HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19880405
~-
AGENDA
.
--------------------
--------------------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
April 5, 1988 - Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
City Council Chambers
1st Floor
city Hall
REGULAR MEETING
--------------------------------------------------------------
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
II. MINUTES
January 26, 1988
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Adoption of New Zoning Maps
B. Ritz-Carlton Aspen Hotel GMP Rescoring
o Ritz-Carlton Aspen Hotel Lodge GMP Amendment
o Ritz-Carlton Aspen Hotel Residential GMP Amendment
IV. ADJOURN MEETING
_ MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director
RE: Adoption of New Zoning Maps
DATE: March 31, 1988
In coordination with our work revising the Land Use Regulations,
it is timely to also adopt new zoning maps for the City of Aspen.
This project is mandated by the fact that we are combining the L-
1 and L-2 Zone Districts, repealing the R-40 and RBO Zone
Districts, renaming a number of Zone Districts and revising the
procedures associated with the Park and Public Zone Districts.
We have prepared a new set of zoning maps for your review which
will be presented at the meeting. The changes proposed on the
revised maps can be summarized as follows:
1. Cover Sheet: We have prepared an entirely new cover sheet,
naming all of the zone districts and overlays which are listed in
the revised Land Use Regulations, and eliminating all outdated
references from the prior Code.
2. Sheet 1 contains the following changes:
* L-1 and L-2 Zone Districts combined into L/TR Zone
District;
* L-3 Zone District renamed LP (Lodge Preservation) Zone
District;
* SPA designation removed from the Smuggler Mobile Home
Park (which no longer requires this zoning) and replaced
with MHP/PUD and R-15;
* SPA designation removed from the Fire Station and Jail
properties, leaving only Public designation (which, under
the new Code, requires review of development as a PUD);
* R-15 designation removed from the Koch Lumber Parcel in
favor of a Park designation;
* Park designation at Rubey Park replaced with Public Zone
District;
* R-6 designation removed from a portion of the Rio Grande
in favor of a Public designation for the entire site, so
that it is zoned PUB/SPA; and
* Small errors corrected on two properties, one (Isaac/De
_ Cray/Kappelli)in which property designated R-6 is re-
designated, part to R-15 and part to R-15 A (based on the
actual zoning at the time of annexation), and one (Moses) in
which we incorrectly designated the area rezoned in 1987
from Conservation to R-15.
3. Sheet 2: L-3 Zone District renamed LP Zone District.
4. Sheet 3: No changes.
5. Sheet 4: No changes.
6. Sheet 5: R-15/PUD/SPA designation removed from Marolt
property and replaced with Park designation; and Conservation
Zone District removed from Thomas property and replaced with Park
designation.
With regard to the Park Zone District, it has been suggested by
Francis Whitaker that an "Open Space Zone District" be
implemented for certain lands in the Park Zone District on which
no development (ie., not even recreation facilities or buildings)
should be allowed. Council has asked for your input on this
matter, which would need to be accomplished at some point in the
future.
These are the only changes we believe are required at this time.
Please let us know if you are aware of any other Zoning Map
amendments which are required at this time.
The maps must be finally adopted no later than the effective date
of the new Code. Since we expect the Code to be adopted on April
or April 25, and their effective date is 30 days later, we need
you to take action on the maps tonight so we can schedule first
reading of an Ordinance by Council. We recommend that you
recommend to Council the adoption of the new zoning maps tonight.
maps
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
RE: Lodge/Residential GMP Amendments: Ritz -Carlton Hotel
DATE: March 31, 1988
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of GMP
amendments to previously awarded lodge allotments (172 units) and
residential allotments (8 units, of which the applicant only
wishes to use 5 units).
APPLICABLE CODE PROVISION: Section 24-11.7 (b) of the Aspen
Municipal Code addresses the procedures and criteria for review
of amendments to growth management allotments. This section
states that proposed changes to architecture, site design,
employee housing and services require rescoring of the
application. The Commission is required to hold a public hearing
to determine whether after rescoring, the applicant's project
would no longer meet the required minimum competitive thresholds
or whether the applicant's position relative to any other project
would change. If either situation occurs, the Commission must
recommend to Council whether to rescind the allotment. If
neither condition is met, the Commission is still required to
- comment to Council on the appropriateness of the changes and the
need for any additional conditions which the applicant must meet.
