HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo_7.5.16Page 1 of 12
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE: Gorsuch Haus (S. Aspen Street) –Planned Development and Associated Reviews –
Resolution No. , Series 2016 – Public Hearing
MEETING
DATE: July 5, 2016
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Norway Island, LLC
Aspen Skiing Company, LLC
(owner)
REPRESENTATIVE:
Design Workshop, Inc.
LOCATION:
Four parcels, at the top of and
along the east side of S. Aspen
Street (Lift 1A).
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Located in the Conservation (C)
zone district. The current use of
the property is as the base of a
ski lift (Lift 1A)
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting to
develop a hotel with
commercial, free-market
residential and affordable
housing. Additionally, lift 1A is
proposed to be relocated.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission request changes to the proposal and continue
the hearing to July 19th.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning
Commission a recommendation of approval for a number
of land use reviews in order to redevelop the site with a
new mixed use building and relocate the Lift 1A base.
Photo: Lift 1 A
Page 2 of 12
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting a consolidated review, meaning all final decisions are granted by the
City Council and the following land use requests will be recommendations by the Planning and
Zoning Commission:
• Planned Development - Project Review (Chapter 26.445) to establish dimensional
requirements for the project as required for property requesting Ski Base zone district
designation. (The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council.
City Council is the final review authority).
• Rezoning (Chapter 26.310) to amend the underlying zone district for the property. The
Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is
the final review authority).
• Conceptual Commercial Design Review (Chapter 26.412, and the Commercial Design
Guidelines) for construction of a mixed-use development. (As a consolidated review, the
Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. (City Council is
the final review authority).
• 8040 Greenline Review (Chapter 26.435) to develop in an Environmentally Sensitive Area.
(As a consolidated review, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to
City Council. City Council is the final review authority).
• Mountain View Plane (Chapter 26.435) to develop in an Environmentally Sensitive Area. (As
a consolidated review, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to City
Council. City Council is the final review authority).
• GMQS Reviews (Chapter 26.470) for residential multi-family, affordable housing, lodging and
commercial development and allotments. (As a consolidated review, the Planning and Zoning
Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council is the final review
authority.)
• Major Subdivision for the reconfiguration of the existing parcels pursuant to Land Use Code
Chapter 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority who may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the proposal after considering a recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission).
• Vested Property Rights for the development proposal, which allows the development to be
built after approval without meeting any zoning or land use changes during a prescribed time
period, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.308 (City Council is the final review authority).
The Applicant is requesting a vesting period of ten years rather than the standard three year
period.
Planned Development – Project Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission is the first
step in a three step review process. Once heard by the Commission, the City Council will review
the application and recommendations of the Commission at a public hearing. This is the second
step of Planned Development review. If approved by City Council, the Applicant may then make
an application for Planned Development – Detailed Review which is reviewed before the Planning
Page 3 of 12
and Zoning Commission (step three). Additional land use approvals necessary for this project are
consolidated with the Project Review portion of the Planned Development (steps 1 & 2).
The property is currently located in the Conservation zone district and is presently not located in
a zone district that is subject to the requirements of Referendum 1, which requires a public vote of
certain types of projects. Referendum 1 only applies to properties that were located within the CC,
C-1, NC, MU, L, LP, and LO zones on January 1, 2015.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant, Norway Island, LLC (which has received consent to submit a land use application
by the Aspen Skiing Co., LLC) is requesting approval to redevelop four parcels located at the end
of S. Aspen Street where Lift 1A is located. The city/county boundary crosses one of the subject
parcels (Government Lot 31) as shown in Figure 1 1.
Figure 1: Subject parcels and jurisdictional boundary 2
The applicant requests to develop the parcels with a new mixed use building that will contain:
• 62 lodge units with 81 lodge keys (flexible configuration)
• 6 free-market residential units
• 1 affordable housing unit
• 9,111 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable area inclusive of a restaurant, Aspen Ski Co.
operations and some retail
• 58 parking spaces located in a subgrade garage
1 When a property is located within two jurisdictions, development may only occur within the boundary of the entity
reviewing the land use request.
