The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutres069-05TO: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: ~ h% Pl15 MEMORANDUM Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director James Lindt, Senior Planner~l~._ THE LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN (REVISED PROPOSAL), CONCEPTUAL PUD & CONCEPTUAL TIMESHARE; RESOLUTION NO. 69, SERIES OF 2005- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING September 26, 2005 Picture of the existing Mine Dmnp Apartments, which are proposed to be demolished to make way for the proposed Lodge at Aspen Mountain (taken from South Aspen Street). An existing single- family residence further down the hill off Of Garmisch Street is also proposed to be razed and will be the location for the fractional residence portion of the project. REQUEST SUMMARY: Approval of a Conceptual PUD and Conceptual Timeshare plan m~d consideration of other land use approvals to demolish the existing Mine Dump Apartments and one single-family residence in order to redevelop the two properties with a 107 unit, 185,400 square foot, multi-story structure to consist of 85 hotel lodge rooms, 22 fractional units, 4 free market condominium units, 12 affordable housing units, commercial and ancillary space and 156 parking spaces in two sub-grade parking garages. APPLICANT: Aspen Land Fund 1I, LLC LEGAL]DESCRIPTION: Block 6 of the Eames Addition and Lots 7-20, Block 11 of the Eames Addition (and a small triaugular shaped area described by metes and bounds) STAFF Staff recommends that City Council consider public comments and provide RECOMMENDATION: Council comments. -1- Pl16 REVIEW BACKGROUND: At the public hearing on September 12th, City Council considered a detailed presentation of the proposal from the Applicants and entertained Staff discussion about the review issues identified during the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of the project. Additionally, Council members had an opportunity to ask questions of both Staff and the Applicants related to the proposal and identified additional informatiqn that is needed to complete the review. City Council also indicated that a Council site visit would be beneficial in moving forward with the review. Staff has scheduled a site visit for Council on September 26th at noon. ADDITIONAL REQUESTED INFORMATION: As mentioned above, City Council had an opportunity to request additional information that is needed to move forward with the review. Councilwom~m Richards asked for several items of additional imformation from both the Applicants and Staff. From the Applicants, Councilwoman Richards requested information as to what standard of energy ' efficiency tlie project would be built to. Councilwoman Richards also asked for a parking plan identifying Where the parking spaces for the affordable housing units ~would .be located within the parking garage for the development. The Applicants are working on having some information on the energy efficiency of the project that they can present at · the public hearing. As far as the parking plan is concemed, the Applicants have provided an e-mail that is attached as Exhibit "A" identifying that the parking for the affordable housing units will be the closest parking spaces to the affordable housing units in the parking northernmost parking garage. It was also requested of Staff that a vicinity map be provided showing the parcels of land in the immediate area, inventorying the existing buildings, and providing some example build-out scenarios for these parcels if they were built out based on the current land use code allowances for the Lodge District and if they were built out based on the floor area ratio being proposed for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. In response to this request, Staff has attached several maps and a table as Exhibit "B" .that shows the scenarios described above. A map that shows the setbacks per the nnderlying zoning for the properties in the vicinity is also attached as part of Exhibit "B". Staff has also attached (attached as Exhibit "C") a spreadsheet and several tables that detail the short-term accommodation pillow count numbers within the City of Aspen over the past decade. As you may remember, the original versions of the spreadsheet attached was included in the draft 2005 Lodging Iuventory Evaluation that was previously provided to City Council. The tables that accompany the spreadsheet include an inventory of lodge rooms that Staff identified as not being included in the inventory spreadsheet and a table that identifies lodging development that is in the "pipeline" (trader construction, approved- not built, and in review process). The one information request that Staff has been unable to fulfill due to the considerable current planning caseload that Staff has had to deal with this yem' is the request to determine how many of the frae market condominiums in the lodge district are actually -2- Pl17 being rented on a short-term basis and filling the role of lodge rooms that were lost. Given the brief amount of time between hearings, Staff has been unable to provide the information about