RECOMMENDED SCORES: The Planning Office has rescored both the
lodge and residential portions of the project. To a certain
extent this is redundant, since it is normally our policy to
score an application which falls into more than one category by
looking at the entire project and all of its representations and
commitments. However, since the two scoring systems are
somewhat different, we must complete both rescorings. We suggest
that you accomplish the lodge rescoring first, since this
addresses the principal use of the site, and will allow the
residential rescoring to follow more easily.
We attach for your consideration our recommended rescoring of the
lodge and residential components of the project. Also attached
are two tables summmarizing the prior scoring of this project by
P&z. Please recall that the lodge component has been scored
twice previously; for the original submission in 1983 and at the
conclusion of the PUD process in 1985 to account for all of the
amendments required during the process. Since the 1985 score was
based on the most current design, it will be our reference for
the GMP amendment review.
Based on these scores, we reach the following conclusions:
A. Lodge Component
1. Our recommended score for the lodge component is 58.2
points. This score is above the minimum threshold of
54 points. Each of the specific scoring category
thresholds are also exceeded by the rescoring.
2. The 58.2 point score is significantly lower than the
score of 65.2 points given in April, 1985, at the time
of the prior rescoring of the lodge, and is even below
the 60.7 point score obtained by the project in 1983.
3. The project would still score above the one other lodge
submission in the 1983 competition, this being the
Lodge at Aspen, which scored 49.5 points and was not
eligible for an allotment.
4. The categories in which the amendment is recommended to
score below the approved project are architectural
design, site design, visual impact and dining. Our
comments below will address the appropriateness of the
changes in these areas, and any conditions we recommend
the applicant be required to meet.
B. Residential Component
1. Our recommended score for the residential component is
32.9 points. This score is above the minimum threshold
of 31.8 points. Each of the specific scoring category
thresholds are also exceeded by the rescoring.
2. The 32.9 point score is somewhat lower than the score
of 37.6 points given in January, 1985. Please note
that we have adjusted the 1985 employee housing score
to reflect two subsequent changes to the scoring
system, these being the elimination of points in the
category "conversion of existing units" and the
reduction in the overall points available in employee
housing from 40 to 20.
3. There were three competitors in the 1985 Residential
competition, two of which met the threshold and one of
which did not. Both projects which met the threshold
were awarded allotments. Therefore, even if this
project were to drop from its top spot to the second
spot, it would have still received an allotment.
4. The principal categories in which the amendment is
recommended to score below the approved project are
neighborhood compatibility, site design and green
space. There are also some differences in the scores
given in several of the services categories.
2
DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATENESS: If P&Z concurs with or exceeds
our rescoring of the proposed amendment, then the project will
continue to meet applicable thresholds and be in the same
competitive position as previously. However, Section 24-11.7 (b)
was written to also ensure that projects not be amended in a
manner which erodes any of the commitments previously made by the
applicant when in a competitive situation. Therefore, we are
required to look carefully at amendments which obtain lower
scores and apply conditions which maintain the former level of
public benefit.
1. Architectural Design/Visual Impact
The only two categories in which we are recommending
"substandard" scores are architectural design and visual impact.
Our concerns with this project remain as they have throughout the
review process, these being the scale and massing of the hotel.
Originally, we also had concerns about the compatibility of the
hotel's architectural style with the community, but there have
been considerable design improvements obtained during the
process. We cannot reach the same conclusion about this
project's mass.
A basic design requirement established during the review of the
original PUD was that the project be broken into separate
buildings to bring its scale down to that of other Aspen
developments. The proposed amendment leaves us with two very
large hotels within the PUD, the Ritz -Carlton and the Grand
Aspen, each of which are designed as singular buildings. There
are no longer any smaller buildings proposed in the re -design of
the Ritz. The approved replacement for the Grand Aspen, which
contains two small buildings along Durant Street, is likely to be
redesigned prior to its redevelopment.
We are most concerned about the precedent we will be setting for
the scale of our lodge district with this kind of development,
including the effect on the eventual redesign of the Grand Aspen.
You have seen evidence that the scale of the Mill Street facade
will dwarf that of the North of Nell building. We find this
scale inappropriate and recommend rejection of the GMP amendment
on this basis alone.
2. Site Design and other scoring categories
There are several_ other categories in which we recommend the
project be scored lower than was previously the case. The
difference in these categories is that the application still
receives "standard" scores. Furthermore, in several categories,
the new score reflects our rethinking of the project's compliance
with the criteria and not on a project change.
