Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19880308 ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING MARCH 8. 1988 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Welton Anderson, Jasmine Tygre, David White, Roger Hunt, Mari Peyton, Jim Colombo and Michael Herron. Ramona Markalunas arrived at 5:05 pm. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS David: I have been seeing a proliferation of Aspen Limousine buses parked everywhere including on the highway. Alan: It is not a zoning matter. enforcement type of thing. That would be a police STAFF COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES DECEMBER 1. 8. 1987 & FEBRUARY 2. 1988 Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of December 1 and 8, 1987 and February 2, 1988. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. PUBLIC HEARING RITZ-CARLTON ASPEN GNP AMENDMENT Welton: We have been asked to table this to March 22, 1988. Welton opened the public hearing to be left open until March 22, 1988. I can see that a few members from the public may want to speak and even though this is not proper public hearing form, we will take public comment at the appropriate time during the meeting. Welton then read into the record a letter from Mayor Bill Stirling regarding Council members attending the P&Z meeting during the amended submission starting 3/8/88. (Attached in records) Alan: The GMP rescoring will not take place tonight. We will be beginning with the PUD amendment because that is the opportunity to discuss the project in its broadest framework and to have some PZM3.8.88 give and take between the applicants and the Commission to a point where it is ready for scoring. Since this is not a first-time submission and it is not subject to any annual date, it is not subject to the requirement that it simply be scored as presented to you. It will be scored based on all the representations that you have received in the past as well as those you will receive in the coming weeks. The GMP probably won I t occur for 2 or 3 weeks and we will work through the PUD which is the better form for everybody involved in the project. John Sarpa, Senior Vice President of Hadid Development: As you know we are owners of some other properties here in the area. We purchased these properties in August. It includes residential properties, the Grande Aspen, the Barbee Mine Dumps and The Meadows. It is important to us because we are focused on the Ritz right now as our first opportunity to interact with the communi ty to show them what kind of developer we are and also what kind of corporate citizen we are. We are prepared to go. We have selected a contractor after months of a bidding process because we realized the challenges of pulling this together. The PCL Construction Services out of Denver have many years of experience in mountain building. We are prepared in all of our other phases to proceed forward. Jim pavasha: I am now representing the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co. in working with the Hadid team. Bill Johnson, the President of Ritz-Carlton approached me a few weeks ago and told me how excited he is about this project. He wanted to make sure he got going, that he was going to put all the resources necessary against it to see that he got going. He asked me to get re- acquainted and work with the City and the development team in accomplishing the amendment that we are here for today. Bill has also been approached by numerous of our existing guests and corporate groups and other types of groups wanting to know when Aspen is going to be available since it was announced a couple of years ago. So we want to be here and we are excited and we think it is a good match. We want to work together and do this project. Obviously environment and quality of life here in Aspen are attractive to our guests of Ritz-Carlton. In turn, we believe that the guests in Ritz-Carlton have an appreciation for the cultural values in Aspen and we believe we have the means and inclination to support many of the things that are important to the people in Aspen and participate in those things. So again, we think it is a good match. 2 PZM3.8.88 The reason we are here for the amendment is primarily Ritz- Carlton. We have looked at the old group plan when we were working with Roberts. We sold an acreage to make some adjustments in the plan. This involved room ceiling height, room configuration, window location and things like this. We are the ones that needed some changes. We want this hotel to be one that we can be proud of and one that you can certainly be proud of. One that none of us have to look back on and ask "Why did we do this? It could have been so much better". As part of our arrangements with Mr. Hadid, we both agreed that the plan would have to be amended and we would have to come to the City. We are also aware of Aspen 's desi re to balance the economy during the off season. That is one of the reasons we went back in and refined our program for the meeting space. We believe the amount of meeting space that has been put into the program can now help fill in those seasons and balance out the economy. We don't believe we are going to have much effect on the winter season. But, on the other hand, we believe the facilities will enhance the image of Aspen and be capable of hosting many of the prestigious gatherings that you have throughout the year. In closing, Ritz-Carlton has enjoyed a competitive advantage in occupancy an average rate in every environment they have gone into. We believe they can create the demand and not take the demand away from existing facilities. Parry Harvey: When this PUD was approved it consisted of 5 lots. Lot #1 is the proposed Ritz-Carlton. Lot #5 is the location of the Grand Aspen Hotel. Lot #4 is 700 South Galena. Lot #2 is Summit Place. Lot #3 is TOp of Mill. There is a residential project that has a conceptual approval but was tabled pending resolution or further examination of runoff from Aspen Mountain. Lots 1 and 5 were approved for a 2-phased 247 room hotel--The Aspen Mountain Lodge. This is a 5 and 1/2 acre parcel. It was to be built in 2 phases but was to have the same architecture throughout the 2 lots. Under Roberts and the Commerce Bank ownership, almost a million dollars has been invested in utility, relocation from Mill Street, the demolishing of the Aspen Inn in preparation for construction. So this takes care of a lot of the infrastructure that we don I t have to do. In addition, another million and a half has been spent in employee housing for the project which is still on line. There still remains about 3 million dollars in 3 PZM3.8.88 utility and infrastructure and improvement in the lodge area to be done during our construction of the Ritz. What we have done since the Hadid group purchased the properties: First was the agreement with Ritz-Carlton to do the 292 room hotel on Lot #1 with construction to begin as soon as possible. This means that whatever happens on Lot #5 isn't going to