HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19880726
('
AGENDA
---------------------------------------------------
------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
July 26, 1988 - Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
Old City Council Chambers
2nd Floor
City Hall
SPECIAL MEETING
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
II. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Ritz-Carlton GMP Amendment - Rescoring
III. RESOLUTION
A. Recommending Approval of Ritz-Carlton Hotel
IV. ADJOURN MEETING
'I
..
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director
RE: Ritz -Carlton Hotel GMP Amendment and Resolution
DATE: July 21, 1988
Attached for your consideration are two items for review tonight:
1. Recommended Planning Office rescoring of the lodge component
of the project.
2. Initial draft of the Resolution recommending that Council
approve the requested amendments to the project.
We recommend that the procedure for tonight be as follows:
1. Planning Office will present to you our recommended
rescoring of the project. Our recommended score is 62.7
points, which is well above threshold and nearly as high as
any score previously received by the project.
2. The applicant should be offered an opportunity to present
any clarifications or responses to the recommended score.
3. The public hearing should be opened for the rescoring and
public comment taken.
4. The Planning Commission may make a motion to accept the
Planning Office score as presented. In the alternative, you
may choose to score the project individually, and we will
compile your scores into a final tally.
5. The Commission should then initiate discussion of the draft
Resolution. We have put this document together using all of
our notes from your prior meetings and using our two prior
review memos. We ask the Commission members to review
whatever notes you may have on the project and to carefully
check whether our recommended conditions reflect your
recollections as to the determinations made. We expect that
changes to language will be necessary and are prepared to
make these in order that. a final action on the Resolution
can be taken at your meeting on August 2.
As requested previously by' P&Z, following is a recap of the
consensus decisions reached at your last meeting on July 12:
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
LODGE GMP AMENDMENT SCORESHEET
PROJECT: Ritz -Carlton As en Hotel DATE:
7f 26f 88
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.
RATING: 2
(Multiplier: 1) POINTS: 2
COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to install a new 12 inch
water main in Galena Street which will u rade the
distribution network in the immediate area b rovidin
increased flows for both the -nro osed ro'ect and for the
surrounding -ne'Lcrtiborhood. The A licant also roPoses to
install a cross -connection in Monarch Street which will also
increase the overall reliabilitV of water service to the
area. Note: This score is the same at that .iven b 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--Prohotgi--Proi ect. Two old substandard lines in
Durant Street will be eliminated and re laced b the
Applicant which the Applicant suggests will eliminate
infiltration. Service u rade not confirmed by referral
comments. Note: This score is the same as that given by P&Z
in the Drior 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.
(Multiplier: 1)
RATING: 1.5
POINTS: 1.5
COMMENTS: Th�plicant 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
a lication. The Applicant also ro oses to fund the
comprehensive Aspen Mountain drainage study and to
"coordinate" its recommendations with the Cit
y. Fundincr 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 about the same as that qiuen "kV 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.
(Multiplier: 1)
2
RATING: 2
POINTS: 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
hoteurrounding area. The A licant is also
proposing to install four (4) new fire hydrants to further
enhance fire protection to the ro ect and to ad'acent uses.
The proposed hotel will employ state-of-the-art fire
protection methods and devices. Note: This score is the
same as that Jiv2n Dy 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 Tnay result in better traffic flow and
reduced accident Potential in the vicinit of the ro'ect
but not to the de ree that service is nr-fyvally 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 even b P&Z in the rior evaluation.
2. QUALITY OF OR IMPROVEMENT TO DESIGN (Maximum thirt -nine
(39) points) . y
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.
3
The following shall be rated accordingly:
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: 2
POINTS: 6
COMMENTS: The most recent changes to the building address
staff concerns as to the compatibility of the architectural
style with surrounding development and have significantly
improved the scale and massing of the building. The hotel
has been broken into three "separate—" components; heights
have been dropped significantly from previous designs along
Mill and Monarch Streets; roof forms have been altered to be
more compatible with community standards; various
incompatible building elements have been eliminated;
setbacks from the southern propertV lines have increased to
34' on Mill and 112' on Monarch Street. Note: This score is
an increase from that criven by P&Z in thePrior- 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.
RATING: 2
(Multiplier: 3) 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 districtplans; all utilities will be
placed underground; on -site links to pedestrian and bike
trails are provided; several small pedestrian areas designed
along Mill and Monarch Streets. Total PUD open space exceeds
minimum requirements, as does open space on this lot, which
is over 40,000 sq. ft., or in excess of 300 of the site.
