Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19880322 ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 22. 1988 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Welton Anderson, Jasmine Tygre, David White, Roger Hunt, Mari Peyton, and Michael Herron. Jim Colombo was excused. Ramona arrived at 4:35. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Alan: A month ago you tabled the zoning maps to tonight. I ask that you now table this item to April 5th. at which point we will have to act on it. Welton: I re-open the public hearing and continue it until April 5, 1988. Roger: I move to table action on the zoning maps to Apr il 5, 1988. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. MINUTES FEBRUARY 16. 1988 Roger: I move to adopt minutes of February 16, 1988. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. RESOLUTION 188-3 Welton: This is to recommend endorsement of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan by City Council. Glenn Horn: I have made the one change that we talked about regarding the area around the airport. We will send this to Council. They will comment on it. It will come back and we will clean it up at this level. Michael: We were talking about the fact that if we annexed now we are going to run into problems where we are going to have nonconforming structures. Basically the new code is going to eliminate that problem. I don't know if that is a problem we have to address here. Didn't they just when they adopted that portion of the code, they grandfathered everything? If that is the case, that is not really a concern anymore. PZM3.22.88 Glenn: The point will be that when you annex you will still try to avoid creating a whole mess of non-conforming structures within a given annexation area. MOTION Roger: I move the forwarding Resolution 88-3, Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, Annexation Element to City Council for endorsement. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. 820 & 822 E. HYMAN TOWNBOMES CONDOMINIUMIZATION Cindy Houben: The main issue with this condominiumization is that it is within the RMF zone district and the applicants are requesting that the 6 month minimum lease restriction be waived. The cr iteria that has been developed for the new code which is not in place yet but which the Council has been using for a number of months now would provide the people requesting a waive of 6 months minimum lease restriction. I think that City Council has made it pretty clear and at least one of their decisions not to allow 6 month minimum lease restriction waiver is the general location in this neighborhood east of Original Curve. They felt that that area was deteriorating and becoming more and more a short term rental situation with the projects which were not given or which had been created in the past which didn't have any restrictions on them. If you look at our comprehensive plan for the area--the newest one we have is 1973--that one says that there should be a mix single family residential area which has some professional and some tourist accommodation in that location. I would submit that we already have plenty tourist accommodations in that area. We do recommend approval, but we also recommend that the 6 month minimum lease restriction not be waived and that all the conditions from the Engineering Department become conditions of approval. Ron: The only thing we are concerned with is merely a matter of cost and I don't think it is required is the elevations requested by the Engineer. We have to do a condominium map that satisfies the statute. It is more expensive and time consuming to provide elevations. 2 PZM3.22.88 Welton: That is not an elevation of the building. elevation of floors and ceilings. Ron: Then I don't have a problem with any of the other conditions. It is an Ron: There are 2 reasons that I focused on the new code provisions. They have been applied recently in a precedent matter that is literally less than a stone's throwaway from this project. That is the 700 East Hyman Townhomes that have recently expanded from 4 to 6. They are literally across the street from this project. It is my understanding from last week's City Council meeting that they applied these criteria that are set forth in the new code in granting this additional one. I think that the Planning Office approach to this of creating a line along Original is an artificial downgrading. If you want to create a boundary, put it in the code by saying nothing east of Original can be short termed anymore. But to establish in a new code provision the specific criteria and then to see that we fall clearly within all three of the criteria and then to recommend denial because we are across the street from Original does not make logical sense or planning sense. We are, in fact, right in the middle. The charts that we gave you and the summary of units--133 out of 203 units in the immediate vicinity and we did not go further than 3 blocks away in determining the immediate vicinity--are presently short term. So it is predominately a short term area. We are right on the bus route and 3 1/2 blocks from the gondola. We fall within all of this close-to-the-tourist accommodations and the downtown area. We also fall specifically within the definition of the mixed residential area in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. So all 3 of the criteria under the new code, we fall directly under. To say that less than 1/2 block they can short term but we can't under the circumstances that would seem to be very inconsistent and discr iminatory. There are condominiums further out of town that are short term. We are on the inside edge of the RMF zone. Jasmine: I would disagree with you on your contention that you are under the appropriate criteria for waiving the