2Subsequent images will only show Government Lot 31 to the Pitkin County/City of Aspen jurisdictional boundary.
Page 4 of 12
Figure 2: Proposed site plan
Typical lodging amenities are proposed such
as a flex/meeting room, spa, and fitness room
as part of the lodge. A new, relocated chair lift
is proposed and a number of rights of way are
requested to be vacated. Overall 67,781 sq. ft.
of Floor Area for the development is
proposed.
KEY ISSUES: There are eight different land
use review processes related to the current
application, as listed on page 2 of the staff
memo. Many contain the same or similar
standards; for example, criteria for a Planned
Development (PD), a Rezoning and a
Subdivision all require adequate public
facilities be available to serve the
development and consideration of the natural
environment in the review. Rather than go
through each review process one at a time, this
memo is written in a more narrative form,
focusing on the “Key Issues” that staff has
identified. The memo will reference various
standards of review. Complete responses to
review criteria are included as exhibits to this
memo.
(1) Site Planning:
The property is currently comprised of four
parcels, with various existing easements on
the properties (for example there is a fire
access/drainage easement along the Mountain
Queen condominiums). The four parcels equal a total of 278,162 sq. ft. (over 6 acres) within the
municipal boundary. The applicant is requesting to reconfigure the four existing parcels while
maintaining the same number of lots. Besides existing easements, there are three city rights of
way that the applicant requests be vacated: the southerly half of Hill Street, all of Summit Street,
and the easterly half of S. Aspen Street. Proposed Lot 1 will contain the main bulk of the hotel
with amenity areas such as exterior terraces, walkways, stairways and underground building
structure on separate lots. The new ski lift will also be located on a different lot.
The lodge building is generally rectangular in shape and is proposed to sit at the termination of S.
Aspen Street as Shown in Figure 2 (at a cul-de-sac (L)). The building then steps up the site for
approximately 330 feet in two to four story modules. A series of terraces step up the slope on the
eastern side of the building and public access to the relocated ski lift is from the cul-de-sac by
walking around the ‘toe’ (C) of the building along a series of low steps. A pull-off for arriving
guests is near the lodge entry (D), while a bus stop is proposed along the cul-de-sac (M). The ski
lift (A) is to be moved slightly to the east from its current location and uphill.
Page 5 of 12
Extensive grading is proposed along the eastern side of the building to provide for a gentle skier
return to the lift and continued skiing downhill, through the Lift One Lodge site, terminating at
Dean Street. Some of the grading requires retaining walls on the lower part of the site by the
Caribou condominiums, Lift One Lodge and the ‘toe’ of the building. The current summer access
road that is used by Ski Co. is proposed to be relocated from the western side of the site to the
eastern side which is also the area designated for the skier return (J & K).
Staff Comment: Overall, staff recognizes that a lodge development is an appropriate use at the
base of Lift 1A. However, staff is concerned with some of the fundamentals of the site plan. The ski
lift is moved further uphill, albeit at a lower elevation. This makes for a longer distance to get to
the lift as it is further from the cul-de-sac (which is how the public will access the lift) although
the walk may be a bit easier. The public access is also not well thought out for a person with a
disability. A person with a disability (wheel chair) cannot get around the building to access the lift
but would need to go into the hotel lobby, take an elevator upstairs, go through the ‘great room’
and exit to the outside ski plaza.
With the proposed site plan, the lift would now be located to the east of the lodge building which
wraps around the lift, effectively shutting it off from Aspen Street. This is a departure from how
both Lift 1A and the gondola are accessed currently, where both are essentially located at the
termination of a public right-of way. The location of the lodge building essentially privatizes the
lift and moves it uphill, making it more difficult to access and does not preserve a visual feature
that “contributes to the identity of the town.” It also does not “Provide pedestrian ways that
accommodate convenient access.”