The rear garden along Monarch has been expanded and made
accessible to the public. The open area along Mill also
helps to make the inner courtyard more accessible to the
public. The new park in front of the Grand Aspen is an
important, very desirable community facility with the
planned ice rink. The bridge across Dean Street is not a
4
desirable site feature in our o inion and will be the
first such above -street level facilit in As en b
necessary
to allow some of tis
he hotel'- bulk to be taken off
the Mill Street facade. Note: s score is as that iven b P&Z in the rior levalu tion, about the same
C. ENERGY CONSERVATION - (maximum three 3
Considering the use of insulation, solar poenergy 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• cnMst rooms and
other space--- are not as well oriented to obtain passive
solar ,,gain as in the rior des i n• major hotel su port
functions are located sub- rade to reduce exterior walls and
roof thereby further reducing ener consum tion• HVAC
system is computer controlled. Note: This score is about
the same as that iven b P&Z in the rior 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 a
addition thereto, includingthe any
service vehicle access and loading e ar asomoand and
design features to screen parking from public views.the
RATING: 2
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 6
COMMENTS: On Lot 1 there will be 235 sub rade and 10
surface11-1njing,.parkincrspaces Provided. well below Code
re irements but meetin ro'ect needs. Access remains the
same as under a roved lan alongMill Street. Service
deliver is internalized on Dean Street reducing
im acts to nei hbors but otential
an time if more than two trucks arrive at
there will be stackin on Dean or Monarch Streets
which will cause unacce table traffic circulation im acts.
With the a1r licant's commitments to widen the brid e
abutment clearance trucI nrl radius a ears ade ate.
The provision of a roximatel 200 of the subgrade spaces at
llompact car dimensions" is not ermitted b the Code
although
ththou h it a ears to have merit from a 'gesicm standpoint,
Commercial rental of arkin though not currentl
ro osed has been discussed and would also be a flaw in
our opinion, by attracting additional traffic to this area.
Note: This score is about the same as that given bV P&Z in
the Prior evaluation.
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.
RATING: 1.5
(Multiplier: 3) POINTS: 4.5
COMMENTS:_ Although the visual impact of this building upon
neighbors has improved, it remains a very large building.
The break in the Mill Street facade will improve views as
will the reductions in height. The Mill Street facade will
still run for about 205 feet -past this break while the
Monarch Street facade is about 210 feet Ion and ma a ear
to continue across Dean Street due to the brid e althou h
the bridge is set back significantly from Monarch Street.
The Blue Spruce replacement building could be improved
through greater variety in architectural features,
especially roof forms. Note:_This score is about the same as
that given by P&Z in the prior evaluation.
3. AMENITIES PROVIDED FOR GUESTS (maximum twenty-one (21)
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
following formula:
each development. by assigning points according to the
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)
6
points) .
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 Is needs, but is no longer iudged
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 about
the same as 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 crarden 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 about the same as that given by P&Z in the prior
4.
4.
M
evaluation.
CONFORMANCE TO LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY GOALS (Maximum fifteen
(15 ) 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.
(Multiplier: 1)
RATING: 11.7
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.
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
TOTAL POINTS
Points in Category 1: 7.5 (Minimum of 3 pts.
n
required)
Points in Category 2: 24.5 (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: 62.7 (60% threshold = 51 pts.)
)
Bonus Points: 0
TOTAL POINTS: 62.7
Name of Commission Member: Planning Office
9
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS
TO THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD
Resolution No. 88-
WHEREAS, on May 20, 1985, the Aspen City Council approved
the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD; and
WHEREAS, in January, 19881 Savannah Limited Partnership
(hereinafter "Applicant") submitted to the City of Aspen GMP and
PUD Amendments to the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 1988, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission (hereinafter, "Commission") initiated a public hearing
process with respect to the Applicant's requests, which was
continued with meetings on March 15, 22 and 29, April 5, June 281
July 12 and July 26; and
WHEREAS, during the course of these meetings, significant
changes have been made to the Applicant's proposal due to
requests made by the Commission, the Planning Office and the
public; and
WHEREAS, as a result of these changes, the Commission
concludes that the Aspen City Council should approve the
Applicant's request, subject to certain conditions listed herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it
does hereby recommend the following actions to the Aspen City
Council:
1) Confirmation of the 172 lodge unit GMQS allotment previously
granted to the Aspen Mountain Lodge.
2) Amendment of the Planned Unit Development.
Resolution No. 88-
Page 3
a. The unit mix shall consist of at least 56% low income
and no more than 44% moderate income units.
b. Calculation of employee generation shall be as shown in
the attached exhibit A.
6) The recorded Subdivision and PUD plan set shall be amended
to include the following new drawings, which shall be
reviewed by the Planning Director, and City Engineer, prior
to recordation, to determine their consistency with this
approval:
a. A new final plat indicating six, rather than five lots
and designating all PUD variations granted to the
project;
.b. Revised building locations for the project;
C. Revised final site plan, utility plan and landscape
plan;
d. Elevations for the Monarch, Mill and Dean Street
facades and for the internal courtyard; and
e. Floor plans for each level of the hotel which shall
also indicate countable and excludable floor area for
each level.