happen for 4 or 5 years. So we will have to come back before you on this so you and the community will have a chance to look at that. Given this timetable, we decided to renovate the Grand Aspen. We took the lobby, the bar, the restaurant, remodeled the office spaces, upgraded the fire and life safety features. We did that work in a 60 day period to have it open by December 19th and feel it is a great improvement. We took Summit Place and 600 South Galena and redesigned those projects and processed an amendment through you and Council to get these parcels out of the way so that we wouldn't be disturbing our timetable and your timetable on the Ritz. It resulted in a new design for both projects. We feel it is an upgrade and also resulted in a decrease in density from 16 bedrooms to 12 bedrooms. Another thing that we have accomplished as a condition of CO on this under the PUD, we had to add a 55 space parking lot to the west side of the Grand Aspen. We did not have to do that until the summer of '89. Given the community's need for parking, we went ahead and did it last fall and had it open for this ski season. The Lodge Improvement Distr ict was defeated. We are planning, once this amendment on the Ritz is processed and we can get underway, as part of this infrastructure re-development, to participate in the Galena Street Improvement Distr ict and get that area of the Lodge District cleaned up. This is an amendment of a prior approval. This is to compare the prior approval and our changes. The hotel units were 285. We are at 292. The approval of phase 1 was up to 300 lodge units and 14 residential units. The residential units, they had 14 in phase 1 of the hotel. We have reduced that to 8. The accessories phase--this is where the Ritz really came in. The conference went up. This is an amenity for the public. Health and recreation dropped slightly. Food and beverage increased. Accessory commercial is basically the same. The other was almost 108,000 sq ft is now 83,500 sq ft. The FARs are up about 7%. Open space has increased from 24,000 4 PZM3.8.88 sq ft to 40,000 sq ft--up 40%. underground spaces vs. 222. The issues being amended--the height has been lowered. The water is amended. The footprint, the facade, the landscape are all amended. In terms of the utilities, there are no changes except the on-site detention. We have come up with a new method to do it. And the mountain flows, the employee housing amendment and the general commitments for Continental Inn upgrade is completed. Improvement District is no longer applicable. parking has increased 17%--261 This process is a whole lot like the Hotel Jerome. Approval was granted. New owners came in, scratched their head, sat down and took at look at the operations and said, "In order to make this more efficient to make it function better, we have got to go back and get an amendment". We are very much in that same vein. That resulted in an improvement in the project and I think ours will too. We have been working closely with the Planning staff. The design techniques that have been used to deal with massing and height are basically the same. Variations in the plains, the movement in the roof lines and separations in the buildings to reduce the perception of mass. We have to understand that we are here with a hotel. The approval called it a lodge and dealt with issues in a certain manner. We have a very stately and quality building and we have dealt with the community issues with a little bit different vocabulary. I think we have achieved good results and as effective as anything else. Our schedule: As you know our timing is critical. We have to pull a building permit by April 15. We want to build this spring. We have substantially reduced the amount of dirt we are going to move. We want to get it out of town before the summer season. This means that we will submit for an excavation permit within 10 days. We will submit with our plan as we hope to have it amended and we will submit with the approved plan. This is just prudent business that we are doing this because we have to protect what we have on that property. We have a goal to meet of opening the Ritz-Carlton Hotel for the 89/90 ski season. Gene Aubrey, architect: When we were brought in as architects by the Hadid group and the Ritz-Carlton group, there were really 2 design parameters that we had to deal with. The first one being those design requirements of the previous submission which 5 PZM3.8.88 -- included the height, the setbacks, the massing and all the various things involved in that. The other set of rules was the fact that we had Ritz-Carlton on board as assigned operator which is a whole different thing than just designing in a vacuum. We began with the basic floor plan of the building and the site plan of the building. One of the desires of the Ritz-Carlton in all of their projects is that the design direction of the hotel building be that of a very traditional nature. That does not mean that it is a copy of another building. They are also very concerned about the permanent appearance of the building--that the building have a very strong presence but a quiet presence in the city or area where it is placed. They are also concerned in the planning process that we do a very efficient plan--one where all of the rooms work and you don't have cross-circulation and all the various problems that you have in hotel planning. And that we do a very well-detailed building. We worked on the site plan and ended up with a footprint with the understanding from the very beginning that we would not change the basic site plan layout. The entrance of the hotel is in the same location. We would keep the service location into the hotel on Dean Street in the same location as the previous location-- that we would work within the height limitations and get in the number of rooms--292--so that the building is a very financially feasible operation. Because of the room module we are dealing with we were able to pull back from Monarch Street a little bit more, back from Dean Street quite a bit more and back from Mill Street a little bit. It was a very long building, a very strong building. We were instructed to go and work with the Planning staff and in talking about this we all agreed that what we really had to do is something about the strong horizontal line, the fact that the roof was all horizontal and really wasn't a lot of play in the elevation of this building. We worked on how to break those up. We removed rooms that go back to the core line. We removed the clock tower. We have broken the building up into 3 elements. It is a real concern of ours that this building come down to the ground and the detailing along the edges are very conscious of the pedestrian scale and what it is like to walk along those edges. And also has to do with the tree line edges of the building. And also at that first elevation we have a balcony system that breaks up the facade. We have a lot of concern about the masonry 6 PZM3.8.88 and how that is