While staff recognizes that this is a sloped site, staff is concerned about the retainage that is being
proposed and would like more details in the form of elevations and sections to understand the
scale of some of these structures (including the terraces and exterior walkways/lifts) as well as the
grading. Additionally the site does not adequately consider the overall planning that has gone into
neighboring sites to have a platter lift serve people from Dean Street to Lift 1A through the Lift
One Lodge project.
The 1997 Aspen Mountain Master Plan, developed by Aspen Skiing Co., anticipated replacement
of the Shadow Mountain Lift (1A) with a completely different location for the bottom terminal but
also recognized that if the new location did not happen, the “lift would be rebuilt at its current
lower terminal.” The master plan also contemplated a lower lift from the Willoughby Park location
to create a more convenient access point for skiers. Staff is unsure as to whether this more recent
platter lift proposal was taken into consideration by the applicant 3. Also, staff is concerned that
the skier return proposed is very narrow and serves multiple purposes, creating potential conflicts.
The applicant proposes that the city vacate 13,586 sq. ft. of platted right of way. Staff questions
the community benefit of vacating the rights of way, especially Hill Street and S. Aspen Street as
city utilities (water and electric) are located within Hill Street and people can currently ski down
S. Aspen Street to the paved road/parking area, which will not be viable if vacated.
3 Lift One Lodge is required to provide a financial contribution towards a platter lift.
Page 6 of 12
Figure 3: Proposed streets to be vacated
Currently staff does not see vacation of the
rights-of-way to be in the best interest of the
city, as the proposed site plan limits
pedestrian access options to the mountain
and closes off the lift access from the street.
The request does not “demonstrate the
right-of-way, or portion thereof, has no
current or future use to the community as
a vehicular way, pedestrian or bike way,
utility corridor, drainage corridor, or
recreational connection.”
Additionally, with regard to the
subdivision, the shape of the proposed lots
are irregular and do not provide access to
the street for all lots. As such the proposal
does not conform to criterion requiring that
“the proposed lot lines shall approximate, to the extent practical, the platting of the Original
Aspen Townsite,” Staff believes it is inappropriate to have improvements associated with the
hotel, including some structural components, on a different lot, as this will essentially create a
nonconformity. The applicant also proposes encroachments into the remaining S. Aspen Street
right-of way which is not supported by staff.
Figure 4: Proposed lot configuration
Lot 1
Lot 4
Lot 2
Lot 3
Page 7 of 12
There are also technical issues that need to be addressed. Currently an easement sits along the
eastern side of the property benefitting the Mountain Queen condominiums. This easement, which
is a dirt roadway, provides fire access and is plowed in the winter. This area is shown as part of
the ski return; however adequate fire protection will need to be provided and the easement
beneficiaries will need to vacate the easement. With the current design of the building certain fire
code provisions will not be met, particularly a requirement that the design of the project provide
fire apparatus access. Engineering is concerned that the cul-de-sac is undersized compared to city
requirements and also wants clarity on the pull-offs and sidewalks.
Figure 5: Existing zone districts
(2) Dimensions Proposed/Programming:
The applicant is proposing a rezoning from
Conservation (C) to Ski Base Area (SKI)
for the existing four parcels. Development
within the SKI zone district requires
approval of a Planned Development (PD) to
establish the dimensional requirements of
the project, as the underlying zone district
does not have any dimensional
requirements. The Applicant is requesting
Project Review approval which focuses “on
the overall concept and general parameters
of a project”. Through the PD process the
dimensional requirements are set for the
project and the neighborhood context
should be used to assist in determining the
requirements.
The SKI zone district permits hotels, multi-
family residential, affordable housing, retail
and restaurant uses, ski and administrative offices, as well as ski areas. The zone district does not
have any underlying dimensional requirements associated with it so all development is approved
through a planned development to establish the dimensions. Although located within the
Conservation (C) zone district, the site is adjacent to properties within the city that are located in
the Lodge (L) zone district. As the SKI zone district does not have any underlying dimensional
standards, both Conservation and Lodge are provided for reference in Table 1, which outlines the
proposed dimensions of the lodge.