An amended subdivision/PUD agreement shall also be submitted
to' the Planning Director for review and approval by City
Council prior to final action on the PUD amendment.
7) There shall be a minimum of 220 parking spaces provided in
the parking structure, of which 20% may be compact spaces,
with minimum dimensions of 8 x 1611. There shall also be 10
spaces provided for surface loading within Lot 1, of which 2
shall be. for truck loading within the service area. The
following spaces shall also be provided on Lot 5 during
Phase I:
surface lot west of Grand Aspen:
surface lot east of Grand Aspen:
parallel parking on Dean Street:
angle parking on Dean Street:
guest and service loading:
.subgrade in Grand Aspen garage:
total number of parking spaces:
55 spaces
18 spaces
13 spaces
9 spaces
6 spaces
28 spaces
129 spaces
8) The applicant's commitment in the PUD Agreement to
participation in the Lodge Improvement District shall be
Resolution No. 88-
Page 5
rink and associated facilities approved for the site ready
for occupancy prior to or at the time that the Ritz -Carlton
Hotel is to be occupied.
17) The Norway Maple trees shown on the landscape plan shall be
approximately 15-20' tall at the time of their planting, and
shall be watered through an underground system to be
installed by the applicant.
18) The accessory retail uses permitted within the hotel shall
be limited to the following and similar uses: sundry shop;
car rental desk, travel desk; ski rental and repair store,
ski and sports activity center; Ritz -Carlton souvenir store;
beauty shop, florist shop; and gift shop.
N.te: The applicant lso requests the following uses which I
stig st we discuss to ee if they should b added to the
list: i and sports sh retail clothing s e; luggage
and lea er goods, jewe store; art gal and
bookstore. e limitations o these uses may be nec ary
to ensure they rem "accessory".
19) The following limits shali'l be placed on`� the construction
schedule in addition to those proposed by the applicant or
required by the City Engineer:
a. A "tennis" fence material shall be used to screen all
staging areas on the site.
b. All construction (except painting or similar "quiet"
.activities.) shall be prohibited on the site between the
hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M.
C. The applicant will demonstrate to the City Engineering
Department that permission has been obtained from
adjacent owners to have the booms on the tower cranes
swing over their properties.
Note: I suggest that we also discuss the following requests
by the applicant to see if additional limitations are
required:
d. Proposal to construct temporary buildings on the site
for use during construction years.
e. Proposal to use Aspen Meadows for construction worker
housing. (I suggest a requirement that the applicant
process an SPA amendment for the Aspen Meadows property
to allow this use, to provide notice to neighbors who
may want to comment on the proposal).
Revised Employee Generation EXri 1 tS 1'1' A
`Based on New Generation Factors
and on. June 3, 1988 Program
1. Lodge Operation
New Lodge Rooms (264)
E - New 1-BR Suites_ (26 )-
New 2-BR Suites (2)-
Total Bedrooms
Living Rooms @ 25 % -
Total Rooms
Employees per room
Employee generation
Existing Lodge Rooms
Employees per room
Employee credit -
Net new employees
GMP employees housed
Employees to be housed
2. Accessory Food & Beveraae
New restaurant sq.ft. (net)
New lounge sq.ft. (net)
New kitchen sq.ft. (net)
Subtotal
Employees per 1,000 sq.ft.
Employee generation
Existing F&B and Kitchen sq.ft. (net)
Employees per 1,000 sq.ft.
Employee credit
Net new employees
GMP employees housed
Employees to be housed
3. Accessory Retail
Net retail sq.ft.'
Employees per 1,000 sq.ft.
Employee generation
Existing retail sq. ft..
Employees per 1,000 sq.ft.
Employee credit
Net new employees
GMP )employees housed
Employees to be housed
4. Nqn-Accessory Commercial GMP
Ne} retail
Empjp gees per 1,000 sq.ft.
Employee generation
5. Residential GMP (Lot 4)
Popµlation of unrestricted units
4'3-BRs a 3.A/du (58%)
Employees -to be housed (42%)
6- Employee Housing Replacement
Employees to be housed
_Summarylof Employees to be, Housed
1. Lodge -Operations
2. Accessory Food & Beverage
3. Accessory Retail -
4. Non -Accessory Commercial GM1-
51. Residential GMP (Lot 4).
6. Replacement Housing
Total, Phase I Employees to be -Housed
Phase I
26d
-26
4
- 294 -
7.
301
.36
108.40
120
.20
24.00
94.4
60%
50.6
5,300
3,900
3,400
11,600
12.8
148.5
4,900
9.0
44.1
104.4
60%
62.6
5,770 -
3.5
20.2
700
3.5
2.5
17.7
60$
10.6
0
12.0
8.7
29.0
50.6
62.6
10.6
0.0
8.7
29.0
161.5