your further consideration of a very limited number of issues based on this additional information. The relevant correspondence on this matter includes our original request of February 28, later replaced by our March 27, 1989 letter and your March 30, 1989 letter approving some of the requested amendments and rejecting others. Based on your March 30 letter, we have been proceeding with development of construction documents and replacement plat drawings which incorporate the following approval items as listed in my March 27 letter: 1. Change in typical dormer heights 4. Enlarged leader boxes 5. Modifications to organization of Monarch Street facade 9. Addition of circular dormer vents 10. Change in portions of the concrete balustrade along Dean Street and at the Blue Spruce building. 13. Lowering of apres-ski lounge roof and chimney addition 15. Elimination of the elevator tower at the Blue Spruce building In addition, as a result of my clarification regarding the loading dock, you agreed in your April 17 letter that the loading dock could proceed as shown in the attachment of my letter, which illustrated the six foot extension to the north. 608 east hyman avenue u aspen, colorado 81611 ❑ telephone. 303 925-6866 . Mr. Alan Richman June 8, 1989 Page Two With regard to the remaining items listed in the March 27 request, we believe the more controversial of these have been resolved in a manner which will be entirely to your satisfaction. In order to avoid any confusion, however, some clarification on some of these issues is in order. The following discussion refers to the items as numbered in your -March 27 letter. 2. Agreement has been reached with the Building Department regarding the minimum glass area which will be required under Section 1208 of the Building Code. As Perry discussed with you on June 1, the attached drawings which reflect this requirement illustrate, we believe, that the windows are much less prominent than as shown on the March 27 submission. The relationship of window to brick per room module is now about 28.5% as compared to approximately 26% on the recorded drawings. 3. All of the dormers discussed have been eliminated to maintain the appearance of the facade as shown on the recorded drawings. 7. The bridge over Dean Street has been revised to very closely approximate that shown on the recorded plat. (See sheet A-17) 8. The height of the two remaining elevator penthouses at the northwest corner of the main building and in the south wing have been reduced to that shown on the October 3 recorded set. This has been accomplished by resorting to a highly unusual, and consequently very expensive, relocation of the machine rooms to the mezzanine level of the building. The width of the elevator tower at the northwest corner of the main building remains as shown on the March 27 submittal - 31 feet (unchanged) along Dean and 30 feet (not shown previously) along Monarch. The width of the south wing tower along Mill Street has been reduced to that shown on the plat. Mr. Alan Richman June 8, 1989 Page Three 8a. A solution has been worked out with the Building Department that has allowed the architects to reduce the height of tie three stair towers and adjacent sections o the facade to that shown on the October 3 plat. Ther was no mention in your letter of the window chan es in the stair towers which were shown prev ously. These changes have been necessitated by more cautious recommendations included in a new soils repot. The structural engineer has required the changes in the window layout, (including relocation to the north of the large entry level window at the ski shop) to meet the more stringent shear requirements as a result of the revised soils report. 11. The two sections of facade have been reduced to the height shown on the recorded plat. 12. The detail for the arched double bay dormer has been revised to that shown on the recorded plat. 14. The dormer added to the east facade on the Blue Spruce Building to accommodate the stair has been removed. Please note the following additional changes which have not been discussed in our prior letters: A section of the concrete balustrade at the north end of the courtyard (See Sheet A 16) is now solid because it is functioning as an upturned beam in response to structural requirements. h In the courtyard area, one module of windows have been reduced in size where bathrooms are located (See sheet A-14, elevation 2.) We believe this creates some added variety and because they are located in the lower courtyard area are not highly visible to the public, in any case. Mr. Alan Richman June 8, 1989 Page Four We are submitting for your review revised landscape drawings L 1 through L 4 (as well as a revised Final PUD Plan, sheet 6)in order to clear up any confusion that may have been created by submission of a single drawing previously. Our previous comments can be modified as follows: 16. In the courtyard, a number of changes have been made to respond to structural limitations and the code design standards which have been established for that area by the Building Department. These include a reduction in the number of trees in the lower terrace area, a redesign of the grand staircase from the lower to the upper terrace, and a design change in the pool area. 17. The southwest garden area has been expanded and the quantity of trees increased to blend with the surrounding landscape. The stairway into this area from Monarch Street has been modified to respond to detailed topographic information and structural limitations. 