detailed. We have used different bonding in the brick to create a different texture. The roof has 2 different systems. One is an angular system and the other is a fish scale system. We are also using different dormer treatments. We had had 1 consistent dormer treatment all the way along and we agree that should be varied. Also the balcony treatments as those happen on each different window treatment. There are french doors with side windows in some so that the elevation does, in fact, break up and the eave line moves around quite a bit. Our concern is that the building be a drastically reduced mass from a distance and also when you get up close and that the elements that make up the architecture in the facade of this building be elements that are scaled not unlike elements that you already have here in Aspen but not copy any buildings already here. There was another concern about perceived height. In general the mass of the building is some 15 feet down. You will perceive a 2 story element over a 1 story arcade which is the entrance to the building then the roof which has the dormer and the occupied floor. Joe Wells: The Monarch Street elevation is the best example of the reduction in height that has occurred as a result of the re- design. The roof is at a steeper pitch and this basically allows us to br ing more square footage down to the lower level of the roof. With the roof canted back there was less square footage opportunities down low. Then a change in the structural system from steel construction to concrete has allowed us to reduce the overall floor height for the facility. We have a range of heights now at Monarch and Durant on the back side that presently is 19 ft from the ground plain that continues up to a point that is 54 ft overall to the peak of the roof. Previously the range of heights was from 36 ft to 70 ft. The footprint has increased 15%. That is a function of the effort to try to get more efficiency into the floor plan. Most of those increases have occurred internal to the site. They are increases to the courtyard. There is an increased footprint at the corners which are no longer drawn on the 45 degree angle. The old footpr int in sever al places had no setback. The new scheme is totally consistent with setback variations for the zone distr ict. Open space: As the design was refined over time, what happened was the courtyard gradually got lower. As that occurred, an 7 PZM3.8.88 increasing amount of the requirement. We had an under the approved plan. space. courtyard did not meet the open space open space requirement of 24,000 sq ft Now there is about 40,000 sq ft of open Alan: When the new owner took over this project last summer we recognized right away that the project was not going to be built along the lines of the approval. We realized that it would require a decision by the city as to how we would treat the new development project. We were provided with a primary development program by the applicant. We were given an understanding of a number of the basic project plans. We discovered right away that most of those would be maintained that there were not significant changes in what I would consider to be the basic project parameters. Based on that finding when the applicant came in for an extension to allow for a review of this project in September of last year it was our recommendation to Council that the project not be treated as a new project but it be treated as a GMP and PUD amendment. Council concurred with that recommendation and last September an extension was granted through April 15 of this year. The project that we received the actual development submission on is quite consistent with the analysis that we made last summer. Certainly there are many proposed changes but in our opinion those changes are in areas that we can work with within the PUD and GMP amendment process. There are 4 specific architecture and design issues that I want to address with you tonight. 1. The degree of breakup of the building's mass. 2. Change in design regarding the squaring off of the ends of the hotel. 3. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the community. 4. Compliance with height limitations. Breaking mass: One of the major concerns when the conceptual design was submitted back in 1983 was the feeling that the hotel- -both faces--the area where the Aspen Grand now sits as well as the area where the Ritz is now proposed to sit appeared to mass as a single very, very large development with a single archi- tectural style that really created a building, in terms of area and character, that was out of consistency with the rest of the community. Those designs changed dramatically. The concern really was that the east wing and the west wing would not mass as a single building. And that the massing along Mill Street not be perceived as a single building. The applicant has no problem in 8 -,--..-~--._--- PZM3.8.88 terms of dealing with the question of the east wing and the west wing any longer because what we are talking about now are 2 very separate developments. The real question now focuses on Lot #1, the project before us is whether the massing has been successfully broken up for the Ritz- Carlton. Mill Street is the area I have the most concern about because it is a length of 335 ft. The architect pointed out a very important feature of the hotel. That is the indentations that they have used to break up the massing. This compares to the way that the massing along Mill Street is broken up in the previous drawings which is a clear break into 2 separate buildings. In 1983 and 1984 that was a requirement that the P&Z and City Council set upon this project, that the Mill Street elevation had to be broken up into separate buildings for that massing effect to be broken. I think the Commission needs to decide for itself what perception you might have of the massing of the building. The applicant has used this indentation technique to try to break up the mass when you look at the facades on a flush basis. They have done a successful jOb of that. The question is, is that the only or is that the best kind of massing break that we are looking for. The 2nd kind of massing question that we asked ourselves in the review of the building had to do with patterns. We felt in reviewing this design that a lot of the features tended to be repetitious. Our sense of that repetition is that it will tend to have the person perceiving the mass focus more on an individual element and its mass as opposed to breaking up an individual's perception by having the eye move from portion of the mass to the other. Our recommendation regarding the massing: 1. We feel that breaking the Mill street facade into 2 distinct buildings is essential in terms of reducing the perceived mass of this building and creating some transparency along Mill Street. It is important to recognize that most if not all of the open space on the site is internal to the building. That is quite consistent with the prior approval. The difference