Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.joint.19980901AGENDA JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL & THE ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIONS WORK SESSION ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 4:00-5:30 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 (Immediately following the joint meeting) COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL 1. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public II. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST III. MINUTES (7/21/98, 8/4/98, 8/18/98) IV. INFORMATION ITEMS A. Housing Work Schedule, Bob Nevins V. ADJOURN NOTE: These times are approximate, and applicants should plan to be present approximately 1/2 hour prior to their case time est'mated. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney FROM: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directo Mitch Haas, Planner * 41 RE: Aspen Mountain PUD (AMPUD) Work Session IV DATE: September 1, 1998 SUMMARY: The purpose of this work session is to provide a forum for discussion between the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council regarding the development concepts being discussed by Savanah Limited Partnership for Lots 3 (Top of Mill site) and 5 (Grand Aspen site) of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The new proposal includes the development of a 146-unit hotel containing some 176 rooms in place of the existing Grand Aspen Hotel (Lot 5). The units would include 1- and 2-bedroom suites, many of which would have kitchenettes. Savanah represents that this new facility would be a family -oriented, moderately -priced, upscale hotel, but not luxury accommodations such as the St. Regis, Little Nell, or Hotel Jerome. The hotel would include subgrade parking and, possibly, street -level accessory commercial/retail space along the Dean Street frontage. The lobby and drop-off would be located at the corner of Mill and Dean Streets, while the entrance to the parking garage would likely be accessed via Mill Street. The revised proposal for Lot 3, the Top of Mill, changes only parcel 2, while the remaining parcels (1 and 3-8) would remain as previously proposed. The prior proposal submitted in January 1996 had four- free market residences (in two duplexes) containing a combined total of sixteen bedrooms on Parcel 2 of Lot 3. The new concept places 8 affordable residences- with a total of 24 bedrooms on that parcel. As with the previous proposal, the remaining parcels of Lot 3 would include 13 free market residences with 57 bedrooms. Savanah has prepared a summary of the prior approvals along with a history of the AMPUD. Staff finds this summary to be generally accurate. This summary is attached as Exhibit A. SPECIFIC ISSUES:. Analysis of Physical Differences between the current proposal and the prior one. The three following tables analyze the physical differences between the January 1996 proposal and the current proposal. These tables compare differing types of development which are not entirely comparable. They do not compare the. proposals with existing conditions or reasonably anticipated existing conditions (i.e., the Grand Aspen would no longer exist, and the St. Regis plus the potential for 50 more lodge rooms represented "existing conditions/build-out."). Nonetheless, they can aid in understanding some of the quantitative differences between the new concept and the 1996 proposal. TOWNHOUSE OPTION' (A) HOTEL OPTION (B) CHANGE (B - A) # of Free Market Units 30 townhouses 146 hotel units -30 residential units and +116 hotel units # of Free Market Bedrooms 72 bedrooms 176 bedrooms -72 residential brdms. and +176 hotel bedrooms # of Affordable Units 0 AH units 6 AH units +6 AH units # of AH Bedrooms 0 AH bedrooms 9 AH bedrooms +9 AH bedrooms Proposed Setbacks: • Front Yard 58 feet 56 feet -2 feet • East Side Yard l 6-17 feet 16 feet even to -1 foot • West Side Yard 17-24 feet 10 feet -7 to -14 feet • Rear Yard 22 feet 22 feet no change . Proposed Height at Ridge 42 feet 47 feet +5 feet Proposed Open Space: • In Square Feet 33,830 s.f. 18,270 s.f. -15,560 s.f. • As Percentage of Site 39% 25% (est.) -14% (est.) Proposed Floor Area 96,430 s.f. 114,926 s.f. +18,496 s.f. # of Off -Street Parking Spaces 72 spaces 100 spaces +28 spaces Retail Space: • Gross Area 0 s.f. 9,000 s.f. (est.) +91000 s.f. (est.) • Net Leasable 0 s.f. 7,650 s.f. (est.) +7,650 s.f. (est.) 1996 OPTION -, (A) NEW OPTION (B) CHANGE (B - A) # of Free Market Units, parcel 2 * 4 FM units 0 FM units -4 FM units # of Free Market Bedrooms 16 FM bedrooms 0 FM bedrooms -16 FM bedrooms # of Affordable Units 0 AH units 8 AH units +8 AH units # of AH Bedrooms 0 AH bedrooms 24 AH bedrooms +24 AH bedrooms Proposed Setbacks: • Front Yard • East Side Yard • West Side Yard • Rear Yard 25 feet 30 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet -10 feet -20 feet -5 feet -5 feet Proposed Height at Ridge 33 feet 33 feet no change Proposed Floor Area 18,000 s.f. 12,600 s.f. -5,400 s.f. # of Off -Street Parking Spaces 8 spaces 16 spaces +8 spaces Free Market Units on Remaining Parcels 13 13 no change Floor Area on Remaining Parcels 65,600 s.f. 65,600 s.f. (est.) no change * = The proposed development for Lot 3, parcels 1 and 3-8 remains unchanged from the January 1996 application; thus, Table Two compares the proposals for parcel 2 only, the bottom two lines reflect the remaining development for Lot 3. 