The first such category is site design. Here, the reason for our
3
re-evaluation has to do with the open space on this site. We
recognize that the majority of the open space is in the same
location as under the original design, and its area appears to
have actually increased with the revised design. We also
recognize that the applicant has attempted to stay as close to
the approved building footprint as possible in order not to void
the prior approval, and that we did not object to this design in
our prior memos. However, comments during the public hearing
process have increased our awareness that the open space benefits
the hotel's guests to a greater degree than it does the public.
The applicant has responded to these comments by demonstrating
the public open space within the entire PUD, this being
principally the land within the ski -in easement and the park to
be built in front of the Grand (which is slated for future
development of two chalets and an ice rink).
We believe that open space is one aspect of the hotel which needs
to change in response to the other changes requested by the
applicant. What we mean by this is that while the open space on
this lot may have been adequate for a "scaled -down" lodge, it may
not be appropriate for a facility intended to be our premier
hotel. While the. hotel has a grand design and image, it lacks a
"grand entry", such as a plaza, an open courtyard or some similar
feature. Instead, the guest will enter through Dean Street,
which is quite narrow, will be totally shaded and sits behind
another building (the Mountain Chalet) . In addition to
enhancing the entrance image of the hotel, more open space on the
exterior of the building might help in reducing the apparent
scale of the hotel by allowing some transition from the remainder
of the City to the hotel.
In terms of the other scoring categories in which there have been
recommended point reductions, I do not believe there are concerns
which need to be addressed. ,Our reduced score in the dining
category is due to the removal of the restaurant at the Blue
Spruce site. While we feel obliged to score the project lower on
this basis, there is certainly no problem for Aspen with one less
restaurant being built. We would also note that the reduced
scores in several of the service categories in the residential
rescoring are not because of any change in commitment by the
applicant. Instead, the scores are due to the fact that
previously we were reviewing both 700 S. Galena and the hotel's
residential units as a single project, and in part because a
different staff member handled the prior residential application.
RECOMMENDATION: In a sense, the GMP rescoring represents the
culmination of your review of this project. It brings together
in a total package all of the diverse issues we have discussing
individually. Further, by providing an overall comparison to our
evaluation of the prior project, we get an opportunity to
evaluate the appropriateness of the changes in light of the
approval of record.
The Planning Office recognizes that many improvement to this
project have occurred during your month -long review of the PUD
amendment. Significant improvements include an architectural
style which is more compatible with the community, two new
pedestrian activity areas, one each on Mill and Monarch, and
increased setbacks at the rear of the building along Monarch and
Mill. These changes have gone a long way toward addressing staff
concerns about the project.
At this point, we are unable to support the new design because we
find its scale to be out of character with the community. We
remain unconvinced that the indentations into and projections
from the facade and other architectural techniques employed will
reduce the mass along Mill or Monarch Streets.
We also have been convinced by those members of the public and
P&Z who feel that some (not all) of the fundamental parameters of
the prior approval should be rethought. Specifically, we would
like to see more of the open space which is internal to the site
be brought to the external areas so it may be enjoyed visually
and be usable by the public.
We have also commented previously that because of the new design,
with its dramatically different roof forms, the previously
approved height limit of 42 feet to the midpoint of the roof
should be reduced. We believe that the 42 foot height limit was
acceptable because of the specific sloping roof forms we were
being shown and their effect on the building's mass. The mansard
roof forms will add significant mass to this building and should
not receive the same kind of height variation previously granted.
This finding is verified by the provision in the Code (Section
24-3.7 (g) (1) that building height is measured to the top of a
mansard roof, not to the midpoint as is the case for a pitched
roof. We recommend that the heights be reduced so that they are
no greater than 42 feet to the top of the roof, but that we
permit sections to exceed this height in exchange for other
sections of a similar size being below this height by the same
amount.
Based on all of these concerns, we recommend denial of this GMP
amendment. We do not make this recommendation lightly, because
we recognize that in many respects, the amended project is an
improvement upon the approved project. However, if the P&Z
requires the applicant to address the issues of scale, open space
and height in the manner suggested herein, we would be prepared
to recommend approval of this amendment.
ritzgmpamend
5
COMPARATIVE LODGE GMP SCORING SUMMARY:
ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
P&Z SCORE ON
P&Z SCORE ON
PLANNING OFFICE
11/22/83
4/16/85
RECOMMENDATION
CRITERIA
4/1/88
Water
2
2
2
Sewer,
1.2
1
1
Drainage
1.5
1
1.5
Fire Protection
2.1
2
2
Roads
1
1
1
Subtotal
7.8
7
7.5
Architecture
4.9
6
3
Site Design
7.9
8.1
6
Energy
2.9
2.1
2
Parking/Circul.