is the prior building at least along Mill Street gave us somewhat a sense of transparency so that we broke through into that open feeling so that we had a sense of something between the mass along Mill Street and the mass on Monarch Street. By not creating that break in the buildings we lose some of that sense of transparency. We are also suggesting a greater use of variety in the treatment of the window arrangements. One other way of dealing with the mass is in the roof angles. The prior roof angle broke back 9 PZM3.8.88 quite a bit further than the version which is being presented now. In the prior building we allowed a height much greater than what the applicant is now requesting. Another way of breaking up the mass is to allow greater heights in some locations in return for lesser heights elsewhere. That might be a way to achieve this break without reducing the room and floor area count, etc. Squaring off ends: The applicant has suggested squaring off the ends of the building because of a lot of internal requirements of the hotel. There is no question that it is important that this building be serviceable and practical and functional. The angles tended to open up the views that people had and the ability for the sun to penetrate onto some of the streets. The angling seems to be particularly significant along Monarch for the Telemark and Aztec condominiums. From our measurements it appears that the mass of the building is extending about 40 to 50 feet further along Monarch and Mill Streets than was prev- iously approved. The massing right along the street has clearly gone somewhat further. We suggested that this angling seems to be quite important both in terms of the openness of the project to the neighborhood and it seems to us that it will have effects in terms of shading along Monarch. As a result of that we would like to see some angling re-introduced back there on the corner or this might be one of the places where the building might be stepped down back in these far corners so that the massing which is fairly uniform in terms of height and grade but is as significant here as it is down on the lower portions of the site. That might be the place where you might want to reduce the heights in a transition towards the mountain. Compatibility of architectural style: When the building was first brought to us in January, my first impression was that this building really did not seem to fit in with Aspen or any of its neighboring developments. It was so grand. It was so ornate and so permanent that the only things that I could compare it to were the Courthouse, the Wheeler and the Jerome. As the planner for the community I did not want to see a new building compare or overshadow those grand historic buildings. I thought that those really should be the landmarks of the community. But I can understand that there was some similarity in terms of permanence there. The more I got into the matter the more I understood that the permanence of this building, the kinds of materials they have chosen, the style they have chosen and avoiding some of the style of the surrounding buildings when you 10 PZM3.8.88 look at South Point as a nearby large building or the old Continental as a nearby large building--avoiding that kind of style I can't blame them at all in taking that kind of approach. A lot of those buildings will not be there in 20 years but this building, they hope, will be here. So they are proposing something to you that is really quite grand and that really does not echo a lot of the other styles that we find in the community. We felt that since they were not trying to be compatible with their neighbors, nor would we try to make them compatible with their neighbors, that it might make sense to try and pick up some traditional victorian elements. By that we mean the elements of our heritage which date back to the 1880 to 1910 building period. Those could be the window forms or the roof forms or eave line. This really does not pick up any of those elements in terms of the windows in particular. A lot of the forms in this might remind you of townhouse development in other communities or european style development. They don't remind us of traditional western development or traditional Aspen development and we would like to see more of that in this development. We think it is important because this building will be permanent. And when others develop in this area of the community, they will likely pick up themes from this building. And when they do that we would like it to be somewhat consistent with the architectural style in this community as opposed to creating a new style for Aspen. Height: I think the applicant has portrayed the height issue very clearly and accurately. The basic height limitations which were approved in 1983 and 84 were that the building could rise to 42 ft to the mid point of the roof and 55 ft to the mid point of the area where the elevator towers were. This project in no achieves those kinds of heights. It is substantially below those heights. However, if you find that the perceived mass of the roof form is too great, despite the fact that the proposed development is actually well below the height of the approved project, we recommend that you consider one of the following options: You could have the applicant work more toward the angle as approved in the past. You could use the limit in the code. Or you could allow the height to go significantly higher in some places in exchange for significantly lesser heights elsewhere. That depends on whether you think the perceived mass or the perceived height here is substantially more than it was before despite the fact that the actual measured heights of the roof are way less. welton asked for questions from the Board. 11 PZM3.8.88 .-.-. Mari: How do the approved heights compare to the code. Alan: The code requirement in this zone district is 28 ft to the mid point which would be about 2/3 as high as what you see in terms of the limit. The approved project is 42 ft to the mid point and heights to the peek of the roof well in excess of the 5 ft additional allowed in the code. Parry: First of all, the buildings were separated. Secondly, when you break a hotel it extremely difficult to operate a hotel. other kitchen if you are going to supply building that is completely cut off. never completely like that, it makes You need a whole room service to a Gene: If you stand back any great distance you are going to perceive any building no matter what kind of notches you put in there, you are going to perceive it as one building. If you are down on the street and you walk along that street, you are going to read that indentation as in individual unit. John: The P&Z did not impose a condition of approval on Mill Street facade to be broken into 2 buildings. We offered it as one of many suggestions to your request that we mitigate the general size and bulk of the design. You asked us to go away and do some re-design work when the plan was first turned down. At