1996> NEW OPTION CHANGE PROPOSAL (A):,(B) (B - A) # of Free Market Units 47 FM residential 146 hotel units + -34 FM residential units 13 FM residential units and +116 hotel units units # of Free Market Bedrooms 145 FM bedrooms 176 hotel +176 hotel bedrooms and 57 bedrooms and -88 FM bedrooms FM bedrooms # of Affordable Units 0 AH units 14 AH units +14 AH units # of AH Bedrooms 0 AH bedrooms 33 AH bedrooms +33 AH bedrooms Proposed Floor Area 180,030 s.f. 193,126 s.f. (est.) +1),096 s.f. (est.) # of Off -Street Parking Spaces 118 spaces 154 spaces +36 spaces Retail Space: • Gross Area 0 s.f. 9,000 s.f. (est.) +9,000 s.f. (est.) • Net Leasable 0 s.f. 7,650 s.f. (est.) +7,650 s.f. (est.) GAS Implications. The following is staff s preliminary analysis of GMQS implications associated with the new proposal. I. Currently Available Lodge Unit Allotments: • Unused Allotments From Past Years • 1998-99 Allotments • TOTAL AVAILABLE for 1998 GMQS • Savanah currently has allotments for up to 50 lodge rooms and 47 residential units Lodge Unit Allotments have a set total cap of 253 units at full buildout. Eleven (11) of these were used as part of the Hines Aspen Highlands development, leaving 242 remaining. The Land Use Code has a provision for Multi -Year Allotments for "Exceptional Projects." If the hotel proposal were to move forward, the PUD Agreement would have to be amended in several ways, including the provisions in the Agreement allowing up to 50 lodge rooms to be developed on Lot 5, and limiting the aggregate number of lodge rooms between Lot 1 (St. Regis site) and Lot 5 to 342 units. Lot 1 currently has 257 rooms and the potential to add up to 22 more ([257 + 22] = 2791 and [342 - 279] _ 63). II. GMQS Allotments. Section 26.100.040, Annual Development Allotments, provides an "Impact conversion factor of 2.5 lodge units per free market unit;" Therefore, it might be reasoned that the 34 left over allocations could be converted to tourist accommodation allocations. as follows: 34 x 2.5 = 85 tourist accommodation allocations. Note that the "Impact conversion formula" equates to the factor that would have been used for 3- bedroom residences in the Hines review. The conversion formula was not specifically intended to be used to convert residential allotments to tourist accommodation allotments. Rather, the conversion factor to be used in determining the maximum amount of allotments available for tourist accommodations associated with lodge expansions in 1997 and 1998. If, however, this conversion formula were to be accepted, Savanah would not need a multi -year allotment to develop the proposed 146 unit hotel facility. That is, they have 50 allotments (via credit) and another 44 are available through this year's GMQS Competition, making the potential for Savanah to have 94 tourist accommodation allotments without asking for multi -year allocations. These 146 units minus 94 allocations would leave a shortfall of 52 tourist accommodation allocations. Thus, if the conversion formula were utilized and the result was found to be 85 tourist accommodation allocations (based on 34 unused residential allocations), Savanah would be left with more tourist accommodation allocations that it would need to accomplish the proposed project. If this were the case, they would not need to apply for all of the 44 available tourist accommodation allocations though the 1998 GMQS Competition, but would have to apply for 11 allocations. If this concept were not accepted, Savanah would have to apply for a multi -year allotment. III. An inventory of lodge units recently converted to other uses. A. Units lost through the LP program: Total-71 units converted to residential • Brass Bed Inn: 29 rooms and 70 pillows --- converted to residential • Fireside Inn: 20 rooms and 53 pillows --- converted to residential • Bell Mountain Lodge: 22 rooms and 51 pillows --- approved for conversion to residential B. Other. Conversions: Total —over 117 rooms removed • Alpine Lodge (LP): 11 rooms, 32 pillows --- converted to residential • Aspen Manor: 23 rooms --- gutted and currently vacant • Little Red Ski Haus: 11 rooms --- converted to residential • Bavarian Inn (LP): 21 units --- converted to residential • Copper Horse (LP): 13 units --- converted to residential • Cortina (LP): 16 units --- converted to residential • Northstar (LP): 22 units --- converted to residential C. Remaining Lodges in the LP zone district: • Aspen B & B: 3 5 units, 114 pillows --- condominiumized rentals • Boomerang Lodge: 34 units, 101 pillows • Christiania Lodge: 22 units, 51 pillows --- recently sold and considering conversion to residential • Christmas Inn: 26 units, 51 pillows • Crestahaus Lodge (Beaumont): 29 units, 77 pillows --- has allocations for 10 additional lodge rooms (expansion) • Hearthstone House: 18 units, 32 pillows • Hotel Aspen: 47 units, 118 pillows --- condominiumized rentals • Hotel Lenado : 23 . units, 3 