HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo_12.12.16Page 1 of 13
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE: Gorsuch Haus (S. Aspen Street) –Planned Development and Associated Reviews
1st Reading of Ordinance No. 39 (Series of 2016) (Public hearing to be 2/13/16)
MEETING
DATE: December 12, 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 and rezone the property
to the SKI zone district.
Additionally, lift 1A is proposed
to be relocated.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests City Council 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. The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of
the proposal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council schedule the
application for second reading; however, without changes to
the project, staff will be recommending denial at second
reading.
Photo: Lift 1 A
Page 2 of 13
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting a consolidated review, meaning all final decisions are granted by the
City Council based upon a recommendation 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 five years (instead of ten years from the original
application) rather than the standard three year period.
BACKGROUND:
The proposed redevelopment of Lift 1A includes a number of land use reviews inclusive of
Planned Development, which is a three step review process. The first step, Planned Development
– Project Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission was completed on September 20th
after four public hearings. The Commission, via Resolution No. 7 (Series of 2016), recommended
denial of the current proposal before the City Council (Exhibit I). Review of the application by
Page 3 of 13
City Council is the second step in the review process and Council will consider the application and
recommendations of the Commission at a public hearing. The review (Project Review) by Council
will focus on the mass, scale, site plan, and dimensions of the project. If approved by City Council,
the Applicant may then make an application for Planned Development – Detailed Review which
is before the Planning 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:
• 67 units with 81 lodge keys (flexible configuration)
1 When a property is located within two jurisdictions, development may only occur within the boundary of the entity
reviewing the land use request.
2 Subsequent images will only show Government Lot 31 to the Pitkin County/City of Aspen jurisdictional boundary.
Page 4 of 13
• 6 free-market residential units
• 1 affordable housing unit
• 6,810 sq. ft. of commercial net leasable area inclusive of a restaurant, Aspen Ski Co.
operations and some retail
• 61 parking spaces located in a subgrade garage
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 70,134 sq. ft. of Floor Area (and 127,525 sq. ft. of gross area) for the entire
development is proposed.
Figure 2: Original and proposed site plan
KEY ISSUES: There are eight different land use review processes related to the current
application, 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.
Page 5 of 13
(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 into two lots (rather
than 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 hotel with amenity
areas such as exterior terraces, walkways, stairways and underground building structure. The new
ski lift will also be located on lot 1 (See Figures 3 and 4).
As shown in Figure 2, changes have been incorporated into the site plan and hotel proposal,
compared to the initial application, based on feedback from staff and the Planning and Zoning
Commission. A lower ‘hook’ portion of the building has been removed and some of the massing
has been reconfigured into the remaining lower portion of the building by widening it and
including a portion of the building that cantilevers over the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac has been
enlarged from the original submission. The exterior terraces and stairs have been substantially
reduced. The location of the lift has been brought downhill about twenty feet. A wider skier return
is provided in the area of the Mountain Queen and Caribou condominiums. A more direct access
is provided to the ski lift.
As noted above, the lodge is proposed to cantilever over the cul-de-sac. The entry façade is four
stories with the 3rd and 4th stories cantilevered over the cul-de-sac. The building then steps up the
site for approximately 330 feet in two to four story modules depending on the elevation (similar
to the original proposal). A series of terraces step up the slope on the eastern side of the building
(about 115 feet in length) and public access to the relocated ski lift is from the cul-de-sac by
walking along a series of stairs. A pull-off for arriving guests is near the lodge entry, while a
transportation stop is proposed along the cul-de-sac. The ski lift is to be moved slightly to the east
from its current location and uphill (but is now slightly lower than originally proposed).
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, the stairway to the lift, as well as around the proposed
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.
Staff Comment: Overall, staff recognizes that a lodge development is an appropriate use at the
base of Lift 1A. However, staff is still concerned with some of the fundamentals of the site plan.
Although the ski lift has been moved a bit lower on the site plan it is still 66 feet from its current
location. Add to that the walk up the stairs to get from the cul-de-sac to the original queuing area
and one has a longer walk. On a positive note, public access for someone with a disability has
been improved with an elevator that has direct access from the exterior of the building and unloads
onto an exterior terrace.
With the amended site plan, the lift is still located to the east of the lodge building, but removal of
the ‘lower hook’ of the building assists in opening up the view of the ski lift to the public right-of-
way. The proposed lodge still encloses the lift but not to the same extant. A functioning sketch up
Page 6 of 13
model, allowing council to request additional views of the site should be available at the public
hearing, to ensure that the reconfigured skier access “contributes to the identity of the town.”
and “Provides pedestrian ways that accommodate convenient access.”
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.
The applicant proposes that the city vacate 13,234 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.
Figure 3: Proposed streets to be vacated
Planning and Engineering staff do 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 provides a longer walk to the
lift 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 four parcels are now
proposed to be configured into two lots.
This a more reasonable configuration,
taking into account the proposed use for
each lot; however, a donut hole of lot area
associated with Lot 1 is not actually contiguous to the parcel. This latest configuration,
disregarding the donut hole, provides a lot configuration where “the proposed lot lines shall
approximate, to the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite.” Certain
improvements for the lodge are still proposed on the additional lot or within the right of way and
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
stairway encroachments into the remaining S. Aspen Street right-of way is not supported by staff.
Page 7 of 13
Figure 4: Proposed lot configuration
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
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
Page 8 of 13
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 70,134 square feet of Floor Area which includes the
lodge and the new ski lift. 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 931 sq. ft. of gross lot area), a maximum Floor Area of 1:1 or between 46,606 -
62,142 sq. ft. would be permitted3 (when deductions for steep slopes are considered). The height
of the building, is proposed at 47 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 will not be visible
from downtown.