restriction. I think that that neighborhood, although it does have a fair number of units which are occasionally or often short termed which has primarily been a neighborhood which is more residential than lodge oriented in general. You would not if you were a stranger in town, go in there and say "Oh yea, this is where all the tourists stay". It is a mixed area. 3 PZM3.22.88 I think one of the purposes of the condominiumization restriction is to preserve neighborhoods that are mixed because what happens is the pressure is always to take the higher and more intensive use which is more profitable to the developer or the owner of the property which then puts more pressure on the residents of the neighborhood trying to keep it a neighborhood. You do want to preserve some kind of mix. It is supposed to be a mixed residential neighborhood. That is what it is now. We keep getting more and more pressure to turn it into a tourist neighborhood. In my point of view that is not appropriate for this neighborhood. I don't see us condoning additional short term use in that neighborhood. Ron: This is a small 4 unit project. heavily impacting the community. It is not as if we are Jasmine: But little by little there are more tourist units and each small project is gradually changing the mix of the neighborhood. Roger: I have to agree with Jasmine. There is a zoning change at Original Street. I prefer maintaining the integrity of the longer term aspect of that neighborhood. Michael: What concerns me is if we have language that gives us the discretion and the discretion sets up the criteria and we are going to say that there is not criteria, then there might as well not be that language there. If the powers that be that passed the code language didn't expect or didn't want or didn't intend that there would be exceptions to those restrictions then I don't think that that language should be there and I can't see how being 1/2 block away from the dividing line doesn't fall within the intent of the criteria. I think Ron is correct that probably it should have said that east of Hopkins there will be no short term units. And the discretion should not be there at all and eventually the units that are there that have been grandfathered in will either be phased out or replaced or there will be an exception to it. What concerns me is that when they passed the code that we proposed the code on the basis of saying there would be an exception. And if we take the logic that we have heard tonight then nobody is ever going to fall in the exception, ever. Cindy: I don't think that is true. This is not only for the residential mUlti-family zone in the code, the criteria. It also goes into the commercial and C-l and the office zone as well. So 4 PZM3.22.88 there may be cases when you take them all on individual basis and you go through the criteria. Michael: I think this is something that falls within the criteria that was established. I would be very comfortable voting against it if the criteria did not exist. I think this is something intended by the criteria or at least falls into the definition of the criteria. David: What I am seeing in this area of town is a tremendous amount of overdevelopment for tourists--large houses where they are going to be there 3 months of the year. The concern for me is that all those are in town. We have tried to have people live in town. Nobody is living in town. Everybody is commuting. I am thinking that I don't like the way things are going and I am going to vote against this. Ron: What you ought to consider is why would you put into this section rural residential and residential multifamily if the intent is what 3 of you have stated here? Those sections shouldn't be in here then if that is your attitude about it. Welton: There is some rural residential up there on Aspen Mountain. That may be appropriate. There may be some on the other end of town. There is some 0 that is appropriate and some o on Main Street that is not appropriate. I think that is what discretion is all about. Where it is good for the neighborhood or any good for potential owners that have that option then it is our discretion to say yes or no. Mari: I know employees who lived in the povish house who no longer have a place to live. In fact I know someone who has had to leave town because of this. I think that the more intended uses that are permitted to replace the existing houses no more employees are going to be displaced by them. I know someone who did live at the povish House the past 2 winters who worked for Aspen Airways. I think this is intended to be mixed residential and we will be setting a precedent that we will never be able to reverse if we waive this 6 month restriction. MOTION Welton: I think some very good points have been made and I agree with the majority of the Commission. I will entertain a motion to approve the condominiumization request with the conditions as listed 1 through 4 in the Planning Office memo dated March 22, 1988. (attached in records) Roger: I so move. 5 PZM3.22.88 Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor except Michael. RITZ-CARLTON GNP/POD AMENDMENT AND REZONING PUBLIC HEARING Alan: Looking at the compliance with the FAR and other area bulk requirements as set for the PUD. This is not an attempt on our part at all to try and see if this building flies with the underlying zoning because we know it doesn't. This building as it was presented was 202,500. That may not be the case after some of the changes that we have seen over the past couple of weeks. I can't tell that the building will be exactly 202,500 in terms of being over allowable FAR. The question for you is would you be willing to amend the PUD agreement to allow Lot 1 to be up to 2,500 sqft larger than was approved under the PUD agreement in