8 pillows • Innsbruck Inn: 31 units, 75 pillows • Molly Gibson Lodge: 21 units, 118 pillows • Mountain House Lodge: 16 units, 56 pillows • St. Moritz Lodge: 20 units, 106 pillows • Shadow Mountain Lodge: 11 units, 32 pillows --- condo-ized rentals • Snow Queen: 7 units, 20 pillows Impacts. In terms of growth -related impacts, there are two perspectives from which an analysis could depart. From the standpoint of anticipated growth, the community had valid reason to believe the Ritz/St. Regis was the end of significant lodge growth and that the Grand Aspen would be eliminated. From this perspective, all impacts would be growth and there would be no "netting" out of subsequent incremental changes among small lodges. From the point of view of actual growth, the community has more or less absorbed the impacts of the Ritz/St. Regis Hotel with the Grand Aspen still in place. At the same time, there has been a considerable reduction in small lodge rooms. Thus, the growth impacts could be looked at in terms of the new proposal (Lots 3 and 5, and the Bavarian) versus the Grand Aspen and the existing Bavarian. Either way, discussions should include consideration of the type of growth and change that is appropriate. This should include consideration of whether luxury condominiums or lodging units offer more to the community in terms of sustainable value and, conversely, which impose greater impacts on the community in terms of employee generation, traffic, etc. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is difficult to provide a specific set of staff recommendations for evaluating a project which remains at this conceptual stage. However, staff has been uncomfortable with the continuing development of very large condominiums and townhouses for second -home owners. The area of Lot 5 would seem particularly suited for denser development of smaller units. Staff has also been concerned with the continuing erosion of lodging units. Some of this loss can be associated with the removal of lodges for affordable housing and other removals have come from the Lodge Preservation program, which was specifically developed to assist in the removal of lodging units which were in situations regarded as no longer being economic viable. While these represent valid reasons for the loss of lodging units, the replacement of these units in new economically -viable situations remains an areas of staff concern. For these reasons, staff has recommended to Savanah, and continues to recommend, the utilization of the remaining 50 lodging credits in the redevelopment of Lot 5. Whether, the site and the community can tolerate more than 50 units remains a factor of the quality of the development proposal in a- specific site analysis yet to be performed. Staff has also recommended a very limited amount of accessory commercial be included with the lodging units in order to animate the Dean Street corridor and give closure to the Silver Circle area. Staff has advocated the inclusion of affordable housing on Lots 3 and 5, along with any additional required housing mitigation which might be developed off -site. The concepts presented by Savanah are generally responsive to these recommendations. They have, however, engendered a number of letters from abutting property owners concerned about the scale of the development, as well as factors such as open space, proximity to existing homes and condos, traffic, etc. Recently received letters have been attached to this memo. Staff does not believe at this stage that the development mix presents any insurmountable issues with respect to local impacts. A careful analysis will be required to address the issues raised by abutting homeowners at the time of a specific submittal from Savanah. August 5, 1998 Tim Markalunas 130 S . Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611� a +ar Re: Comments Dear Jim, ,71ST IE:��ti� - C, sescohsc B : . r.. I feel a. response is necessary regarding your comments at the August 3, 1998 Aspen T'VItn. PUD work session that I attended concerning the homeowner associations and the management company I work for. Your first comment regarding that you don't need a site visit to our neighborhood because as you put it " I have been up there sometime in the past fifty years." does not have merit. Without standing on the back walkway (south side) of the Fifth Ave. and peering up at the existing cinder block house, there is no way anyone can grasp the magnitude of locating any type of structure, whether it is affordable housing or free market, that close to the Fifth Ave. If you have not seen the impact the new 8,000 square foot 918 S. Mill St. duplex located directly behind Fifth Avenue `B" building has on the area, and based on your comments you have not, I would highly recommend it. The same is true concerning the Grand Aspen Hotel site. Which brings me to your other disturbing comment that all the homeowner associations are concerned about is competition with their rental programs. This is absolutely false! Obviously you have not been listening to all the non -rental homeowners that have been at the meetings or have any previous knowledge of the history of the past meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission. 