that time the project covered 6 acres, east wing and west wing. We came back with 6 buildings. The Mill Street elevation composed 2 of those buildings. That was our suggestion not imposed as a requirement on the approval. It was taken and accepted and of course it was much more germane when we were twice the size we are now. Is it really the same concern when we are talking about 1/2 of the scale of this project as compared to what we were before. Angling: That was accomplished under the same request made by you which was to shorten the perceived elevations of Mill and Monarch. It had nothing to do with the views of the neighborhood and nothing to do with the sun hitting the street and melting the ice. That was never an issue. Larry did it to break up the perceived length of the elevations of those 2 facades. Parry: Alan has said break it the way it was done in the old plan. I think we are going to be a lot more productive and we are going to come up with a better product as we start to look at this and say "Are we achieving the same kind of thing"? Whether we are doing it the same way, are we achieving something the eye will not see one entire facade. When someone is walking up the street, are they going to see these variations in the plain? Are they going to see the variations in the way the roof eaves work 12 PZM3.8.88 ~- or are they going to perceive that as not being one continual mass. Gene: As you look at the different victorian buildings in Aspen a lot of different things happen. That is really one of the intriguing things about victorian architecture. But whether we want to simply do an eclectic building and copy some victorian style, I don't personally think that is the proper thing to do. What we have attempted to do here is a mansard roof which is not unlike many victorian buildings. We have attempted to do a building that has quite beautiful proportions. A building that as you look along Mill, Monarch and Dean elevation where it is broken up, what you do by setting those elements back about 30 feet you create really nice little verticles--almost separate little buildings as you go along the street. That is what I believe you are going to perceive as you move along those different streets--is in fact a whole series of different buildings. In the end we want a building with a it that is very elegantly detailed. not exactly be victorian windows. open out of really beautiful rooms. wonderful quiet presence to The windows at the top may They are french doors that Tim Richardson, Design and Development Senior Vice President of Ritz: What we try to do even more than the traditional aspects of architecture is to come up with a building that is timeless. A building that you can't say 20 years from now exactly when it was built. I think the direction we have gone now is right in line with what Ritz-Carlton would want to see here. It is in keeping with the flavor and the scale of what you see in Aspen. It is not a victorian knock-off or intended to be. There are some things in a hotel that you just can I t get around. You have rooms that basically stack up and go side by side and form a grid. And that grid is extremely hard to camouflage. Most attempts to camouflage that grid either are not successful architecturally or are not successful functionally which is where we were at on the first hotel. Welton: This meeting is open to the public. process is not normally a public hearing. The public hearing. We will reverse those rolls a there are so many people from the public here. This PUD amendment GMP rescoring is a little bit because Carol Wylie: I am here on behalf of Lee Miller who is a neighbor and manager of Condominium Rental Management, Inc. She - 13 PZM3.8.88 read a letter from Lee Miller in support of the Ritz-Carlton. (attached in records) Fred Smith: I own and reside in a condominium unit of Aztec Condominiums on the corner of Dean and Monarch. It has been pOinted out that we get only morning sun in that site and not afternoon sun because it is so close to Shadow Mountain. The problem with the approved plan--and I am delighted to have Alan touch on the fact that the code does require that you can only go 5 feet above the mid point of measurement of the maximum height. In fact the code says if it is a mansard roof, you can only measure to the top of the mansard so the 42 foot guide in the past was that it said what you can do is you can just fake the roof down a little lower." I really rather like the design. I would like to complement the architect. It is marvelous. What I don't like is the fact that it basically sets on the lot line. I think if you are going to build the 52 foot height building which is what this is in an area where everybody else's range is 28 feet, there needs to be further setbacks. We need to see some sunshine on our building sometime during the day. I figure now it is going to be 12:00 to 2:00 in the winter when we are going to have natural sunlight on that street and on our building. I would just like to somehow figure out how we could move it back so that the effect of a 52 foot building is the same as the requirement of a 28 foot building. Pat Smith: I own a condominium at the Aztec Condominium Association. I echo Fred's comments. More than that, I guess I don't quite understand, the main neighbor of the new hotel is the hotel itself, the Grande Aspen. And Mill Street is actually controlled, that part of the block, by the Hadid group. It seems to me that the hotel could be--the footprint could be moved closer toward Mill. Graham Means: I know what P&Z just went through this winter looking at the R-6 zone and because they felt certain buildings were out of scale. I think if P&Z were to look at this building in that same way, you would have a lot of trouble approving the heights and I have a lot of trouble with the setbacks and not perceiving open space from the public areas. I think it would be highly inconsistent of you to approve of this kind of thing looking back on that previous review. Richie Cohen: I have been involved with this project from the very beginning back in the Roberts days. And I have been uninvolved with it since Hadid took over. The case for the hotel does not have to be made again. I think it has been made and reemphasized over the years. I think this approach really does .