exchange for the Grande Aspen site having an approval of 2,500 sqft less than is allowed under the PUD agreement. We suggest that that was a very minor change for the size of the building. In terms of other area and bulk requirements we looked at setbacks. We have had quite a bit of discussion on setbacks along Monarch and Mill Street. In some areas the setback is less than what the prior approval was. Although in excess of the code requirement. The important setback increase is the increase of the setback on Dean Street which we think is highly desirable. Open Space: We obviously did not ask the question that a lot of the people in the community are asking. This is why the open space is located in the place that it is. That is where it was approved under the 1985 PUD. In terms of actual area it is significantly increased from what was approved back in 1985. The one catch to that is that the open space does not meet all the requirements of the code. Specifically it does not meet the requirement regarding grade separation from existing grade because of the requirement to take out the courtyard. And there is some question as to whether it would all be considered to be open to the street. Regarding the number of rooms on the site: You will recall that the site has to be limited to 447 rooms total. Now that we know that Ritz is to be 292 lodge rooms or units, we know that the Grande Aspen can be no larger than 155. We put the applicant on notice that 4 rooms in the Grande Aspen are going to have to be closed down because that would exceed their allowable allotments at this point in time and they have agreed to that. 6 PZM3.22.88 ,..- Parry: The Blue Spruce Building: Our FAR 202.5 includes everything on Lot 1 which is the Blue Spruce Building and the hotel. We have been going round and round on the Blue Spruce and have decided to eliminate that building at this point. Or actually since there is nothing there just not build it right now. We want to reserve some of the FAR on that site and reserve the 6 residential units that were approved but not constructed and we will come back in to see you guys with an amended design at the time we get ready to do something with it. We can't do anything on that because of the staging area until 1989 anyway. Welton: Is it still going to be the access to the parking? Parry: When there is underground parking on that site for whatever use goes there. We had 13 parking spaces under there that were allocated for the restaurant ,and the residential units. Welton: That parking didn't go underneath Dean Street? Parry: No. All of that is just going to get put on the shelf. So the FAR we are going to be talking to you about is going to be exactly what will be in the hotel rather than hotel plus Blue Spruce. Alan: The 12,000 relates to approximately a 1 to 1 FAR on the site that they are asking you to reserve. This is something that came up in discussions that we had over the last day or so. I don't see any problems with reserving the site for future development. It would be subject to full review under the amendment process at that point in time. Joe Wells: All we are trying to do with the Blue Spruce is to preserve the same amount of square footage that we have on the site now for future use. Right now we have 13,461 square feet on the site of which 11,244 square feet is FAR square footage. We would simply retain the maximum square footage of 288,986 square feet for the hotel building itself and reserve the 13,461 square feet for the Blue Spruce site so the numbers would stay the same as they are now. Parry: In terms of the setbacks: The setback on Dean is now 40 feet from the property line. The maximum setback for our building from our property line on Monarch Street at this point is 18 feet. What we have worked out in shifting the building over 2 feet and then bringing this whole thing back in--if you will remember the original approval, it was right on the property line. 7 PZM3.22.88 Alan: It was on the property line at the front and then way off the property line at the rear. Parry: Open space. One of the things that we have been doing in this amendment process is we have been looking at the parcels 1 by 1. The total open space square footage in the PUD is 236,000. In terms of the overall PUD the open space out of the 11 acres is 5 acres which pretty incredible considering that most of the requirements range around 25%. Joe: We have 40,000 sqft of open space within this Lot 1. A lot of that open space benefits the hotel more than the public. We have done some things internally to help that. Previously we had a mechanical vault here that blocked the public's view into the open space. That has been revised. But more importantly what has been lost by focusing just on Lot 1 open space is this notion of the major open space easement that winds down through the 5 lots of the PUD. It is in that open space easement that the public trail system was established and that is really the public benefit of the PUD. Not so much this private open space which although it meets the requirement for that lot, nonetheless there are a lot of hotel functions that are going to go on in there. It was that public commitment of open space that is really a significant aspect of the open space of the PUD as a whole. The open space easement itself is in the neighborhood of 2 acres. The balance of the open space is scattered within the 5 sites of the PUD. Parry: Number of rooms: Basically what we are doing with 292 rooms is 172 new under GMP, 120 are replacement units that were on the site. There are 5 residential in the hotel and there were 3 in the restaurant in the Blue Spruce Building. Alan: There were a total of 14 in the original PUD approval, 8 of which were GMP allotments, 6 were reconstruction units. I believe it is 