45% of our managed units are non -rental units. The most vocal owners at your meetings have been non -rental owners. I will state this as clearly as I can for you: It is size, density, height, set backs, traffic, and noise that the Associations have concerns about. It's not a hotel that the homeowners have a problem with. It is the size; density and height of any proposed plan and the amount of employees needed to service a hotel vs. a condo project. The site plan that included condos and townhomes that was • 747 South Galena Strcet Aspen. Colorado 81611 970.925.2260 800.321.7025 Fax: 970.925.2264 http:/hti,NvNv.aspenonline.comiaspenlodgingco E-mail: lodging@csn.net Pg. #2 recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, in our opinion, was still too high and the individual unit square footages were to large. If the condominiums square footage was reduced, Savanah would not need a height variance to the front (north side), the town could see all of the front of Aspen Mountain including. Franklin's Dump, Slalom Hill and Super Eight ski runs. Finally, as the management company for many of the associations and individual units on Galena and Mill Streets, we would love to see something new as long as it blends in with the neighborhood and views are not compromised. It will oniv help drive up rental rates and resale values. When and if you decide that a site visit is needed, I would be more than happy to escort you around personally. I can be reached at my office. Sincerely, ASPEN.- LODGING COMPANY, LLC Douglas L. Nehasil Property Manager cc: City Council City Manager, Amy Margerum. Fifth Avenue Board of Managers Tipple Inn Board of Managers Galena Place Board of Managers Fasching Haus East Board of Managers Fasching Haus West Board of Managers Planning and Zoning Commission Alpenblick Board of Managers Durant Board of Managers Aspen Mountain Board of Managers Summit Place Board of Managers . 410 Boyd Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 August 23, 1998 Mayor John Bennett Aspen City Council Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commissioners City Manager Amy Margerum C/O City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Grand Aspen PUD To whom it may concern, own unit 107 in the Fifth Avenue Condominiums and would like to share my opinions on the proposed development around my home. I strongly oppose all variances that are being contemplated for the Grand Aspen PUD. The height restrictions and open space requirements are created for a purpose and I would hate to see Aspen taken advantage. Please keep me in mind as you determine my views and the noise, traffic, construction, and the feel of the area in which I spend time. understand the practice is to ask for much more than could be approved and settle for what was desired in the first place. Then say there was a compromise. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments. Sincerely, Brian Leasure DIS IBU TO: Response By: By Date: For: August 24, 1998 Mavor John Bennett Aspen City Council Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission City Manager Amy Margerum Dear Sir/Madam: r lV low W : .yam ie- l E 0 1 S T F�;r,�:T�� . T n: :-3asoorse By: My wife and I live in a condominium at 718 S. Galena St. It is not a rental unit. nor is it a "monster" residence. In fact, the total square footage in our residence is 620 sq. ft. Public officials frequently lament that their constituents don't trust them. The officials get frustrated and wonder why, after .all their hard work, they are not believable. Such a case is coming to the fore front in the Grand Aspen Savanah Limited Partnership proposal to builda 150 unit hotel between South Mill St. and South Galena St. The reason I make the above observation is because I thought we had a deal! When the gigantic Ritz Hotel was built, the residents nearby backed off of their opposition on the promise that the present Grand Aspen would be torn down and attractive townhouses, with lots of green space, would be built which would enhance the neighborhood Now it seems that such a promise is to be ignored in favor of building a 150 unit, street to street, hotel with no green space whatsoever visible to the surrounding neighbors. This simply adds more density to an otherwise over crowded neighborhood. I do not know if any of you are aware, but the entire South side of Aspen from Lift IA to the gondola is one large bowl. This bowl collects considerable pollution in the winter time from all the diesel buses that park in front of hotels. This happens more with hotels that cater to large tour groups rather than with townhouses or condominiums. In view of this, it is difficult to understand why the City Council would even consider adding to the congestion, noise and pollution to an already over crowded neighborhood. " For the above reasons, and for those reasons stated in many other letters opposing the Savanah proposal, I respectfully request you give that proposal a speedy burial and return to the townhouse concept. Once again,. I thought we had a deal! Respectfully, Philip R. Moore : am.� Mar- �n , A..0. J 1 Z955491 - P . 