6
5.1
6
Visual Impact
3.2
6
3
Subtotal
24.9
27.3
20
Meeting Areas
8.6
9
9
Dining
5.6
5.3
4
Recreation
5.7
5.3
6
Subtotal
19.9
19.6
19
Employee Housing
6.7
11.3
11.7
Bonus Points
1.4
0
0
TOTAL
60.7
65.2
58.2
COMPARATIVE RESIDENTIAL GMP SCORING SUMMARY
ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
P&Z SCORE
PLANNING OFFICE
1/22/85
RECOMMENDATION
CRITERIA
4/1/88
Water
2
2
Sewer
2
1
Drainage
2
1.5
Fire Protection
2
2
Parking
1.5
1
Roads
1.1
1
Subtotal
10.6
8.5
Neighborhood Compat.
2.4
1
Site Design
2.7
2
Energy
1.9
2
Trails
2.8
3
Green Space
2.8
2
Subtotal
12.6
10
Public Transportation
3
3
Community Facilities
3
3
Subtotal
6
6
Employee Housing
8.4*
8.4
TOTAL"
37.6
32.9
* Employee Housing points adjusted to compare to current formula
lul u • ; : ► � lul
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
RE: Ritz -Carlton Hotel: Housing Mitigation Review
DATE: April 1, 1988
As you will recall, our discussion of the employee housing impact
mitigation for the Ritz -Carlton Hotel was tabled last week to
allow the Housing Authority to make a recommendation to you. The
Authority met on March 31 and following lengthy discussions with
the applicant and staff, has completed its review.
The focus of the Authority's review was an update of the original
employee generation formula which the applicant had used in
processing the 1983 PUD application. The Authority had directed
the applicant to prepare this update at an earlier meeting, after
they rejected the approach of basing the housing needs for the
project on a staffing analysis prepared by the applicant.
For the Commission's benefit, a brief review of the formula is
presented. The formula breaks the hotel into several basic
components, these being the number of rooms, the amount of
accessory food and beverage area and the amount of accessory/non
accessory retail area. Employee generation factors are then
presented for each component, these being 0.36 employees per
room, 12.8 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. of food and beverage and
3.5 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. of retail.
Using these factors, a total employee generation for the hotel of
264.9 persons is arrived at. However, in recognition of the fact
that the hotel is made up partially of replacement lodge units
(120 units from the Blue Spruce and Aspen Inn) and replacement
food and beverage (The Arya), a crediting of employees is done,
at the same generation levels as for the new areas, resulting in
a deduction of 108.4 employees from this total. It is this
crediting which was the focus of the Authority's deliberations,
to which wd will return below.
The factors which complete the formula are first, the commitment
by the applicant to house 60% of the hotel's employees, which
results in an overall hotel obligation to house 94.0 persons, the
requirement to house 42% of the residents of the residential
projects (700 S. Galena and the five units in the hotel) which
adds 18.5 persons to be housed, and the requirement to replace
previously demolished housing, which results in an added
commitment to house 29 persons. Based on the methodology, the
applicant's total commitment was to house 141.5 persons.
The problem with the methodology which staff pointed out to the
Authority was that it credits the applicant for previously
demolished units and restaurant space at employee generation
levels which we believe exceeded the level of service provided at
these facilities. After considerable debate, the Authority
decided to credit these spaces at the rate of 0.2 employees per
lodge room and 9.0 employees per 1,000 sq. ft. of food and
beverage. The resulting credit was for 68, rather than 108.4
employees and the total housing obligation ends up increasing to
164.1 persons.
There was some debate by the Authority as to whether to use the
formula at all. The Housing Director presented information
obtained from other Ritz -Carlton hotels indicating that their
standard elsewhere is about 2.0 to 2.1 employees per room. Also
presented was information by Dick Butera that the Hotel Jerome
has 1.85 employees per room and the Aspen Club Lodge has 1.25
employees per room. The Authority decided not to use this
approach to employee generation for this facility.
The 164.1 employees exceeds the housing already committed to by
the applicant (Alpina Haus, Copper Horse and Hunter Longhouse) to
house 158 employees. Therefore, using this formula, the
applicant has an additional housing obligation of 6.1 persons for
this phase of the project. Additionally, the Housing Authority
has recalculated the housing obligation for Phase II which is
the demolition and reconstruction of the Grand Aspen, using this
same methodology. The resulting requirement is for an additional
48.4 employees to be housed.