Overall, the project proposes approximately 67,781 square feet of Floor Area. Comparatively, the
C zone district permits the development of a single-family residence on a lot of record, so at the
most four residences could be built under the current zoning. Under the Lodge zone district, based
on the density of lodge keys to lot size (which equals one lodge key per 550 sq. ft. of gross lot
area), a maximum Floor Area of 1:1 or between 27,112 sq. ft. to 36,150 sq. ft. would be permitted 4
4 The Lodge zone district provides a sliding scale of Floor Area and Maximum Height which increases as the density
of lodge units increases on a lot. Both Floor Area and Height may be increased by request, via special review, if the
density of lodge units equals 1 key per 550 sq. ft. of lot area. When the density on a lot is greater than or equal to 1
key per 500 sq. ft. of gross lot area the Maximum Allowable Floor Area increases to 2.5:1 or 67,781 - 90,375 sq. ft.
and a Maximum Height of 36 - 40 feet.
Page 8 of 12
(when deductions for steep slopes are considered). The height, which still needs to verified, of the
building is proposed at 49 feet as a planned development while the present C zone district permits
a height of 25 feet and the L zone district would permit a height of 28 feet for the lodging density
proposed. The Wheeler View plane intersects this lot as shown in Exhibit G. The applicant has
stated that the view plane is minimally infringed upon and that the building is not visible from
downtown.
Table 1: Dimensional standards
Dimensions Conservation Lodge PROPOSED
(SKI)
Minimum lot size 10 acres 3,000 44,550 (Lot 1)
Minimum net lot area per
dwelling unit 10 acres NA NA
Minimum lot width 400 ft. 30 ft. +/- 60 ft.
Front yard 100 ft. 5 ft. 0 ft.
Side yard 30 ft. 5 ft. 0 ft.
Rear yard 30 ft. 5 ft. 0 ft.
Maximum height 25 ft. 28 ft.** 49 ft.
Cumulative floor area 4,326 – 5,769 sq. ft.*
(SFR)
1:1**
27,112 -36,150 sq. ft.* 67,781 sq. ft.
Lodging floor area NA 1:1
27,112 -36,150 sq. ft.* TBD
Commercial floor area NA .25:1
6,778 - 9,037 sq. ft.* TBD
Multi-family floor area NA .25:1
6778 - 9,037 TBD
Affordable housing floor
area NA .25:1
6,778 - 9,037 TBD
Maximum multi-family
size cap NA 1,500
(2,000 with a TDR) NA
Minimum
off-street
parking
spaces
Lodge NA 81 keys = 40.5 81 keys = 41
Residential Max 2 per residence 7 units = 7 7 units = 7
Commercial NA 9,111 = 10 9,111 = 10
Public Amenity Space NA 25% NA
* The Floor Area range includes no deduction to the maximum deduction required for the presence of steep
slopes.
** Height and Floor Area allowances are based on the proposed lot having less than 1 lodge unit per 500 sq. ft. of
gross lot area (81 keys/ 44,550 sq. ft. = 1 lodge key per 550 sq. ft. of lot area). The Lodge zone district permits a
density adjustment via Special Review approval to allow a project to qualify for greater height, Floor Area
allowances as well as less mitigation requirements.
Page 9 of 12
The project proposes 62 lodge units with a total of 81 keys. This creates an the average room size
per key of 480 sq. ft.. Seven (7) of the lodging units are proposed as 2-bedroom, condominiumized
lodge units with the ability to be divided into three (3) keys each. The seven units range from 1,451
sq. ft. to 1,505 sq. ft. when not divided. The six free-market units (considered multi-family
residential) range in size from 1,453 to 1,999 sq. ft.. In the Lodge zone district, which permits
multi-family, the maximum unit size cap is 1,500 sq. ft. unless a Transferrable Development Right
(TDR) is proposed which allows an increase of unit size to 2,000 sq. ft. The applicant proposes to
purchase TDRs to be in line with the Lodge zone district standard.