02 1 r PLASTIC AND RECDNSTRuc 7,j VE SURGERY August 25, 1:998 Mayor -'ohn Bennett 130 S. galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Bennett: When 2 'ought my Aspen property your years ago n, the ?asching :taus at 747 S. Galena Street, I was delighted with my views of the Aspen and Red Mountains. I was told at that time that the Grand Aspen :hotel would eventually be torn down, and a mewer, smaller hotel with surrounding townhouses would be built in its place. I have since been looking forward to this as a way to improve our neighborhood appearance and property value. I was aware that new proposals had changed the site to more or a ccndomini=/townhouse concept. I am horrified. to find out, however, that recently the Savannah Developers have proposed a perimeter -style hotel with many times the. original planned rooms, and with minimal setbacks. In addition, the employee housing, which I feel is a good thing, that was "o be built as a part of this plan at the top of Mill Street, has also been changed and expanded. Both the height and size of the hotel and the number and placement of em')Icyee housing will adversely affect both my views of Aspen Mountain and Red Mountain. In addition, the appearance,. noise, and confusion of a very -large Ritz -style hotel will also adversely impact our entire neighborhood. I -plead with you to walk* our neighborhood, and you will surely realize the impact of which I speak. I strongly urge you to return to the original proposal for this property, and negate the new proposals and rezoning., I hope that you keep in mind the f eel- 04—Aspen as You co:::.der this outrageous proposal.. , Since ely, 1 Jame W. Marsh, M.D. JWM/clb 2677 South Tamiami Trail Sarasota, Florida 34239 • Telephone (813) 366.9818 Fax (813) 955,4914 William Ames rowers mers: i Avenue Condominiums #105 So. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2888 August 25, 1998 .The Aspen City Council Mayor John Bennett Pitkin County Planning and City Manager Amy Margerum c/o City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 Zoning Commissioners RE: Savannah Properties Proposals Winters Mr. & Mrs. wm. A. Powers • 2703 Veteran Heights Colorado Springs CO 80904 Along with the many other voices you've heard from on above properties, we would like to add our objections to parts of the Savannah plans. As 24 year summer residents of Aspen, owning Fifth Avenue Condo 105, we are especially disturbed by the fallowing: 1. Primarily, that any construction any nearer to our building than the currently standing "cinder block" house would completly lock out our apartment, and several others, from any view at all and from much light as we do sit at a lower level. Also any parking of cars above us would constantly flash lights into the living areas of all those condos whose entrances face the mountain - and there are several. We would like to suggest Savannah allow a "green belt" (park like) area between our property line and the beginning of their 2. The Grand Aspen site is a choice piece of "downtown" property. Some- how, putting a "moderately priced" "hotel" there seems out of context with the rest of the area. The "enclosed" area concept would give the community another "prison appearing" building - as many now refer to the appearance of the Ritz/St. Regis. Certainly the original plan for t.WL homes was more in keeping With the area. To add more retail space facing Dean Street seems impracticle in light of the number of available, empty store and restaurant spaces we saw there this summr. 3. We agree with many of the other issues brought up in the letters of others concerned. Thank you for the time and energy and consideration you have and are giving these problems. We -do appreciate Savannah's efforts to please the community and hope, eventually, all will be achiev to everyone's satisfaction. ! Most sincerely, L'�William Ames and Marvel A. Powers August 27, 1998 The Honorable Mayor Bennett City Of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Grand Aspen PUD Dear Mayor Bennett: Godfrey Long 1034 St. Paul Place Cincinnati, OH 45202 �srw���♦ a�w-�. Al it 9 'QQA �v .ASPEN; �11.71<IN Avg �s9$ �i D `N R18vTEED T v. oh U W Response By: ' 101t, B%/ Die: =' As President of the Board for the Fasching Haus East Condominium Association and a owner of Fasching Haus 4180 for over 25 years, I have followed the evolvement of proposed plans and changes for the Grand Aspen parcel for the past thirteen years. The 1996 proposal that was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, after considerable time and effort, called for the replacement of the Grand Aspen Hotel with a 20 unit condominium complex fronting Dean St. and 10 townhomes, 5 each, aligning Mill and Galena Streets. The major objection at that time was the was the height of the roof lines and the square footage of the units. But the positives outweighed the negatives because there was to be underground parking, adequate open space and set backs of the streets and property lines were above the minimums. The current proposal calls for a 150 unit hotel, higher roof lines than before, and adds employee housing and commercial retail space. These changes would