number of owners short-terming residential traits but will continue to work towards getting CounciI this i~ffomxation prior to the com~etion of the review on tlzis project. SEPTEMBER 26TH HEARING: At the September 26tn hearing, Staff will provide a brief surnmary of what transpired at the September 12th meeting and will introduce the additional information being provided in this packet. Subsequently, Staff would then suggest that City Council allow for the Applicants to provide some additional discussion if they would like, prior to starting the public comment portion of the public heating. After completing the public comment section, Staff feels that it would be appropriate to move into Council member comments pursuant to the standard public hearing procedures. Staff would anticipate that City Council may want to revisit some of the specific discussion issues and do a detailed review of the proposed resolution after providing Council member comments on the development proposal. Staff would further anticipate that pnblic comments and Council member comments are going to tal<e a substantial amount of time. That being the case, as is consistent with Staff's approach to break up the review of this significant development proposal into several meetings if necessary, Staff would suggest that City Council continue the public hearing to October 11th after completing Cmmcil comments if there are still discussion issues that City Council would like to revisit. CONFUSION ABOUT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Staff provided a description of the project in the staff memorandum for the last meeting of both the initial proposal that was reviewed by the Planning and -Zoning Commission and the revised proposal that is currently being reviewed by City Council. By including descriptions of both the original development proposal and the project that is 'currently being reviewed by Council, Staff was trying to demonstrate the changes that have occnrred throughout the Pla~ing and Zoning Commission's review of the development proposal. However, including the descriptions of both the original proposal and the cun'ent proposal being reviewed by Council seemed to create some confusion at the last hearing. In an effort to clear np the co~ffusion, Staff would like to provide a clear description of the development proposal that is currently being reviewed by Council in the following paragraphs. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal being reviewed by City Council consists of eighty-five (85) hotel rooms (71 of ~vhich are standard hotel rooms, 14 of which are one-bedroom suites), twenty-two (22) fractional units (proposed as all three-bedroom suites), four (4) free market condominium units, twelve (12) affordable housing units, commercial and ancillary space and 156 parking spaces in two sub-grade parking garages. The dimensional requirements proposed are included in the table below along with the L/TR Zone District dimensional -3- Pl18 requiremer~ts that were in place when the Applicants submitted the original application and the Lodge Zone District dimensional requirements that are currently in place (din~ensional requirements that are proposed to be varied from the underlying zone L/TR zone district requirements that were in place when the Applicants applied are shaded): Dimensional Requirement Min. Lot Size Parcel 1 .......... Parcel 2 .......... Min. Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Lodging....: .... Multi-Family Units ............ Min. Lot Width Parcel 1 ......... Parcel 2 ......... Lodge Zone District .Requirement 6,OOO Sq. Ft. 6,0OO Sq. Ft. No Req. '3,000/Dwelling Unit L/TR Zone District Requirement 6,000 Sq. Ft. 6,000 Sq. Ft. N/A 1 Bedroom per 1,000 Sq. Ft. prOPosed Development 42,549 Sq. Ft. 61,969 Sq. Ft. N/A 25,000 BR's) 30 feet 60 feet 130 feet 30 feet 60 feet 180 feet (~r 25 Dimensional Requirement Lodge Zone District Requirement' L/TR Zone District Requirement Min. % of O 5 feet 5 feet 10 feet 25% -4- / / Pl19 Dimensional Requirement Minimum Off-Street Parking Lodge Units ....... Fractional Units... Free Market Units. Commercial ........ AH Units ........... Ski Company ...... Lodge Zone District 88.5 Total Spaces .5 spaces/BR .5 spaces/key 1 space/unit 1 space/1000 SF 1 space/unit L/TR Zone District 88.5 Total Spaces .5 spaces/BR .5 spaces/key 1 space/unit 1 space/1000 SF 1 space/unit Proposed 156 Total Spaces 60 spaces 15 spaces 8 spaces 30 spaces 13 spaces 30 spaces -5- P~ 20 TIMESHARE USE PLAN: Sale of multiple interests in the 22 fractional units is proposed and each purchaser of a fractional interest in the timeshare lodge will own an undivided I/8th interest in a specific unit, wl~ich will result in 176 timeshare owners, or estates (22 units x8 estates/unit=I76 estates). None of the rooms are proposed to have lock-off capability. The proposed use plan will .