- 14 PZM3.8.88 fit in with a sense of what I have always perceived as a victorian look which is something of permanence. I think the buildings that we have come to revere and that we use as models are buildings of some good substance. A case has been made for the size and the need and the number of rooms. You can I t put that in a tiny little building. I think this solution really approaches it probably better than anything else. I don't think at any time when you look at it on Mill Street will you ever see that whole length. I think when you are able to look at it in sections each piece of it is quite attractive. I think what it does do is fit into the scale of our town as a major permanent building. Mary Martin: I like the project very much. I am surpr ised to think that we have never had a review board here because for a long time that is what I wanted and never could get it. I think that the Planning Department has gone more into the review board interpretation of the building than just helping with the planning of it. When he talks about opening it up, you can't even see it from Mill Street because of the Mall there. I would like to see it open too. But I want to see the project. And I don't think we should nitpick this project one more minute. Whether it is Trump's or anyone else's, it is a good looking building. The windows certainly are not victorian but I didn't know that Alan liked victorian. For a long time he really didn't even want a pseudo victorian or a new victorian built here. So I find fault with that criticism of the building. If you take it apart, it has the same feeling as the new Sysygy Building which is a very handsome, attractive building. And I say, please, let's get on with the project and not make Aspen look so foolish that it cannot accept something well done for once. Marji Deluka: I think the building as revised is very attractive. The only problem that we have with Monarch Street is we are worried about service and emergency vehicles getting up the street and the sun hasn't been shining on there all day and the ice is 3 feet high and there is a little truck in the middle and the fire starts. That has never happened yet to our building but we are concerned about it. We are concerned about the lack of sunlight and we would like to see the building set back along that area. Set back and the roof lowered. Again the revised plan is not another victorian copy. I think what was done with this building is unique in itself. It is modern and it is not another Main Street victorian copy. I like it. Jack Crawford: I live next door to the Aspen Grande. I was one of the more vocal critics of the original Roberts plan and was trying to get it refined to the smaller size in height and mass. 15 -~- PZM3.8.88 ,,,-,,,- I want to address the practicality of the time schedule. It seems to me--I have done some developing myself--You have an existing approval as we all know and they have a deadline of April 15th. In all due respect to Alan--architecturally, I just don't see how the time is available to get a re-do on this thing and get the whole thing approved if you start nitpicking it now and get it approved by April 15th. The alternate, it seems to me, if I were the developer and put the money into it that they have--it is not going to go away--is to pull the building permit on the old plan so if you got down to the deadline on this thing, you are looking at having this fine building ready to go or you have the alternative. They would have no alternative but to go ahead with the plan already approved which I think would be a disaster. Marjie Klein: I live in the Telemark and I am neighbors with Mr. Smith and want to go on record of sharing some of their concerns of Monarch Street. Danny Wardlock: I used to own that blight when it was the Aspen Inn Club and the Restaurant there. If you don't let Mohamed go through with this, God forbid another Cantrup would come in. This thing is really beautiful. I would just like to say we would all like to see it. Ralph Melville: I live at the Mountain Chalet just below this. I kind of feel like Fred does and some of the others. It would be great if they would move the building back about 100 feet from our building. I have enjoyed that view for years. Unfortunately we all have to face reality and there has been an approval of the previous building. I think that this is so much better than what was approved before. I think it looks a heck of a lot better. I kind of have a feeling that the Ritz Carlton might like this because it kind of looks like the back bay of Boston. I kind of like that myself because I am from Boston. Maybe that is why I like this design more than some of the others. I think they have made an effort to have something that fits in better than what we had before. Welton asked for more public comments. There were none. Basically we are dealing with the architecture and design tonight on a PUD level. The items that we are going to be dealing with are the degree of the break-up of the building's mass, roof pitches, the squaring off of the southern ends of the hotel, the compatibility of architectural style, and compliance with height limitations. We will also deal with the points that were brought up by the public. Most of which seem to be centered 16 PZM3.8.88 on the setback on Monarch Street and the morning shading as it would effect that. Parry, what is the difficulty as it seems on the site plan it has a somewhat larger setback on Mill Street than there is on Monarch Street? I do realize there is the ramp going down on Mill Street and the people on Monarch Street probably would not want to have a ramp going down on Monarch Street either since they didn't want service entrance there or transformers or any of that on Monarch Street. Is there practical difficulty in a modest shift to the east? Roy: The service entrance to and from the parking garage subgrade, we have been trying to preserve a larger setback off Mill Street because the parking garage downstairs has to get cars up and down. The way you enter the parking requires a little bit more setback. But there is flexibility there. Welton: It appears that there is perhaps 10 to 12 feet between the edge of your ramp going down and the property line. parry: I think I am hearing that we can work on that. Welton: I think it is something that would really make a lot of difference to a lot of the neighbors to the west. Parry: We have created more setback on Monarch than what was approved. We will look at it and see if we can do some more. Welton entered for the public record a letter from William Stirling from Snowmass Corporation. Reading the final paragraph. "While the proposed Hadid Ritz Carlton Hotel may compete initially with existing lodging facilities including those in Snowmass, I believe the benefits will far outweigh the short term negative impacts." He is very much in favor of the proposal. He then asked for comments from the Commission. Roger: Concerning the breakup of the building mass and I will include in that the squaring off of the southern end of the hotel. I think a way you might be able to address that is at your 30 ft depth break. According to what schematics I have here it looks to me like you could shift the southern end of those buildings. That would have the effect on the Monarch end making more of the beveled end of the building more mute because you move it further out of that plain. Also it would have more of an effect of breaking up of the building by moving that entire southern wing--let' s say move that an entire amount. I don't know that the figure should be 2 feet or something like that. Drop it back 2 feet to the east for the entire length of that 