increase the population density immensely causing concern about additional traffic, parking and noise levels. Additionally, the open space would be reduced, and set backs drawn to minimums. The pure aesthetics and atmosphere to the area would change from " cozy and comfortable" to -restricted, crowded and commercial." Please give this matter the serious attention it deserves in weighing the trade-offs when judging this new proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, # C5 Godfrey M. Long Jr. President Board of Managers Fasching Haus East Association Murray Brooks Alpenblick Townhouse Condominiums 710 S. Galena St. Aspen, CC 81611 August 27, 1998 The Honorable Mayor Bennett Amy Margerum Aspen City Council Planning and Zoning Commission City Of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CC 81611 Re: Grand Aspen PUD Dear Mayor Bennett, Amy Margerum, Planning and Zoning Commissioners and the City Council: I am writing as a non -rental homeowner at the Alpenblick Townhomes. I am very concerned and very opposed to Savanah's proposed change for the Grand Aspen Hotel site from condominiums and twnhomes to a hotel and shops. My concerns are - size, density, height, ' set backs, traffic, noise, parking and the amount of service personnel needed to service a hotel. I think all of the homeowners including rental owners on Galena and Mill Streets would welcome a new look at the Grand Aspen site. As long as it blends with the neighborhood, the views are not compromised, and roof heights are kept to relatively low roof lines, with a 20 foot or more easement between the Alpenblick and any new building, I would be incline to accept a project with these parameters. I appreciate the understanding and hard work that goes with the jobs as Mayor, City Manager, Planning and Zoning Commissioner and City Council Member and I hope you will continue to keep the beauty of this City in mind in making your.decisions. Thank you in advance for your kind attention. cerely, e_ Murray o s Alpenblick #14 HA LEY RODWELL DART " J Alpenblick.B 10, 747 Galena Street Aspen, Co 81611 Tel: 970 920 3874 — Fax: 970 920 2829��� 1L Dear Mavor Bennett Aspen City Council Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commissioners City Manager Amy Margerum C/o City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Co 81611 27 August 1998 Re: The Grand Aspen site and Top of lM Street The situation seems to be going from bad to worse. I am an Alpenblick homeowner - one of the 45% in this area who don't rent out on a regular basis - in fact this is my year round HOME. My unit is on the Mill Street side and I am already feeling the impact of expansion to the south of me. This summer's construction of the 918 South Mill Street duplex south, and right on top of, Fifth Avenue "B" building are a constant aggravation. The two -minute rumbling of what sounded like a Sherman tank slowly proceeding up Mill Street at 5.45AM one July morning - actually a huge truck delivering something enormous and yellow to haul or dig or whatever up there — is just one of the many annoyances we are experiencing constantly these days — extra traffic, noise, dust, people - and this is just 8,000 square feet of construction, not the proposed 65,600 square feet of Savanah Partnership's Lot 3 (Top of Mill Street) proposal. I understand that in March 97 when the Planning and Zoning Commissioners approved Savanah Partnership's Lot 5 proposal for a 20 unit condominium project and 10 townhomes, they in fact recommended denial of the Lot 3 (Top of Mill) proposal (2 triplexes, 3 duplexes and 5 single family homes) based upon UNACCEPTABLE DENSITY. Why then is the current Lot." proposal (16 free market bedrooms fewer but 24 affordable housing bedrooms more — ie a net increase of net 8) completely ignoring this fact and adding an ADDITIONAL 8 BEDROOMS up there? By any reckoning this translates to INCREASED density. P and Z are quite right to be concerned about the density on this particular edge of town. Over -construction on Aspen's most important commodity (Ajax Mountain and its skiing - as well as summer mountain recreation) is absolutely insane. Also, not only does the topography slant (without studded tires in the winter you often cannot proceed up or down hill without sliding) but Mill and Galena Streets just simply can't take that much more traffic with all the attendant services involved (snow removal, repairs, service personnel, trash collection, etc). Savanah Corporation and the City Council should address P and Z's March 97 concerns — reduce the proposed construction up on the mountain and, if necessary, make up the bedroom shortfall, including any mandated employee housing, down in the Dean Street area. (Employee accommodation could very easily be at the - garden level' between the Proposed underground parking facility and the ground floor of whatever hotel needs to be constructed in that area). Residents in this area and I most definitely have many concerns about the proposed construction of yet another hotel on our doorsteps. Firstly I am but a few yards from the St. Regis (I actually look across at it) and its 2257 bedrooms, do 1 really want another 0 or more