=ouarantee each timeshare estate owner use of a trait for a maximum of four weeks a year - two weeks in the winter and two weeks in the summer, with winter being defined as November 1 - April 30 and sarnmer being May 1 to October 31. The maximmn munber of days a unit can be reserved per season by owners is 112 days and, as each season contains approximately 182 days, a minimum of 70 days in each season will remain and will constitute the float time. The float time will be made available to the public for nightly rental and to the ova~ers, subject to certain limitations, such as them reserving a unit at least 30 days in advance, only being able to reserve in increments up to 7 days, and for no more than 30 consecutive calendar days. These limitations on owners should perrait a reasonable am0ant of available time £or the public to use the units. A full complement of amenities will be contained within the facility, including an outdoor pool, spa and fitness center, a business center, ski concierge area, a logo shop, children's recreation area, outdoor/apres ski dining terrace, and a bar and restaurant. The spa, restattrant, and bar will also be available to the public. In addition, the lodge will comain a fully started, on-site front desk to provide guest registration and reservation services for the lodge's hotel gnests and the fractional owners, guests, and will include late check in and other off hour owner and guest needs. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Several off-site improvements of note are included in the proposal. In addition to widening Juan Street to city standards and dedicating additiongl right-of-way to accommodate it and 'installing curb, gutter, sidewalks, planting strip and street trees, the Applicants have also proposed to make some significant improvements to the base of this side of the ski area (in cooperation with the Aspen Skiing Company). The Applicants propose funding the replacement of the existing Lift lA with a high speed double lift that would exte:ad fttrther up the ski mountain ~;o permit access to the "Dump" ski runs (Note: the bottom: terminus of the lift was to remain in the same general location and was not to extend further down the hill past the Skiers Chalet, etc.). The Applicants are also working with the Aspen Skiing Company to also replace the existing patrol shack and ticket sales booth (which was proposed to be considered as part of the Final PUD application). DEVELOPMENT REV1EW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS: The DRC meeting on this application was held on October 29, 2003. The comments from that meeting were included in the September 12th Council packet.' The majority of the requirements requested by the members of DRC are technical considerations that should and will be included as conditions of final PUD review. A question was raised at September 12th hearing by the Mayor about whether the referral comments are out of date -6- P121 since the DRC meeting was held in 2003. Ih response to this concern, Staff wanted to make it clear that the same City referral agencies that attended the 2003 DRC meeting on the original development proposal were provided with the revised application in January of 2005 and asked if their referral comments are still valid on the revised design. Any changes to the referral comments were included in the referral comments that ~vere attached in the Council packet for the September 12th meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As was discussed at the September 12"' meeting, this is a difficult recommendation for Staff to make in that the proposed building is large and does exceed the underlying zone district's dimensional requirements, but would provide a great deal of needed lodging in an appropriate location. Staff feels that the lodging use is the appropriate use for the site since it is located in the Lodge Zone District and at the base of Aspen Mountain. Staff further believes that the proposal has the ability to provide some significant community,benefits. Staff believes that the proposed building is definitely a large structure, but Staff feels that the Applicant has worked diligently with neighbors of the property to reduce the impacts of the building upon the neighbors and that the design changes that have been made throughout this conceptual PUD review have improved the project significantly. Staff is also of the opinion that the proposed uses and associated amenities represent greater net benefit to the community than the "back- up plan" (the townhome project). PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. RECOMMENDATION: After spending more than ten (10) public hearings on the proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a resolution by a four to one (4-1) vote, recommending that City Council api~rove the conceptual PUD and timeshare requests with the conditions contained in the attached resolntion. The Commission felt that the lodge use is the most appropriate use for the subject properties and cited that providing over 80 new lodge rooms and'a new high.speed lift at the base of Lift lA are significant community benefits that would help foster Aspen's vitality. The Commission also indicated that the expressed support fi'om the majority of the most-impacted neighboring homeowner's associations was a factor in the reversal of their original vote of denial on the original project. LETTERS FROM PUBLIC: During the Planning and Zoning Commission's review of the application, Staff received a considerable amount of letters from the public that were entered into the Plarming and Zoning Commission's record. Staff did not include the letters in tiffs packet because m,'my of them discussed iterations of the design that are no longer on the table for consideration by City Council. However, if members, of Council would like to read the letters that were submitted for the various Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, please contact Staff and we will provide you with copies. Since the conclusion of the -7- P122 Plam~ing and Zoning Conrmission's review, the Planning Staff has not received any leyters. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: (ALL MOTIONS ARE MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE) "I move to approve Resolution No. 69, Series of 2005, approving the Lodge at Aspen Conceptu~ PUD and Conceptual Timeshare with the conditions contained therein." ALTERNATIVE MOTION: " "I move to continue review of the Lodge at Aspen Conceptual PUD and Conceptual Tlmeshare to October 11,2005." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Applicant's E-mail about Affordable Housing Parking Exhibit B: Map Inventorying Surrounding Parcels Exhibit C: Lodging Inventory Spreadsheets -8- RESOLUTION NO. 69 (SERIES OF 2005) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY coUNcIL APPROVING A CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND A CONCEPTUAL TIMESHARE FOR THE LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS BLOCK 6 EAMES ADDITION AND LOTS 7-20, BLOCK 11 OF THE EAMES ADDITION AND A SMALL METES AND BOUNDS TRIANGULAR SHAPED AREA, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 735-231-23-001 (Mine Dump Apartments) 2735-131-23-001 (Parcel with the Single-Family Residence) WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Aspen Land Fund II, LLC, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates for a Conceptual Planned Unit Development and Conceptual Timeshare; and, WHEREAS, the original application submitted (dated October 1, 2003) proposed a 204,500 square foot, 121-unit, mixed use, hotel/fractional ownership project consisting of 76 hotel rooms, 29 fractional units, 4 condominium units, 12 affordable housing units, · commercial and ancillary space and a total of 156 spaces in two, sub-grade parldng garages; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, · WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Conceptual PUD and Conceptual Timeshare and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on March 2, 2004, the Pl.anning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council deny, by a three to one (3-1) vote, the Conceptual PUD and Conceptual Timeshare request for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an amended application on December 22, 2004, for reconsideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public heating aft'er considering reconunendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, P123 P124 WItEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.590 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual Timeshare approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after con:~idering recommendations by the Plam3ing and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen / Pitkin Cotmty Housing Authority forwarded a unanimous reconunendation of approval to City Council to approve the proposed affordable he,using mitigation and replacement units for the project at their meeting held on November 19, 2003; and, WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD and Conceptnal Timeshare review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 15, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Conumission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the amended project and continued the public hearing to February 22, 2005; and, WItEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 22, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public heating to consider the amended project and continued the public hearing to March 29, 2005, where the Commission discussed the proposal and continued the hearing to April 5, 2005; and, WItEREAS, during a regular meeting on April 5, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Cornmission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the amended project and continued the public hearing to April 12, 2005; and, WHEREAS, during a special meeting on April 12, 2005,~-the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the South Aspen Street Winter Maintenance Plan and continued the public hearing on the Lodge at Aspen Conceptua'~ PUD and Timeshare to May 10, 2005; and, WHEREAS, during a special meeting on May 10, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the amended project and continued the public heating on the Lodge at Aspen Conceptual PUD and Timeshare to Jtme 14, 2005; and, WHEREAS, during a special meeting on June 14, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the amended project and continued the public hearing on the Lodge at Aspen Conceptual