The Housing Authority has made no recommendation to you regarding
how the 6.1 plus 48.4 employees are to be housed. The Planning
Office recommends that you require the 54.5 people to be housed
by production of new units in the City of Aspen or the Aspen
Metro Area. We also recommend that final approval of the PUD
amendment not be granted until all necessary land use approvals
are granted for a project or projects fulfilling this obligation.
The Housing Authority has recommended that three conditions be
applied to the project. First, they recommend that the applicant
be held to the commitment of no more than 204 dining seats and no
more than 4500 square feet of net dining area as commitments of
the Authority's approval of the applicant's housing obligation,
to be verified by review. of the building plans during the
building permit review process. Second, they recommend that as
stated in Part. I, subsection b. of their guidelines, an audit of
actual employees in the hotel be performed two years after full
operation to verify the calculations we have made. Finally, they
recommend that the employees be housed in the same categories
(low and moderate) and at the same ratios as was required in the
prior PUD agreement.
ritzhsngrec
AS APPROVED BY HOUSING AUTHORITY
- 3/31/88
ITEM
PHASE I
PHASE II
TOTAL
A. ASPEN MOUNTAIN
SUBDIVISION
1. LODGE OPERATION
lodge rooms
264
118
382
1-bdrm suites
26
44
70
2-bdrm suites
4
0
4
Total Bedrooms
294
162*
456
living rms. @ 25%
7
11
18
Total Rooms
301
173
474
Employees per room
.36
.36
.36
Total Employees
108.4
62.2
170.6
Existing Rooms
120
155
275
Employees per room
.20
.20
.20
Total Credit
24
31
55
Net New Employees
84.4
31.2
115.6
GMP Employees Housed
60%
60%
60%
Employees Housed
50.6
18.7
69.4
2. ACCESSORY FOOD/BEVERAGE
food/beverage
8200
5000
13200
Kitchen
3400
1800
5200
Total
11600
6800
18400
Employees per 1000 s.f.
12.8
12.8
12.8
Total Employees
148.5
87
235.5
Existing Food/Beverage
4900
5100
10000
Employees per 1000 s.f.
9.0
9.0
9.0
Total Employees
44.1
45.9
90
Net New Employees
104.4
41.1
145.5
GMP Employees Housed
60%
60%
60%
Employees Housed
62.6
24.7
87.3
3. ACCESSORY RETAIL
Total Retail
2300
462
2762
Employees per 1000 s.f.
3.5
3.5
3.5
Total Employees
8.1
1.6
9.7
Existing Retail
700
0
700
Employees per 1000 s.f.
3.5
0
3.5
Total Employees
2.5
0
2.5
Net New Employees
5.6
1.6
7.2
GMP Employees Housed
60%
60%
60%
Employees Housed
3.4
1.0
4.4
HOTEL SUBTOTALS
116.6
44.4
161.1
AS APPROVED BY HOUSING AUTHORITY
3/31/88
Page 2
ITEM
PHASE I
PHASE II
TOTAL
B. NON -ACCESSORY
COMMERCIAL GMP
0
4
4
C. RESIDENTIAL GMP
1. 700 South Galena
8.7
0
8.7
2. Ritz Carlton
9.8
0
9.8
D. Replacement Housing
29.0
0
29.0
GROSS EMPLOYEES HOUSED
164.1
48.4
212.5
*NOTE: This was the unit count under the approved PUD. The
maximum number of units which can be rebuilt in Phase
II is 155. If the number of actual bedrooms approved
in Phase II is less, the applicant should be credited
accordingly.
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
LODGE GMP AMENDMENT SCORESHEET
PROJECT: Ritz -Carlton Aspen Hotel DATE: 4f5f88
1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (Maximum ten
(10 ) points) .
The Commission shall consider each application with respect
to the impact of the proposed building or the addition
thereto upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at
increased public expense.
1 -- Project can be handled by the existing level of
services in the area or any service improvement by
the applicant benefits the project only and not
the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of
service in a given area.
The following services shall be rated accordingly:
a. WATER - (maximum (two) 2 points) - Considering the
ability of the water system to serve the development
and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to
serve the development.
(Multiplier: 1)
RATING: 2
POINTS: 2
COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to install a new 12 inch
water main in Galena Street which will upgrade the
distribution network in the immediate area by providing
increased flows for both the proposed project and for the
surrounding neighborhood. The Applicant also proposes to
install a cross -connection in Monarch Street which will also
increase the overall reliability of water service to the
area. Note: This score is the same at that given by P&Z in
the prior evaluation.
b. SEWER - (maximum two (2) points) - Considering the
ability of the sewer system to serve the development
and the applicant's commitment to finance any system
extensions or treatment plant upgrading required to
serve the development.