hotel bedrooms on yet another of my four sides? We like being townhomes and condominiums up here — not least because many of us are year round .homeowners and it's becoming a little community which will be shattered by this explosion of hotel rooms. Secondly, in my opinion, a recent artist's rendering of a triangular street -to -street construction is a monstrosity. Its only mitigating factor is the somewhat improved broken -up Dean Street fagade compared to the 1996 Dean Street rendering. In addition I would urge that all proposed construction along Galena and dill streets MUST have sizable set backs. I urge all members of the City Council, the Mayor and Savanah Partnership to listen to and consider all the above concerns — just some of many concerns which are being loudly voiced and urgently addressed to you by others in the immediate vicinity. When I bought my unit, being somewhat on the `outskirts' of town was a definite and deciding factor — Fasching Haus, Fifth Avenue and a small cabin were the only buildings between me and the whole wide empty expanse of Aspen Mountain. Yours sincerely, 4 OA�� Hailey Dart Memorandum To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Date: 25 August 1998 Re: Lunch Retreat with City Council Please save the date: Tuesday, 8 September 1998, at noon for a luncheon retreat with City Council. This will be an opportunity to discuss a wide range of topics. If any P&Z members want to specifically place a topic on an advance agenda, please let me know. The meeting will be held in Council Chambers. Please contact Sarah Oates at 920-5441 to confirm if you will be available for the lunch meeting with Council on 8 September. Also, please note the following Council worksessions to which the P&Z is cordially invited: Tuesday, 1 September, 4 PM Worksession on Aspen Mountain PUD (Grand Aspen and Top of Mill sites) Tuesday, 8 September, 4 PM Worksession on S/C/I Zone District. Please let me know if you have questions or comments for any of these meetings. Cc: Amy Margerum, City Manager City Clerk William Ames Powers glimmers: h Avenue Condominiums #105 _/ So. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2888 August 25, 1998 The Aspen City Council Mayor John Bennett Pitkin County Planning and City Manager Amy Margerum c/o City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 Zoning Commissioners RE: Savannah Properties Proposals Winters Mr. & Mrs. Wm. A. Powers 2703 Veteran Heights Colorado Springs CO 80904 �627282930`�, N OttCV w N CTt V << O 9�SL til £I►Z�'�V Along with the many other voices you've heard from on above pvoperties, we would like to add our objections to parts of the Savannah plans. As 24 year summer residents of Aspen, owning Fifth Avenue Condo 105, we are especially disturbed by the following: 1. Primarily, that any construction any nearer to our building than the currently standing "cinder block" house would completly lock out our apartment, and several others, from any view at all and from much light as we do sit at a lower level. Also any parking of cars above us would constantly flash lights into the living areas of all those condos whose entrances face the mountain - and there are several. We would like to suggest Savannah allow a "green belt" (park like) area between our property line and the beginning of their 2. The Grand Aspen site is a choice piece of "downtown" property. Some- how, putting a "moderately priced" "hotel" there seems out of context with the rest of the area. The "enclosed" area concept would give the community another "prison appearing" building - as many now refer to the appearance of the Ritz/St. Regis. Certainly t�;e ^ri i n' plan for town homes was more in ;;^^r - '"' 1' the area. To add more retail space facing Dean Street seems impracticle in light of the number of available, empty store and restaurant spaces we saw there this summer. 3. We agree with many of the other issues brought up in the letters of others concerned. Thank you for the time and energy and consideration you have and are giving these problems. We do appreciate Savannah's efforts to please the community and hope, eventually, all will be achiev d to everyone's satisfaction. Most sincerely, - {lWilliam Ames and Marvel A. Powers HAILEY RODWELL DART Alpenblick B 10, 747 Galena Street Aspen, Co 81611 Tel: 970 920 3874 — Fax: 970 920 2829 Dear Mayor Bennett Aspen City Council Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commissioners City Manager Amy Margerum C/o City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Co 81611 Re: The Grand Aspen site and Top of Mill Street The situation seems to be going from bad to worse. 