17 PZM3.8.88 portion of the building. You might consider that same approach '-. from the second major break on the Mill Street wing moving that in some 2 feet. That would have the effect of making a very good distinction from the perspective of down the street or of dealing with that bulk and in effect breaking up that mass of the building on the streetscape. I don't have a problem of if you put the oval over here while the building is setback further on the Dean streets cape obviously that pushes it up into the what was beveled off before. So I don't have a problem with that overall. But I think it can be improved by working on the mass. As far as the architectural compatibility and style, I like it. It may not be precisely like anything else in town but, fine. And as far as compliance with the height limitations, this being a PUD, yes, we do have the guidelines of the zone district. But I think it is such a great improvement over the previously approved building overall, I really don't have a problem with it. Here again, if you could move back those southern portions of the building, you do improve the shadowing and the streetscapes. Mar i: The last time this thing came around, the problem that I had with it was the U shape. Now remember that we were considering the entire thing then, not just part of it. But this shape creates a fortress-4 stories, 5 stories-maybe more than ~ that in places that shields the open space from the public. And at the time the Grande Aspen Hotel was the main part of the project and what finally made it a little bit more palatable for the community was when they moved that facade off of Durant Street. The idea was to have a plaza in front of the hotel. So let's say its like an egg shape with two little arms coming out down to Durant. The main entrance--you end up with the same square footage but it was an open look with what could have been a grand plaza. This would have given it a grand entrance and still be usable space to the people in the hotel and the people of the community. It would have an open, welcoming look to it. And although this part of the parcel was still a U, the main entrance to the hotel which was approved, was not a closed shape and that is about the only problem considering the approvals that we have to bargain with. I just feel that 335 feet of facade on one side is out of scale. I don't know how you can make 335 feet look like a human scale no matter what you do. Anything that could be done to open it. Suppose you are walking around the parameter of this, you have no sense of the open space at all as far as the community goes. The architectural style I don't have any problems with. It seems to me that at the ground level it is awfully imposing. It is not that friendly yet at the ground level. 18 PZM3.8.88 Jim: I think it does seem there is some room to work relief off of Monarch Street back whatever distance is possible. It would be a great benefit to the entire neighborhood. I think the reduction you have done is going to have substantial relief along the facade when you get to street scale. I think it is kind of unfair when you look at it from this particular angle because we are not given a place in space for the edge of the street. I think that one of the problems that you don't see the relief here is because there is no corresponding relief in the elevated walkway that corresponds with relief in the building as you walk there. So consequently from across the street or at street level you are looking at elevated walkway that is continuous and the fact that the building itself is in relief doesn't really show up--not at pedestrian level. I hate to get into architectural elements of the building. I think that becomes, to some extent, the import of each architect and his client. It has to relate to the community in some specific way but I think when you put yourself in a posture where you are going to significantly influence the surrounding developments in the years to come, because those developments are going to be renovated, torn down, rebuilt, etc. then I think there is a grave responsibility to the community as a whole what that style is going to be. And so because of this I do think you open yourself up to some extent for some comments, corrective constructive criticism of the architectural designing. I have a bit of a problem with the roof area in 2 points. One in that I think the abandonment of the higher height limitations has caused a bit of a continuous monotonous roof line. I think that the element of greater height in some areas can give you the perception of transparency even though you are going higher in some areas. It gives you the perception of transparency in some of those openings. I think that the mansard roof certainly is an architectural victorian element in the past. I would like to see some breaking of it. But again we are getting into personal taste. Otherwise I feel comfortable with this. Jasmine: I think that the question of the breaking up of the building's mass has been pretty successfully accomplished. I think the various design elements that are included on the facade and the recesses go to accomplish that. This brings me to a point that we have gotten to in other projects which is that the degree of detail that is provided tends to be what you then expect to see when the project is actually built. To me all of those details that are here in this 19 PZM3.8.88 presentation on this model are what I would expect to see. It has been our experience in the past that on the conceptual level what we see in terms of architectural detail is not always what we get. I would like to express a concern at this point that to me part of my agreeing to the changing the architectural design has to do with the wealth of architectural detail which I think makes a significant contribution to the perceived breaking up of the mass of the building. And I would be very unhappy to see the final plan that does not include a lot of these details because I think they are very significant. I agree with Roger's point that you could probably hold some of the Monarch Street facade back somewhat to provide some relief without necessarily causing any major problems in the design of the hotel. I don't have any prOblem with the squaring off of the southern end of the hotel. I can see why that would be a much more functional approach. I have no problem with the architectural style. In the past we talked about compatibility. We all realize that--compatible with what? And we look at the surrounding neighborhood, there are times when we definitely do not want to be compatible which you have recognized. I think on the other concerns we had was that we specifically did not want to get into a situation where we were copying little pieces of architecture that we thought was cute on other victorians and then incorporating them into another building. I think that in this particular instance I would really hate to see that kind of quirky victorian architecture which works