18. At the pedestrian entry and porte cochere at the north side of the main building, the number of trees has been retained as shown on the plat. Large planting beds have been added to reduce the quantity of paving and to soften the impression of the building. 19. In the area of the Apres Ski Lounge, changes in the layout of the stair and the gardens have been made for LM ease of access into the building. 20. The original paving pattern has been reintroduced in those areas where previously deletedto the north and east of the Main Building and at the Blue Spruce Building. Mr. Alan Richman June 8, 1989 Page Five 21. Although plant materials are being reduced in some areas of the plan, the number of street trees on Mill, Monarch and Dean remains the same and the total count gor�-Iant materials throughout the site has ireased. The following is a comparison of plant materials quantities: AS SHOWN ON PLAT REVISED DRAWINGS DIFFERENCE Colorado Spruce 0 19 +19 Norway Maples 43 67 +24 Crabapple/ 70 10 -60 Chokecherry Aspen 22 72 +50 135 168 +33 22. As a result of the changes nec ssitated in the courtyard, there is a minor reduction in open space from 42,000 square feet to 41,461 square feet. This is still in excess of the minimum to be provided of 40,000 square feet as represented on sheet 3 of the recorded plat (Item No. 15.) N MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Consultant - ' K RE: Results of Review of Ritz -Carlton Building Plans DATE: April 18, 1990 I have reviewed the building plans submitted for the Ritz - Carlton, dated March 15, 1990. After comparing these plans to the Second Amended PUD drawings (on record with the City, dated July 13, 1990), the following items were "red -lined" for discussion with the project's representatives. Responses to each item by the representatives at today's meeting are also shown. 1. There are no FAR calculations on the submitted plan set, making verification impossible at this time. Response: FAR calculations will be submitted with an updated plan set next week. 2. "Site plan" issues to be discussed are as follows: Sheet A 1.01 * Tunnel under Mill Street is new. Has Engineering reviewed? Applicant should only be put on notice that since a connection has not yet been approved, he will be proceeding at his own risk. Response: The representatives agreed there was no reliance on the completion of the tunnel. The updated plans will label this area as "storage" only. Sheet A 1.03 and A 2.11 * Ski shop has been moved internal to the building, off Mill Street. This reduces public access to the building and may result in less "street activity" than was represented for this location. Response: This plan revision was caused by a UBC requirement for exiting from the building which the architect did not originally anticipate. The representatives would also prefer to have the ski shop on the building's exterior and will consult further with the Building Department to see if this requirement can be met in another manner. Otherwise, the representatives will provide a memo from the Building Department confirming the need for the stairs in this location. * The two planters at the Mill/Dean Street corner appear to have been eliminated. As further illustrated in the elevation (Sheet A 3.01), there are new walls around the building on Dean Street. Response: The planters have actually been expanded in size and now include walls usable as seating. Additional landscaping is also being provided in place of some of the previously approved paving. The City should have adequate bonding for this work since it now holds bonds for landscaping and for filling in the excavation. The walls will be removed from the next plan set. * The pedestrian entrance to altered significantly. As elevation (Sheet A 3.02), i t Response: The architect agreed to prepare "true" elevations of this area which he suggests will demonstrate that the new design is more, rather than less open to the public. Sheet A 1.03 and A 2.13 * An "areaway" has been shown along Monarch Street, adjacent to the loading dock. Will this area cause any noise, odor, smoke or other problems for neighbors? Response: The areaway is needed for air intake to the laundry. It is located on private property and was represented to cause no noise, odors or smoke. * The curb design along Monarch has been altered. Will this change the number of parking spaces on the street? Will it change the City's snow sweeping requirements? Response: The neckdown has been removed from this area for reasons which are still unclear. The landscape architect will be contacted and will report back to the City on impacts on parking, snow removal and trees. Sheet A 1.03/1.04/1.05 * The design of the "Blue Spruce" building has changed slightly, increasing its total floor area. Calculations of the increase should be provided. Response: The representatives stated that the changed configuration results in a lesser, not greater FAR. This should be confirmed when the new FAR calculations are received. The change in the Blue Spruce plans will need to be processed as a change order to the Blue Spruce building permit, which has been issued previously. 