RATING: 1
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1
COMMENTS: Adequate sewer facilities presently exist to serve
the proposed hotel project. Two old substandard lines in
Durant Street will be eliminated and replaced by the
Applicant which the Applicant suggests will eliminate
infiltration. Service upgrade not confirmed by referral
comments. Note: This score is the same as that given by P&Z
in the prior evaluation.
C. STORM DRAINAGE - (maximum two (2) points) - Considering
the degree to which the applicant proposes to retain
surface runoff on the development site. If the
development requires use of the City's drainage system,
considering the commitment by the applicant to install
the necessary drainage control facilities and to
maintain the system over the long-term.
RATING: 1.5
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1.5
COMMENTS: The Applicant proposes detention structures, storm
sewers and catch basins to address the on -site needs of the
PUD, as described in detail on pages 67 to 69 of the
application. The Applicant also
pP proposes to fund the
comprehensive Aspen Mountain drainage study and to
"coordinate" .its recommendations with the City. Funding of
the study is a benefit to the community, but falls short of
actual commitment to handle the off -site drainage problem.
Note: This score is an increase from that given by P&Z in
the prior evaluation.
d. FIRE PROTECTION - (maximum two (2) points) - Consider-
ing the ability of the fire department to provide fire
protection according to its established response
standards without the necessity of establishing a new
station or requiring addition of major equipment to an
existing station, the adequacy of available water
pressure and capacity for providing fire -fighting
flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide
fire protection facilities which may be necessary to
serve the project, including, but not limited to, fire
hydrants and water storage tanks.
RATING: 2
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 2
2
COMMENTS: The Applicant's installation of a new 12 inch
water main in Galena Street and cross -connection in Monarch
will provide increased fire protection to both the proposed
hotel and the surrounding area. The Applicant is also
proposing to install four (4) new fire hydrants to further
enhance fire protection to the protect and to adjacent uses.
The proposed hotel will employe state-of-the-art fire
Protection methods and devices. Note: This score is the
same as that given by P&Z in the prior evaluation.
e. ROADS - (maximum two (2) points) - Considering the
capacity of major linkages of the road network to
provide for the needs of the proposed development
without substantially altering the existing traffic
patterns, creating safety hazards or overloading the
existing street system; and the applicant's commitment
to finance the necessary road system improvements to
serve the increased usage attributable to the develop-
ment.
RATING: 1
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 1
COMMENTS: The capacity of the existing road network is
adequate to handle the net traffic volume change resulting
from this project. The proposed reduction in curb cuts and
on -street parking may result in better traffic flow and
reduced accident potential in the vicinity of the project,
but not to the degree that service is actually improved
given increased volume. Transit and pedestrian improvements
are also desirable but we conclude that overall there will
be more traffic on the road network without any significant
road system improvements being installed Note: This score
is the same as that given by P&Z in the prior evaluation.
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT TO DESIGN (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect
to the quality of its exterior and site design and any
improvements proposed thereto, and shall rate each develop-
ment by assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
3
a. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN - (maximum three (3) points) -
Considering the compatibility of the proposed building
or any addition thereto (in terms of size, height,
location and building materials) with existing
neighborhood developments.
(Multiplier: 3)
RATING: 1
POINTS: 3
COMMENTS: The most recent changes to the building address
staff concerns as to the compatibility of the architectural
style with surrounding development However, the scale and
massing of the building have not been adequately addressed
and are incompatible with this community. In particular,
the Mill Street elevation extending for over 330 feet is far
too long without a break. The applicant has varied the
facade through indentations into and projections from the
facade, but has not broken the mass into distinct pieces.
The repetitive nature of the building elements (windows and
balconies aligned horizontally and vertically, little
variety in eave lines) also reinforces the massive scale of
the building. Finally, the use of the previous height
variation, 42 feet to the midpoint of the roof, which was
granted to a steeply pitched roof, but is now applied to a
mansard form, results in increasingly visible height and
adds to incompatible building scale. Heights have been
measured at 52 and 56 feet to the top of the roof in
numerous sections of the building. Note: This score is a
decrease from that given by P&Z in the prior evaluation.
b. SITE DESIGN - (maximum three (3) points) - Considering
the quality and character of the proposed or the
improvements to the existing landscaping and open space
areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and
the provision of pedestrian amenities (paths, benches,
etc.) to enhance the design of the development and to
provide for the safety and privacy of the users of the
development.