PUD and Timeshare to June 21, 2005; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on June 21,2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public heating to consider the amended project and continued the public hearing on the Lodge at Aspen Conceptual PUD and Timeshare to July 5, 2005; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on July 5, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 9, Series of 2005, by a four to one (4-1) vote, recommending that City Council approve the amended Conceptual PUD and Conceptual Timeshare application, with the findings and conditions listed therein; and, WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD and Conceptual Timeshare approval shall only grant the ability for the Applicant to submit a Final PUD and Timeshare Application and the proposed development is further subject to Final PUD review, Timeshare, Snbdivision, Growth Management Quota System, Special Review, Condominlumization, 8040 Greenline approval pttrsuant to the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 22, 2005, the Aspen City Council continued review of the Lodge at Aspen Conceptual PUD to September 12, 2005; and, WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on September 12, 2005, the Aspen City Council continued review of the Lodge at Aspen Conceptual PUD to September 26, 2005; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public heating on September 26, 2005, the Aspen City Council approved Resolution No. 69, Series of 2005, by a __ to __ (_: _) vote, approving the Conceptual PUD and Conceptual Timeshare application to construct 85 lodge tmits, 22 fractional lodge units, 4 free market residential units, and 12 affordable housing units, with the findings and conditions listed herein; and, WItEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, P125 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council £mds that the development proposal meets or exceeds ali applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council f'mds that this resolution fm'thers and is necessary fbr the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves the Lodge at Aspen Conceptual PUD and Conceptual P126 Timeshare requests to construct a 185,400 square foot, 107-unit, mixed use, hotel/fractional ownership project consisting of 85 hotel rooms, 22 fractional units, 4 condominium units, 12 affordable housing units, commercial and ancillary space and a total of 156 parking spaces in two sub-grade parking garages, subject to the conditions established herein. Section 2: Final PUD Application The Final PUD application shall be generally consistent with the conceptual proposal and shall include the following: 1. An application for Final PUD, Final Timeshare, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Rex~iew for Parking, Growth Management Quota System, 8040 Greenline Review, Subdivision, Thneshare, Condominiumization. A pm-application conference with a member of the Community Development Department is required prior to submitting an application. 2. Delineation of all dimensional provisions to become requirements of the PUD. 3. A proposed subdivision plat, PUD plans, subdivision/PUD Agreement and other submittal requirements specified in Section 26.445.060(B). A construction plan describing timing of construction components, areas of disturbance, contractor parking, and a physical plan for maintaining adequate access, including emergency access, to land uses remaining active dnring construction. The construction plan shall indicate that all construction hanling shall occur on South Aspen Street. A detailed phasing plan that describes overall timing of specific project phases, including the off-site improvements and describing construct, ion affects on the neighboring properties. A detailed street design plan that includes provisions for street signage, pavement marldngs and pedestrian facilities. South Aspen Street adjacent to the Lodge at Aspen Mountain shall be increased in width so that the back of curb is located on the property line adjacent to Sonth Aspen Street. Juan and Garmisch Streets adjacent to the Lodge at Aspen Mountain shall be increased in width to twenty-six (26) feet. Proposed public sidewalk easements shall be included in the final PUD plans along Garmisch and Juan Streets where public sidewalks are proposed to be constructed in conjunction with tlie development proposal. 