2 Sheet A 1.06 * The locations of the bridge abutments in Dean Street appear to have changed. Engineering needs to re -check the adequacy of truck turning movements. As shown on the elevations (Sheet A 3.01), other significant design changes have also been made to the bridge. o l� Response: The representatives expressed a willingneo to explore putting the pedestrian way back into the project It will be necessary to design this area to insure no conflict between pedestrians and trucks in the loading dock. Other design changes to the bridge are due to the requirement imposed by Engineering that trucks be provided 141, 6" of clearance under the bridge. Bob Gish indicated a willingness to look at this requirement again if it had substantial visual benefit and if the applicant can demonstrate that trucks of this size need not be accomodated. Sheet A 1.07 and A 2.44; Sheet A 1.08 and A 2.52 * There is an extra door to the corridor from the Ritz - Carlton suites on the fourth and fifth floors. If this extra door is required by Building Code (someone must verify) then a note should be placed in the permit file that each unit can never be separated into two units. If no such Building Code requirement exists, the second door should be eliminated. Response: It was agreed that notes would be placed on the next set of plat documents to be recorded, as well as in the Building Department and Zoning Office files. 3. Issues associated with the architectural elevations to be discussed are as follows: Sheet A 3.01 Dean Street Elevation * A new horizontal brick element has been introduced along the entire length of the building. This feature appears on all elevations in the plan set. Response: The lower two levels of banding will be eliminated on the next submitted plan set. A rendering will be submitted to the City illustrating the detailed architectural treatment of the facade, permitting staff evaluation of this issue before any further permits are issued. * An extra "pointed" design feature is shown on both corners of the roof. 3 Response: It was demonstrated that this feature was necessary and r no higher than the previously -approved roof design. * New walls appear to have been added at ground level. Response: This feature will be removed from the next plan set.'~ * There is a change in the facade pattern between the "rounded" and the "pointed" elements. Response: It was agreed this change was insubstantial.-*' * There are new "eyebrow connections" over the windows. This feature appears on all elevations in the plan set. * The design of the windows in many areas of the project has changed. These changes include size, location, type and number of windows provided. Response: These features will also be illustrated on the renderings which will be submitted for staff' review. Monarch Street Elevation * The pedestrian way under the bridge has been l eliminated. * The bridge abutment appears to be much more massive. Response: Discussed above. * The height of the elevator has increased. ✓ Response: This is an error which will be corrected on the next plan set. Sheet A 3.02 * The entrance to the garden terrace has changed and does not appear to be as open to the public. Response: Discussed above. * The height of the elevator has increased. Response: The applicant contends that this height increase was approved by staff during amendments to the project in 1989. This could not be confirmed by a review of written materials during the meeting and is inconsistent with the final drawings which were recorded last year. Unless written evidence to the contrary is provided by the representatives, the height should be reduced. 4 Sheet A 3.04 * A large smokestack tower has been added to this elevation. Response: The representatives felt this matter had been discussed with staff last year and the change to the drawing was therefore insubstantial. Unless written evidence of some staff action on this matter is presented by the representatives, this change should be considered as a new request. It may be necessary to pass this change by the Planning Commission for input. Sheet A 3.05 * The height of the elevator has increased. Response: The response is the same as that for Sheet A 3.02. cc: Bob Gish Amy Margerum Bill Drueding Hadid Aspen Holdings ritzplancheck 5 z P2 V) w arc LLI V) cool 0 Z 0 Q w w C/) Q w ��iYiL 'm �; 0 •� V \ i � . `air � �� ► .. x :n :>a 0. Q �-_