(Multiplier: 3)
RATING: 2
POINTS: 6
COMMENTS: Landscape plan includes maples as street trees and
extensive planting and is quite desirable; paving, trees and
similar site features are compatible with Little Nell Hotel
and Galena Street district plans; all utilities will be
Placed underground; on -site links to pedestrian and bike
trails are provided; several small pedestrian areas designed
alone Mill and Monarch Streets. Total PUD open space exceeds
minimum requirements, however open space on this lot is
n
confined primarily to the interior of the hotel and will not
_ be for the enjoyment of the public. For a "grand hotel" of
this scale it would seem that a larger Pedestrian plaza or
open space area should be provided at the front, for both
the public and the guests and to help in scaling the project
down as it meets the center of town. Note: This score is a
decrease from that given by P&Z in the prior evaluation.
C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - (maximum three (3) points) -
Considering the use of insulation, solar energy
devices, passive solar orientation and similar
techniques to maximize conservation of energy and use
of solar energy sources in the lodge or any addition
thereto.
RATING: 2
(Multiplier: 1)
POINTS: 2
COMMENTS: Insulation exceeds minimum requirements but roof
insulation is reduced from R-38 to R-20• quest rooms and
other spaces are not as well oriented to obtain passive
solar gain as in the prior design; major hotel support
functions are located sub -grade to reduce exterior walls and
roof thereby further reducing energy consumption; HVAC
system is computer controlled. Note: This score is a
decrease from that coven by P&Z in the prior evaluation.
d. PARKING AND CIRCULATION - (maximum three (3) points) -
Considering the quality and efficiency of the internal
circulation and parking system for the project, or any
addition thereto, including the proposed automobile and
service vehicle access and loading areas, and the
design features to screen parking from public views.
(Multiplier: 3)
RATING: 2
POINTS: 6
COMMENTS: On Lot 1, there will be 240 subgrade and 9 surface
loading parking spaces provided, well below Code
requirements, but meeting project needs. Access remains the
same as under approved plan, along Mill Street. Service
delivery is internalized on Dean Street, reducing potential
impacts to neighbors, but if more than two trucks arrive at
any time, there will be stacking on Dean or Monarch Streets
which will cause unacceptable traffic circulation impacts.
Note: Our evaluation has not considered the potential for a
tandem narking arrangement or for commercial rental of
Parking spaces, as these are not now requested by the
applicant. Had these features been included, our evaluation
would have been lower, but as it is this score is an
increase from that coven by P&Z in the prior evaluations.
e. VISUAL IMPACT - (maximum three (3) points) - Consider-
ing the scale and location of the proposed buildings or
any addition thereto, to maximize public views of
surrounding scenic areas.
(Multiplier: 3)
RATING: 1
POINTS: 3
COMMENTS:The scale of this building is incompatible with
that of surrounding development as described in greater
detail in the scoring of Architectural Design". The
squaring off of the building along Monarch will block views
of _neighbors toward Aspen Mountain,, and the squaring off
along Mill Street will affect views of neighbors towards
town. Mill Street facade (unbroken for 335 feet) and Monarch
Street facade (unbroken for 230 feet) are out of scale with
neighborhood, despite efforts at setting portions of the
building back to greater degree. Dean Street facade has
been set back _further than previously, which may improve
views toward the mountain from town. Note: This score is a
decrease from that given by P&Z in the prior evaluation.
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (maximum nine (9) points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect
.to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for
guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging
project or any addition thereto. The Commission shall rate
each development by assigning points according to the
following formula:
0 -- Indicates a total lack of guest amenities.
1 -- Indicates services which are judged to be
deficient in terms of quality or spaciousness. -
2 -- Indicates services which are judged to be adequate
in terms of quality and spaciousness.
3 -- Indicates services which are judged to be
exceptional in terms of quality and spaciousness.
The following shall be rated accordingly:
a. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
common meeting areas, such as lobbies and conference
areas, in relation to the size of the proposed lodging
project or any addition thereto (maximum three (3)
points).
6
RATING: 3
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 9
COMMENTS: Applicants propose to provide an extensive
conference center (over 20,000 sq. ft.) including a 10.000
SQ. ft. ballroom and numerous meeting rooms. The conference
center has been redesigned so that it fits onto one, rather
than two levels. Lobby areas for both the hotel and
conference center are expansive. Note: This score is the
same as that given by P&Z in the prior evaluation.
b. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
dining facilities, including any restaurants, bars and
banquet facilities, in relation to the size of the
proposed lodging project or any addition thereto
(maximum three (3) points).