8. A complete storm water management plan that includes a drainage plan and report performed by a licensed Engineer within the state of Colorado. Section 3: Juan Street Air Space Rights As part of the final PUD application the Applicant shall submit a document outlining the terms of tlae use of the public air space over the Juan Street right-of-way for the private bridge. Said document will be reviewed as part of the final PUD application with the intent that it would serve as an agreement between the Applicant and the City for the use of the right-of-way: Section 4: Dean Avenue Improvements The final PUD application shall contain a detailed landscape and improvements plan for the Dean Avenue Right-of-way abutting the Lodge at Aspen Mountain property that is consistent with the Dean Street pedestrian improvements plan that Staff has initiated. Section 5: Fire Access and Mitigation The bridge over Juan Street shall be at least sixteen and a half feet above Juan Street to allow for fire trucks to pass beneath it. The Applicant shall also submit a plan for fighting fires witltin the project's parking garages at the time of building permit. Section 6: Outdoor Lighting and Street Lights The Applicant shall provide a detailed exterior lighting plan at time of final PUD application submittal. The exterior lighting plan shall include street lighting fixtnres proposed in the adjacent right-of-ways as is required pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.580.020(B)(1)(w), Street lights. Section 7: Air Quality The Applicant shall snbmit a PM-t0 mitigation plan as part of the fmal PUD submission that includes air quality mitigation measures recommended by the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department. Section 8: South Aspen Street The Applicant shall provide the City with annual funding for an additional seasonal employee in the Streets Department during the winter and spring months to do increased snow plowing, snow hauling on South Aspen Street throughout the c~fistruction process and as long as the hotel is in operation. The Applicant shall provide a detailed plan outlining a fnnding amount estimate, tim/ng of payment, method of payment for the additional Streets Depurtment Staffperson as part of the fmal PUD application. In the event that City Council deems it appropriate to snowmelt South Aspen Street in relation to development of other properties accessed from South Aspen Street, the Applicant shall join any futnre improvements district formed to improve South Aspen Street and shall study the possibility of reserving space on the property suitable to house the mechmfical equipment needed to sno;vmelt the street between Conceptual approval and Final PUD submittal. Section 9: Employee Mitigation Plan The Applicant shall submit a detailed employee housing mitigation plan as part of their Growth Management application that shall be applied for prior to or in conjunction with the Final PUD application. Section 10: Construction Management Plan A Construction Management Plan shall be submitted ~vith the final PUD application and shall meet the requirements of the City of Aspen Building Department. The construction P127 P128 management plan shall include at a minimum, a construction parking pian, a construction staging and phasing plan, haul rontes, and an agreement to participate with other developments in the area under construction for staging and construction worker transportation purposes. As part of the construction management plan, the Applicants shall agree to requiring all dump trucks hauling to and from the site to cover their loads and meet Pitkin County Emission requirements. The Construction Management Plan shall also include a fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed ;oy the City Envixorm~ental Health Department that includes watering of disturbed .areas including haul routes, perimeter silt fencing, as-needed cleaning of adjacent right-of-ways, and a representation that the City has the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance dtu'ing construction. The Applicant shall also provide phone contact information for on-site project management to address construction impacts to: The City of Aspen, the Timberidge Condomimums, the Shadow Motmtain Condominiums, the Lift One Condominiums, and the Juan Street Affordable Housing Residences. Street closures concurrent wit/~ significan: public events on Aspen Mountain shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Section 11: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public heating or 'documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fi. dly set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 12: This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not opbrate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 13: If any section, subsection, sentence, clatrse, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held, invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdigtion, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, ADOPTED, PASSED, AND APPROVED on September 12, 2005, at a public hearing before City Council. P129 APPROVED AS TO FORIVI: City Attorney ATTEST: Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P130 James Lindt From: Klm Well [kweil@billposs.com] Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 3:11 PM To: James Lindt Cc: John Sarpa Subject: South Aspen James, regarding the dedication of parking spaces for the AH units, the owners have no real issue with assigning these spaces. They' are willing to commit to assign the 13 spaces closest to the AH units to these units. Klm. Klm Well, RA Principal Bill Poss and Associa[es Architecture a~d Planning, P.C. P O S $ ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN CO 81611 (t) 970/925-4755 (f) 970t920-2950 (e kweil@billposs.com 9/19/2005 P132 Allowable Build-Out Scenarios Property Approx. Lot