The applicant proposes the following improvements and programming by building level.
Parking Level – 58 parking spaces, owner storage, mechanical, and circulation.
Level One – Lower lobby entry, lodge back of house, mechanical, one affordable housing unit, ski
club space and Aspen Ski Co. space.
Level Two - 5 lodge units, lodge ‘living room’, retail space, SkiCo ticketing, commercial kitchen.
Level Three – 21 lodge units (21 keys), hotel spa, back of house and circulation.
Level Four – 24 lodge units (27 keys), lodge back of house, and circulation.
Level Five – 9 lodge units (19 keys), 1 free-market residence, and circulation.
Level Six – 2 lodge units (6 keys), 2 free-market residences, accessory meeting room, and
circulation.
Level Seven – 1 lodge unit (3 keys), 3 free market residences, back of house, circulation and
restaurant.
Rooftop – fitness, bathrooms, circulation, pool and terrace.
Staff Comment: Staff is concerned with the overall size and height of the building. The Floor Area
proposed is substantially greater than what would be permitted in the C zone district or in the L
zone district as currently proposed. The height of the building is out of scale with the surrounding
context and exceeds what would be permitted in both the C and L zone districts. The building sits
high up the slope and part of the building is above the Wheeler View Plane, which is not to be
infringed upon unless the Commission “determines that the proposed development has a minimal
effect on the view plane.” Staff would like additional study to be undertaken such as 3D modeling
to provide more ways to study whether the effect on the view plane is minimal.
3) Design/ Architecture
The proposed lodge is subject to the Mountain Base Character Area of the Commercial, Lodging
and Historic District Guidelines. Key design objectives include: provide a pedestrian friendly street
edge, provide a sense of human scale, encourage pedestrian serving uses at the street level, reflect
natural topography, provide an interconnected pedestrian circulation system, and maintain views
to the mountain and other natural features.
Page 10 of 12
Staff Comment: Overall staff appreciates the materials proposed for the project; however, the
conceptual design review focuses more on placement and massing of buildings as well as site
planning. The subject site is steeply sloped and the proposed development steps in increments to
follow the natural slope, thereby varying the height of the building’s five modules; however, the
footprint of the proposed new building is substantially larger than the surrounding
development. When combined with the predominantly four story height of the building above
grade, the goal of achieving a sense of human scale is not achieved as the building stretches some
330’ in length and 90’ in elevation up the hillside. Staff recommends that, like Lift One Lodge to
the south, Gorsuch Haus be broken into two structures, either completely detached or with a
meaningfully sized hyphen or ground level pass through between the masses. Staff finds that the
height and mass as proposed is inappropriate given the site topography. As a frame of reference
for the size of the building, Aspen Square Condominiums, sited on a relatively flat parcel in the
center of downtown, is a four story building approximately 270’ in length.
Figure 6: Aspen Square
Staff also recommends that the structure be predominantly topped by simple low pitched gable
roof forms, ideally with green roofs installed. The surrounding neighborhood features many
examples of classic alpine architecture with pitched roofs, deep overhangs, exterior balconies,
wood siding, and other features that are typically sympathetic to a site with steep topography and
mountainside vegetation.
4) Mitigation/development allotments
As a new development, the applicant must request and receive development allotments for the
mixed use project. Allotments are required for the lodging, free-market, affordable housing and
net increase in commercial being proposed. As designed, the following allotments are necessary:
• 81 lodging keys which equals 162 pillows (each lodging bedroom is considered two
pillows).
• 6 free-market development allotments
• 1 affordable housing allotment
• 9,111 sq. ft. of net leasable area
Page 11 of 12
All of the necessary allotments are available in the 2016 growth management year, except for
lodging, where only 112 pillows are permitted to be granted in a calendar year. There are not
enough lodging allotments in 2016, so the applicant is requesting a multi-year allotment for the
lodging component of the project, as 50 pillows are still needed.
With the lodging, commercial and free-market residential uses proposed, affordable housing
mitigation is required. As proposed staff has calculated the following mitigation requirement
associated with Lot 1 and explained in detail in Exhibit D.