RATING: 2
(Multiplier: 2) POINTS: 4
COMMENTS: On -site food_ and beverage facilities have been
reduced by one full restaurant. There will be three dining
formats: cafe, grill and small private dining rooms, with a
total of approximately 204 seats, as compared to 430 seats
in the prior plan. The total dining area still appears
adequate for this hotel's needs, but is no longer iudgeA
exceptional. Several lounges are provided throughout the
hotel and conference center. The hotel's main kitchen is
sized for full banquet service. Note: This score is a
decrease from that given by P&Z in the prior evaluation.
C. Availability of or improvements to the existing on -site
accessory recreational facilities, such as health
clubs, pools and other active areas, in relation to the
size of the proposed lodging project or any addition
thereto (maximum three (3) points).
(Multiplier: 2)
RATING: 3
POINTS: 6
COMMENTS: On -site recreational facilities in the hotel
include: one swimming pool, outdoor garden area, and a 3,500
sq. ft. health club. Ski in access is provided from Aspen
Mountain. The Applicant also proposes to complete the Dean
Street trail through the hotel site and to implement the
planned park in front of the Grand Aspen Hotel. Note: This
score is the same as that given by P&Z in the prior
evaluation.
4. CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum thirty
(30) points) .
The Commission shall consider each application and its
degree of conformity with local planning policies, as
follows..
a. PROVISION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING (Maximum 15 points).
The Commission shall award points as follows:
0% to 40% of the additional employees generated by the
project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 4% housed;
41% to 100% of the additional employees generated by
the project are provided with housing:
1 point for each 12% housed.
RATING: 11.7
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 11.7
COMMENTS: The Applicants must continue to commit to housing
60% of the employees of the lodge. Note: This score is the
same as that given by P&Z in the prior evaluation.
4. Bonus Points (Maximum 6 points).
The Commission members may, when any one determines that a
project has not only incorporated and met the substantive
criteria of Section 24-11.6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , but has
also exceeded the provisions of these subsections and
achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition,
award additional bonus points not exceeding ten (10)
percent of the total points awarded under Section 24-
11. 6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) , prior to the application of the
corresponding multiplier. Any Commission member awarding
bonus points shall provide a written justification of that
award for the public hearing record.
RATING: N A
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 0
COMMENTS: None
E3
5. TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: 7.5 (Minimum of 3 pts.
required)
Points in Category 2: 20 (Minimum of 11.7 pts.
required)
Points in Category 3: 19 (Minimum of 6.3 pts.
required)
Points in Category 4: 11.7 (Minimum of 9 pts.
required)
SUBTOTAL: 58.2 (60% threshold = 54 pts.)
Bonus Points: 0
TOTAL POINTS: 58.2
Name of Commission Member: Planning Office
9
- CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP AMENDMENT SCORESHEET
Project: Ritz -Carlton Aspen Hotel Date: 4/5/88
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: See Lodge GMP scoresheet, "Water" category.
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to: service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS: See Lodge GMP scoresheet, "Sewer" category.
C. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING: 1.5
COMMENTS: See Lodge GMP scoresheet, "Storm Drainage" category
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: See Lodge GMP scoresheet, "fire protection"
category.
e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the,provision of an adequate number of off-
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the
proposed development and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS: See Lodge GMP scoresheet, "Parking and Circulation"
category.
f. Roads (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and/or maintenance.
RATING: 1
2 -
i
COMMENTS: See Lodge GMP scoresheet, "Roads" category
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS: See Lodge GMP scoresheet, "Architectural Design"
category.
b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground-
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: See Lodge GMP scoresheet, "Site Design" category.
C. Energy (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating, and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 2
3 -
COMMENTS: See Lodge GMP scoresheet, "Energy Conservation"
category.
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: Provision of Dean Street Trail and ski in trail are
judged to be excellent facilities.
e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS: See comments in site design section of Lodge GMP
scoresheet.
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: Project is within 2 blocks of a city bus route.
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
4 -
11
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS: Project is within 2 blocks of the commercial core.
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24-11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non -restricted
units:
- 5 -
13
Studio: 1.25 residents
One -bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two -bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three -bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit
space.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5]
percent housed).
RATING: 8.4
COMMENTS: Applicant commits that 420 of the project will be low
income housing.
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
COMMENTS RATING:
C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points).
SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.5
3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS: 0
RATING:
0
POINTS
8.5
10
TOTAL POINTS: 31.8 32.9
Name of P&Z Commission Member: Planning Office
- 6 -