Zone District Approx. FAR is built- Size Allowable out to 1.98:1 as FAR based on Lodge at Underlying Aspen Lodge Zoning Proposes Timber 1~dge 12,000 SF Lodge District 3:1 for Lodging 23,760 SF (36,000 SF) Lift One 27,000 SF Lodge District 2.5: i for 53,460 SF Condos Lodging (67,500 SF) Southpoint 15,000 SF Lodge District 3:1 for Lodging 29,700 SF Condos (45,000 SF) Willoughby 40,000 SF Park Zone To be 79,200 SF Park . District established through a PUD Skier's Chalet 17,000 SF Lodge District 3:1 for Lodging 33,660 SF (51,000 SF) Holland House 8,000 SF Lodge District 3:1 for Lodging 15,840 SF (24,000 SF) Shadow 35,700 SF Lodge District 2.5:1 for 70,686 SF Mountain Lodging Condos (89,250 SF) Chart House 12,000 SF Lodge District 2.49:1 23,760 SF Lodge Lift lA Ticket 24,700 SF Conservation No FAR set for. 48,906 SF Parcel Zone District Ski Lift and Accessory Facilities I _2_ /// P134 Property Name Aspen Alps Aspen Square Brand Building North of Nell Prospector The Gent / STAY ASPEN SNOWMASS Revised 8/18/2004 ASPEN PROPERTIES Pillow Count Reconciliation 1991 1992 1993 t994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Cateqon/ Deluxe Condo Property Deluxe Condo Property Deluxe Condo Property. Deluxe Condo Property Deluxe Condo Property Deluxe Condo Property -1992 -1993 -1994 -1995 -1996 -1997 -1998 -1999 -2000 -2001 2002 2003 2004 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 278 324 324 332 324 332 460 424 468 468 370 370 350 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 18 18 18 18 18 ~ 205 150 140 178 171 176 176 176 R~ g~[~ ~;~ ~ ~'~ 114 114 91 91 91 604 604 604 601 599 601 622 498 514 514 520 520 520 1414 1460 1460 1465 1455 1465 1559 1369 1492 1485 1375 1375 1955 Aspen Chateau & Dolomite Moderate Condo Property Aspen Silverglow Moderate Condo Property Lift One/Aztec/Chateau Blanc Moderate Condo Property Shadow Mountain Lodge Moderate Condo Properbj 75 75 75 75 75 50 143 143 143 143 143 209 209 209 209 209 209 174 168 202 195 191 ~91 184 32 32 32 32 32 32 56 56 57 57 61 61 54 459 459 459 459 459 291 230 224 259 252 252 252 238 Accent Properties Alien, Sharkey et all Aspen Classic Properties Aspen Lodging Company Aspen Re~ort Accom. CRW/Resort Quest Dickerson & Whitaker Fdas Properties / ACM. Interwest Realty McCartney Property Mgt. Rocky Mtn Residential Spalding Properties Tinnes Properties West Hymen Property Mgr. Property Mgr. Company Property Mgr. Company Property Mgr. Company Property Mgt. Company Property Mgr. Company Property Mgr. Company Property Mgr. Company Property Mgr. Company Property Mgt. Company Property Mgr. Company Property Mgt. Company Property Mgt. Company Property Mgr. Company Property Mgt. Company 345 345 283 345 345 395 351 491 491 422 491 432 491 436 389 396 396 643 643 482 840 840 840 840 684 840 842 834 694 654 796 657 588 361 373 373 431 431 431 488 505 535 704 706 706 626' 80 150 15 165 244 244 236 236 192 ~ 58 5 8 6 6 6 6 2687 2827 2694 2827 2598 2877 2444 2364 2496 2286 2507 2368 2014 Aspen Club Lodge/Sky Hotel Aspen Meadows Hotel Jerome Hotel Lenado Residence Suites Sardy House St. Regis / Ritz Cadton The Little Nell Hotel Deluxe Lodge / Hotel . Deluxe Lodge / Hotel Deluxe Lodge / Hotel Deluxe Lodge / Hotel Deluxe Lodge / Hotel Deluxe Lodge / Hotel Deluxe Lodge / Hotel Deluxe Lodge / Hotel 214 214 214 214 214 214 242 244 260 260 260 260 260 ~ ,~ 240 240 240 240 240 240 232 232 232 232 208 208 208 208 208 208 206 206 204 206 207 207 207 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 18 22 22 20 22 22 22 46 46 46 46 46 46 45 53 53 53 46 46 30 ~ 857 857 857 650 630 690 624 574 574 380 220 253 254 220 254 220 226 246 262 262 262 262 282 966 999 1514 1823 1857 1823 1665r 1679 1769 1695 1641 1641 1431 Aspen Mountain Lodge (B&B) Beamont Inn (Crestahaus) Boomerang Lodge Hearthstone House Hotel Aspen Hotel Durant independence Square Inn ~t Aspen Innsbruck Inn L'Auberge Limelite Lodge / Powder Molly Gibson Lodge Mountain Chalet Snowflake Inn T-Lazy-7 Ranch Moderate Lodge / Hotel 114 114 114 114 114 114 118 118 118 118 118 118 137 Moderate Lodge / Hotel 58 58 58 77 77 77 112 108 108 Moderate Lodge / Hotel 98 98 98 101 101 101 103 102 98 106 102 102 94 Moderate Lodge / Hotel 32 32 32 32 32 32 ~ 36 36 34 34 34 34 Moderate Lodge / Hotel 118 118 118 118 118 118 138 140 140 140 184 164 154 ~ ~ ~ 51 51 Moderate Lodge/Hotel ~ ~.~ 56 56 55 56 56 51 Moderate Lodge / Hotel 56 56 56 56 56 56 62 54 56 61 61 61 60 Moderate Lodge / Hotel 365 365 365 ~65 365 365 280 336 336 336 336 336 336 Moderate Lodge / Hotel 75 75 75 75 75 75 71 75 75 75 84 84 91 Moderate Lodge / Hotel ~?~1,~.. ~ 17 20 32 38 38 47 47 32 Moderate Lodge / Hotel 182 182 182 182 182 182 183 201 221 221 201 201 201 Moderate Lodge / Hotel 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 130 126 126 143 143 143 Moderate Lodge / Hotel 139 136 136 136 139 139 142 177 164 164 164 188 167 Moderate Lodge I Hotel 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 91 107 107 110 110 111 Moderate Lodge / Hotel ~',~::4 ~ 56 56 56 56I 1594 1591 1596 1618 1621 1621 1608 1711 1735 1638 1671 1639 1611 Alpine Lodge Economy Lodge Aspen Manor Economy Lodge Bell Mountain Lodge Buckhorn Lodge Economy Lodge 25 25 25 25 25 25 Chalet Lisl Economy Lodge 20 20 20 20 20 20 Christiania Economy Lodge 50 50 50 51 '51 51 Christmas Inn Economy Lodge 50 51 51 51 51 51 Copper Horse Gues HOLS~ ; =conornyLodge,~?: :;~.,~ ;. 