Free Market Residential 7.67
Development Lodge Development 29.16
Commercial Net Leasable 19.86
56.69 FTES
The applicant has calculated the number of employees required for mitigation to be 39.3 FTEs.
This is a different number than calculated by staff, as the applicant has relied on growth
management incentives for employee generation rates that are provided for in the Lodge zone
district; however, the applicant is requesting to rezone to the SKI zone district, which does not
include the incentives. It is staff’s position that the incentives can only be used when they are part
of the zone district that the property is located within.
Lot 3 is to be developed with the ski lift and operations booth. Because the employees needed to
staff and operate a lift does not fall neatly in the city’s employee generate rate schedule, the
applicant has the ability to request an employee generation review by the Commission to
determine an appropriate number of employees generated for the specific function.
The applicant is proposing one onsite affordable housing unit and the balance of mitigation is to
be in the form of off-site units or certificates of affordable housing credits (AHCs). APCHA has
recommended that a percentage of the mitigation be in the form of physical units.
Staff Comment: Staff recommends additional on-site housing be considered. Additionally, any off-
site housing should not solely be in the form AHCs. Staff concurs with the APCHA board and
recommends that the applicant commit to certain number of FTEs being physically housed.
REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
A number of referral agencies have provided comments (Exhibit X) on the application: Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District, Aspen Fire Protection District, city engineering, city
environmental health, city parks, city transportation, city utilities, The Aspen/Pitkin Housing
Authority and the Pitkin County Commissioners. Appropriate comments from the departments
have been included in the resolution.
RECOMMENDATION: This site is the second portal to access skiing and Aspen Mountain.
Historically people have been able to ski down to S. Aspen Street and access the existing lift
directly from S. Aspen Street and it is important, as the property is considered for redevelopment,
to preserve the mountain as a scenic, accessible resource.
This proposal, based on how the footprint of the lodge is located, will reduce skier access from S.
Aspen Street and inhibit the skier return to Dean Street that has been planned for the neighborhood
as the area for the skier return through the site is very narrow and pinched by retaining walls.
Page 12 of 12
Additionally little discussion on how this development works with the potential installation of a
platter lift is provided.
Staff finds the current site plan and design of the building to be incompatible with the
neighborhood as it proposes a building with dimensions that overwhelm the lift area and the uses
associated with the lift such as skier access and the return to both S. Aspen Street and Dean Street.
Staff recommends that the following changes to the proposal be considered:
• Restudy the site plan to locate the ski lift lower on the site. Show how a platter lift, if
installed as planned from Dean St., could be accommodated to link access to 1A.
• Restudy the footprint of the building so that its location does not close off access to the lift
from S. Aspen Street. Reconsider the design of the cul-de-sac to address engineering
concerns on the transit stop/component, pull-offs, and dimensions.
• Reconsider the skier return with its narrow dimensions and retaining walls on the northern
portion of the site. Provide a better understanding of the proposed grading changes to the
site.
• Provide further documentation on the visual impacts of the building with regard to the
Wheeler View Plane.
• Restudy the mass, scale and height of the building.
• Reconfigure and consider lessening the number of lots so that all improvements associated
with the lodge are on one lot a second lot contains ski area/ski lift improvements.
• Provide more information on whether it is practical to vacate some of the existing
easements.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission continue the public hearing to a date
certain to address these issues. Staff has scheduled two additional dates for the project: July 19th
and August 16th.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to continue the hearing on Gorsuch Haus to July 19th.”
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A – Planned Development Review Criteria
EXHIBIT B – Subdivision Review Criteria
EXHIBIT C – Commercial Design Review
EXHIBIT D – Growth Management Review Criteria
EXHIBIT E – Rezoning
EXHIBIT F – 8040 Green Line Review
EXHIBIT G –View Plane Review
EXHIBIT H – Referral Agency Comments
EXHIBIT I – Public Comment
EXHIBIT J – Application