Table 1: Dimensional standards
Dimensions Conservation Lodge
Current
Proposal
(SKI)
Original
Proposal
(SKI)
Minimum lot size 10 acres 3,000 75,466 (Lot 1) 44,550 (Lot 1)
Minimum net lot area per
dwelling unit 10 acres NA NA NA
Minimum lot width 400 ft. 30 ft. +/- 221 ft. +/- 60 ft.
Front yard 100 ft. 5 ft. 46 ft. 0 ft.
Side yard 30 ft. 5 ft. 6 and 0 ft. 0 ft.
Rear yard 30 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 0 ft.
Maximum height 25 ft. 28 ft.** 47 ft. 49 ft.
Cumulative floor area 5,132 – 6,842 sq.ft.*
(SFR)
1:1**
46,606 -62,142 sq.
ft.*
70,134 sq. ft. 67,781 sq. ft.
Lodging floor area NA
1:1
46,606 -62,142
sq. ft.*
51,268 TBD
Commercial floor area NA
.25:1
11,651 – 15,535
sq. ft.*
8704 TBD
Multi-family floor area NA
.25:1
11,651 – 15,535
sq. ft.*
12,102 TBD
3 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.
Page 9 of 13
Dimensions Conservation Lodge
Current
Proposal
(SKI)
Original
Proposal
(SKI)
Affordable housing floor
area NA
.25:1
11,651 – 15,535
sq. ft.*
5,910 TBD
Maximum multi-family
size cap NA
1,500
(2,000 with a
TDR)
NA NA
Minimum
off-street
parking
spaces
Lodge NA 81 keys = 40.5 81 keys = 41 81 keys = 41
Residential Max 2 per residence 7 units = 7 7 units = 7 7 units = 7
Commercial NA 6,810 = 7 6,810 = 7 9,111 = 10
Public Amenity Space NA 25% NA NA
* The Floor Area range includes taking no deduction up to the maximum deduction of 25% required by 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/ 75,466 sq. ft. = 1 lodge key per 931 sq. ft. of lot area).
The project proposes 67 lodge units with a total of 81 keys. This creates an average room size per
key of 522 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 1,450
sq. ft. to 1,500 sq. ft. when not divided. The six free-market units (considered multi-family
residential) range in size from 1,500 to 2,000 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. Previously, the Applicant
has proposed to use TDRs to increase the unit size.
The applicant proposes the following improvements and programming by building level.
Parking Level – 61 parking spaces, mechanical, and circulation.
Level One –Entry lobby, lodge back of house, mechanical, SkiCo ticketing and Aspen Ski Co.
space.
Level Two – Meeting/conference room, 1 affordable housing unit, fitness, back of house and
circulation.
Level Three – 5 lodge units (5 keys), hotel spa, restaurant, bar/lounge, back of house and
circulation.
Level Four – 18 lodge units (18 keys), 3 free-market residences, and circulation.
Level Five –5 lodge units (11 keys), 1 free-market residence, and circulation.
Level Six –11 lodge units (17 keys), 1 free-market residence, and circulation.
Page 10 of 13
Level Seven – 13 lodge units (15 keys), 2 free-market residences, and circulation.
Level Eight – 15 lodge unit (15 keys), back of house, circulation and restaurant.
Rooftop –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 Council “determines that the proposed development has a minimal
effect on the view plane.” Staff would like to see story poles installed again, but this may not be
feasible during the ski season.
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.
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 modules; however, the
footprint of the proposed new building is substantially larger than the surrounding development
and has not been significantly modified from the original application. 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 still 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 still
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.
Staff still 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.
Page 11 of 13
Figure 6: Aspen Square
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
• 6,810 sq. ft. of net leasable area (compared to 9,111in the original application)
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 8.21
Lodge 29.16
Commercial Net Leasable 15.81
53.17 FTES
The applicant is proposing one onsite affordable housing unit, housing three FTEs, and the
balance of mitigation (50.17 FTEs) 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.
Page 12 of 13
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 by the
construction of actual units.
5) Vested Property Rights
The Applicant is requesting a vested property right for the proposed development plan for a period
of five (5) years rather than the standard three (3) year period. Vesting provides an Applicant a
timeframe in which the Applicant can rely on the approvals granted in a site specific development
plan. It allows the Applicant to undertake and complete the development and use of said property
under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan. Once vested, a development
plan shall not be required to be amended as a result of “any zoning or land use action by the city
or by an initiated measure” during the vesting period. If the vested rights expire, the project will
be subject to any new regulations that may impact the approval granted.
The Land Use Code typically provides for a three year vesting period and a variation from that
period is at the sole discretion of the City Council. The City does have a process for extending or
reinstating vested rights (Section 26.308.101 C., Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights). An
extension, if granted would be approved by the City Council.
REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS:
A number of referral agencies have provided comments (Exhibit H) on the application: Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District, city engineering, city environmental health, city parks, city
transportation, city utilities, The Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority and the Pitkin County
Commissioners.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the ordinance be approved upon first reading
and a public hearing date be scheduled for February 13th.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Ordinance No. 39 (Series of 2016) on first reading
and set a public hearing date of February 13th.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
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 – P&Z Resolution No. 7 (series of 2016)
EXHIBIT J – P&Z minutes 7/5/16
EXHIBIT K – P&Z Minutes 7/19/16
Page 13 of 13
EXHIBIT L – P&Z Minutes 8/16/16
EXHIBIT M – P&Z Minutes 9/20/16
EXHIBIT N – Public Comment
EXHIBIT O – Original Application
EXHIBIT P – Amended Application_10.17.16
EXHIBIT Q – Applicant’s letter dated 11.28.16