53~; 53 53 ~ :53 - Deed Powder Economy Lodge %;~: 50 50 20 26 28 28 28 28 28 51 0 0 55 55 55 51 55 0 0 Fireside Lodge Economy Lodge 52 52 52 52 / 52 52 Grand Aspen Hotel Economy Lodge 189 427 427 427 427 427 312 295 Heatherbed Lodge Economy Lodge 47 47 42 47 47 Holland House Economy Lodge ]~42,;*; 42 ;~,, A2: ~ :~2 ,,', ¢,42; .~ ~2~ ,'4~ 42 inverness Lodge Economy Lodge 49 55 55 49 49 49 Little Red Ski House Economy Lodge 52 32 38 Maroon Creek Lodge Economy Lodge 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 Midnight 8 & B Economy Lodge 12 16 16 12 12 12 Mountain House 8 & B Economy Lodge 56 56 56 56 56 56 76 74 68 68 76 76 74 Skiers Chalet Economy Lodge 43 43 43 43 43 43 54 54 54 54 52 36 36 St. Moritz Lodge Economy Lodge 106 106 106 106 106 106 88 87 87 87 121 121 130 Tyrolean Lodge Economy Lodge 7'7 77 77 Ullr Lodge Economy Lodge 73 73 73 73 73 73 32 36 36 1755 2001 1955 1767 1410 1410 1077 735 434 394 521 434 447 Total# Pillows: 8875 9337 9678 9959 9400 9487 8583 8102 8185 7750 7967 7709 7096 Total# Pillows available toACRT: 6603 7065 6910 8129 7983 8594 8'113 7770 7985 7550 7813 7667 7096 %of Aspen pillows represented by ACRT: 74.4% 75.7% 71.4% 81.6% 84.9% 90.6% 945% 95.9% 97.6% 97.4% 98.00% 99.45% 99.45% Total # Properties in Aspen: 71 72 73 70 65 64 58 5'1 51 49 48 47 47 Legend: Properties either shut-down, or newly created: Properties either consolidated or absorbed: Properties not respresented by ACRT: #'s which appear uncertain, or former lodges where the closing date is unkown or estimated. / P136 Existing Lod~oe Rooms Not included in SAS Numbers Property # of bedrooms Type of Lodging Year Added to Inventory Highlands Ritz 73 Timeshare Lodge 2000 Carlton Cl~ristiania Phase 1 16 Condominiumized Early 2004 Lodge Annabelle Inn 33 Traditional Lodge 2005 (Former Christmas Inn) Total 122 P137 Lodge Rooms Recently Lost from Inventory(Not Yet Removed from SAS Numbers) Property # of bedrooms Type of Lodging Year Lost Holland House 42 Traditional Lodge 2005 Skier's Chalet 36 Traditional Lodge 2005 Total 78 Adiusted SAS Totals SAS Total Existing Lodge Lodge Pillows in Total (Spreadsheet) Pillows Not SA.S Included in SAS* No Longer '- Assume 2 ' Operating Pillows per bedroom 7,096 Pillows 244 Pillows 78 Pillows 7,262 Pillows Pipeline Total 7,262 Pillows (Adjusted SAS Total) + 594 Pillows (Pillows in Pipeline) = 7,856 Pillows ,I P138 James Lindt Page 1 of 2 From: Helen Klanderud Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 2:34 PM To: James Lindt Subject: FW: Lodge at Aspen Mountain James, For the public record. Helen From: Don Gilbert [mailto:gilbert437@mindspring.com] Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 12:22 PM To: Helen Klanderud Subject: Lodge at Aspen Mountain Dear Ms. Klanderud. As the Council begins deliberating the proposed construction of the Lodge at Aspen Mountaih on South Aspen Street, I would like to register my unalterable opposition to this massive building. It's been said that "when you lose scale, you lose identity." There are many a~'guments against building a gigantic hotel on South Aspen Street, but 1 think that quote goes right to the issue. Our family, now expanded to children and grandchildren, has been skiing in Aspen exclusively for 30 years. We live in Connecticut but own a.unit in Shadow Mountain and are painfully aware that there are many ski resorts easier to get to if all we want is good snow. However, we return to Aspen year after year because we enjoy so much the unique character of the town, its spirit and its openness, All of us have seen considerable change in Aspen over recen.t years, much of it for the better. However, the emergence of a ring of large hotels girding Aspen Mountain will change the town's character profoundly, and not for the better. Now comes the LAM project which promises to be a blight on the landscape that will endure long after any of us will be around to complain. The hotel will do more than any structure that has come before it to change the character of the town. If Aspen continues on this path, I think it will be only a matter of time before people begin to wonder, "If it's going to look like Vail, why not just save the trouble and go to Vail?" The developer's statement reported in the September 13th Aspen Times that he has appeased the concerns of Shadow Mountain owners needs to be challenged. The membership is well divided; there are some who are enticed by the blandishments offered by the developer (e.g., free indoor parking and use of facilities); some owners are ambivalent, and a few actively favor the hotel. However, there are many owners at Shadow Mountain who most emphatically do not want this hotel with its outsized height and mass. For the sake of those who every day will have to look at this monstrosity, I hope you will give it a speedy rejection. Sincerely, Donald C. Gilbert Gilbert Taney Fadie, Inc. 437 Madison Avenue New York, NY '10022 tel. 212-838-1016 9/19/2005