2526272g�9 O N f r "AUG 1998 ] O N N co [CEIVER ro El ZL ti% 27 August 1998 I am an Alpenblick homeowner - one of the 45% in this area who don't rent out on a regular basis - in fact this is my year round HOME. My unit is on the Mill Street side and I am already feeling the impact of expansion to the south of me. This summer's construction of the 918 South Mill Street duplex south, and right on top of, Fifth Avenue `B" building are a constant aggravation. The two -minute rumbling of what sounded like a Sherman tank slowly proceeding up Mill Street at 5.45AM one July morning - actually a huge truck delivering something enormous and yellow to haul or dig or whatever up there — is just one of the many annoyances we are experiencing constantly these days — extra traffic, noise, dust, people - and this is just 8,000 square feet of construction, not the proposed 65,600 square feet of Savanah Partnership's Lot 3 (Top of Mill Street) proposal. I understand that in March 97 when the Planning and Zoning Commissioners approved Savanah Partnership's Lot 5 proposal for a 20 unit condominium project and 10 townhomes, they in fact recommended denial of the Lot 3 (Top of Mill) proposal (2 triplexes, 3 duplexes and 5 single family homes) based upon UNACCEPTABLE DENSITY. Why then is the current Lot 3 proposal (16 free market bedrooms fewer but 24 affordable housing bedrooms more — ie a net increase of net 8) completely ignoring this fact and adding an ADDITIONAL 8 BEDROOMS up there? By any reckoning this translates to INCREASED density. P and Z are quite right to be concerned about the density on this particular edge of town. Over -construction on Aspen's most important commodity (Ajax Mountain and its skiing - as well as summer mountain recreation) is absolutely insane. Also, not only does the topography slant (without studded tires in the winter you often cannot proceed up or down hill without sliding) but Mill and Galena Streets just simply can't take that much more traffic with all the attendant services involved (snow removal, repairs, service personnel, trash collection, etc). Savanah Corporation and the City Council should address P and Z's March 97 concerns — reduce the proposed construction up on the mountain and, if necessary, make up the bedroom shortfall, including any mandated employee housing, down in the Dean Street area. (Employee accommodation could very easily be at the `garden level' between the proposed underground parking facility and the ground floor of whatever hotel needs to be constructed in that area). Residents in this area and I most definitely have many concerns about the proposed construction of yet another hotel on our doorsteps. Firstly I am but a few yards from the St. Regis (I actually look across at it) and its 257 bedrooms, do I really want another 50 or more hotel bedrooms on yet another of my four sides? We like being townhomes and condominiums up here — not least because many of us are year round homeowners and it's becoming a little community which will be shattered by this explosion of hotel rooms. Secondly, in my opinion, a recent artist's rendering of a triangular street -to -street construction is a monstrosity. Its only mitigating factor is the somewhat improved broken -up Dean Street fagade compared to the 1996 Dean Street rendering. In addition I would urge that all proposed construction along Galena and Mill streets MUST have sizable set backs. I urge all members of the City Council, the Mayor and Savanah Partnership to listen to and consider all the above concerns —just some of many concerns which are being loudly voiced and urgently addressed to you by others in the immediate vicinity. When I bought my unit, being somewhat on the `outskirts' of town was a definite and deciding factor — Fasching Haus, Fifth Avenue and a small cabin were the only buildings between me and the whole wide empty expanse of Aspen Mountain. Yours sincerely, Hailey Dart Godfrey Long 1034 St. Paul Place Cincinnati, OH 45202 August 27, 1998 The Honorable Mayor Bennett City Of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Grand Aspen PUD Dear Mayor Bennett: OkZ�2627282930 N \ N -.pU6 ilia07 W N 'p ! V c�9�st �0�6 V` Eiz�� As President of the Board for the Fasching Haus East Condominium Association and a owner of Fasching Haus #180 for over 25 years, I have followed the evolvement of proposed plans and changes for the Grand Aspen parcel for the past thirteen years. The 1996 proposal that was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, after considerable time and effort, called for the replacement of the Grand Aspen Hotel with a 20 unit condominium complex fronting Dean St. and 10 townhomes, 5 each, aligning Mill and Galena Streets. The major objection at that time was the was the height of the roof lines and the square footage of the units. But the positives outweighed the negatives because there was to be underground parking, adequate open space and set backs of the streets and property lines were above the minimums. The current proposal calls for a 150 unit hotel, higher roof lines than before, and adds employee housing and commercial retail space. These changes would increase the population density immensely causing concern about additional traffic, parking and noise levels. Additionally, the open space would be reduced, and set backs drawn to minimums. The pure aesthetics and atmosphere to the area would change from " cozy and comfortable" to 'trestricted, crowded and commercial." Please give this matter the serious attention it deserves in weighing the trade-offs when judging this new proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 0# C5 Godfrey M. Long Jr. President Board of Managers Fasching Haus East Association