very well in certain things, applied to a style like this which is much more of a baroque, linier, formalistic type style. And for that reason I don't agree with Jim's comment about the roof line. I don't think you want to get into pointy roofs and a tremendous amount of variations. I think that kind of liniarity and geometric stepping back is one of the things that is attractive about this building even though it is in smaller elements. The height has been reduced. I have never been a great fan of perceived height because I never perceive height in the same way everybody else does. I like to have an actual number that is smaller. I am very happy with that. I think in general that the design is one that would not be something that we would be terribly upset about 10 years down the road so I am very much in favor of what you've done. David: First I would like to talk about the building mass. The lower heights are great. I would even--talking about pulling back from the street or offering some kind of a site difference in changing the building a little bit--I would be willing to give in certain parts. You could put more height in some areas to 20 PZM3.8.88 drop some other heights someplace else. I don't think that would be bad. In talking about the overall look of that to give a little bit more and to cut a little bit down at the very ends--the tip at Monarch Street and the tip over there-- to cut that down a little bit and put a little bit more in the center would be OK with me. I like the Monarch and Durant corner because it is a lot think that is a lot better. I personally don't like the of the parking off of Durant Street and I am sure change that. lower. I entrance you will I like the design a lot. I think it is a great design. I think that the permanence approach is a very good approach. The old building and a lot of buildings around there were quite dilapidated and this is a class act. I like Roger's idea of pulling off the street a little bit. As you go back, if you could do that. I think some of those minor changes would make such a big difference. Maybe you could get approval fairly quickly. Michael: I think the project is terrific just the way it is. I think it is attractive. I think the consensus of the people that are here and the people that we are hearing from and at least my consensus is that this is a project whose time is long since overdue for Aspen. We need a Ritz Carlton Hotel like this and I like this. Ramona: I would like to see more setback on the Monarch Street side. And whatever can be done to get some relief to that side. I like the break-up of the Mill Street building so that you don't have a big wall like we have on Bleeker Street. The architecture, I always feel is the owner's prerogative. I would like to see the balconies westernized so that the building does not appear cutsie. But as an overall view of the project I like it very much. Welton: As far as breaking up the Mill Street and Monarch Street elevations, a 15 foot slot doesn't cut it in my book. I think a very good example is the courtyard between the old and new portions of the Hotel Jerome. And that even has a raised podium kind of effect which Jim was saying destroys the breaking up of the 2 elements. In that case the extra dimension between the blocks of the building width-wise makes a tremendous amount of difference. I don't think 14 feet is accomplishing anything. You might as well not have a notch in there if it is going to be 14 feet. 21 PZM3.8.88 I think you need to look at addressing the neighbor's concerns on Monarch Street. Whether it is lowering the roof, moving the setback a little further. I think you realize that is going to be something that is going to be looked at again. As far as compatibility of architectural style, I have no problem with the building from the eave line down. I hate the roof. I almost like the bell shaped curved roof one better which I thought was horrid when I first saw it. But pr imarily in this important corner of Dean and Mill Street you are looking at a big square green box staring at you. I almost like the clock tower approach better that you first had on that corner. You had a nice soft curve which is the pedestrian entrance to the building. It needs something more important on that corner. That one corner is very disturbing to me. I think I can live with the roof and the rest of the place even though if you don't carry the roof back far enough. At least in this perspective, if you don't carry the hard mansard roofs back far enough over the lower mansard roofs, you end up very much with a hollywood stage-set kind of thing. That corner is going to be perceived by the community as the most important view of the building because the rest of it is hidden by the existing development across Dean Street and by the future development across Mill Street. That is going to be your pr ime visual statement, not the car dropoff. I think it needs to be something special. From the eaves down, the building is terrific. I think the articulation in the roofs with a little bit more play is very good and I would go for it. But this one corner deserves a lot more study and not just a repetition of what is going on at various points around the building. Mar i: Will anything be done to that block in front of the Grande Aspen? Parry: Yes. In the PUD it is required that those buildings be brought down and that parking lot be removed and a temporary park be put in there as a condition of the CO on phase I. That happens until phase 2 is developed and then it becomes incorporated into phase 2. Parry then made a very brief presentation on the Blue Spruce Building for the Board. David: What are the comments from Jay about Durant Street? Durant Street is already a mess. Is there any way to put the parking entering on the garage on Monarch Street? Gene: On Monarch on our original design we had a service 22 PZM3.8.88 entrance. Believe me we heard plenty from the community. I am talking about traffic. David: I am talking about traffic on Durant Street. If you look, you have got the gondola which has tremendously increased traffic at certain times of the morning and afternoon. This hotel with so many rooms is going to do the same thing. If you have cars coming in and out of there it is crazy particularly because they will all turn left to go out of town. So if you brought them out at the stop sign instead on that street we would automatically make it easier and would take more traffic off of Durant. Parry: We have to be pretty close to Durant because the grade goes up quite a bit there to get down to the garage level. The way we look at it is when we do this the Grande Aspen the hotel parking lot curb cut is eliminated because the park goes in there. David: What I am concerned about right now is that Durant Street is a tremendous mess. We have complained about Durant on P&Z for a long time. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:15 pm. _i --1..,. ~-111 ,-~Ui::P----------- J~~ca~ey, Citt/Deputy Clerk 23