6 reconstruction units that the applicant is suggesting he reserve for use on the Blue Spruce site. 5 of the 8 GMP units are in the hotel. The other 3 are history. Roger: So what you want to do at this point is agree that the 5 or 6 are going to be reconstructed. Parry: 6. In other words when we come back in and say OK here is our design for this Blue Spruce site and we would like to do 6 residential units in there, you will say "OK, we don't have to go through GMP and compete for those because they are replacement units". There are 5 residential units within the hotel. So 292 8 PZM3.22.88 rooms and 5 residential units. The original approval was no more than 300 rooms and 14 residential units. Mr. Haggard, site planning: We have re-aligned the corridor of the center of the building to allow us to make an additional 6 ft shift. Certain things had to stay where they were. We are being locked in by the property line over here. We have got a 5 ft setback on that side yard. We are trying to standardize as many rooms as we can so you will notice that this whole wing didn't shift, just the area between this exit stair and the notch has shifted down so we have got some constraints there that we are dealing with which would make a very similar situation to what we have got over there but that allowed us a 6 ft shift in the primary body of these 2 wings to increase the side yards on those 2 sides. We still left the wall for the service corridor down below where it is starting at a maximum height there of roughly 15 ft and as grade catches up with it down here it is almost at grade. A similar situation has occurred here. Something kind of important to remember, our entry level is at level 36. Our first hotel guest floor is at level 51. This terrace that you see here, a majority of our pool/deck area here this terrace area here is also at level 51. It opens directly off of our first occupied guest floor. This terrace in here is actually at level 36 with a slight transition area between 36 to 41 to 51. As grade passes by here, we have roughly got 20 ft from our property line to the face of the building which we intend to show when we get back into the architectural portion. The transition between the pedestrian walkway and how that terrace has been treated to keep it from appearing too blooming. Obviously the additional setback there has helped us considerably. The arriving passengers coming in off of Dean Street, enter the porte-cochere and actually drive up underneath the building. At the primary hotel dropoff the valet picks up the car, the bellman picks up the bags and skis, the hotel guest enters and is directed to the cashier's area while his skis and bags and car disappear. The valet takes you car over to Mill Street and we have got an entrance off of Mill Street that actually drives underneath the building. As far as the plaza on the corner of Dean and Mill Street, we still anticipate this as being a highly visible and very active pedestrian area. We had previously shown a small overlook roughly 9 ft in difference between the curb line and the plaza level so that provided the ability for the pedestrian to walk out onto an overlook and look down to the gardens in the courtyard. 9 PZM3.22.88 There is a cool hot tub and a fountain as a more active terrace area. We are very much encouraging the pedestrian, when the times are appropriate, to go ahead and enter the courtyard and come on into our space. We had studied that looked at the possibility of providing direct access for the pedestrian from this corner of the building on into the interior courtyard of the hotel. Ritz is very concerned and very interested that this be basically an exterior function space for the hotel. This their exterior function space so we felt as though if we are going to encourage people in from two different directions, a certain amount of security would still be required. As far as setbacks go the revised parking plan which shows some revisions in the requirements for the shoring for the garage and the tiebacks up underneath that we are working with City Engineering on. We are actually 4 ft inside the property line at this point as opposed to the previous submission which was directly against it. The maximum setback from the property line to the building is 18 ft to the outermost--well actually to the inside portion. The most stringent space right at 14 ft on Monarch Street. That is to the primary face. Welton: There are about 15 different setbacks on Monarch Street depending on where you measure. Haggard: Our building edge below comes to 10 ft inside the property line on Monarch. Joe: We have conditions where terraces start right at the property line. Jim: What percentage of that interior courtyard that is being counted toward open space actually does not conform to code as far as grade elevations go? Joe: Our first pass at the open space calculation under the current regulation was 48,000 sqft. I used 40,000 sqft in the event we got into some squabbles over technical interpretations to the language. I believe we comfortably have 40,000 sqft under the current code vs. approximately 24,000 under the approved scheme. That has to do with the distance above or below the grade with the open space inside the courtyard. Mari: As the pedestrian is walking along Monarch Street, what does the pedestrian see in that setback between the building's edge and the facade? 10 PZM3.22.88 Haggard: It all depends on what point you are at. You have got level planting beds approximately 15 ft wide that tie into the vertical walls that create the surface core. As you continue up the street the grade continues to rise and our platform remains horizontal. The size of that wall is diminished and at midpoint you are looking at approximately a 6 ft wall. So at a high level, you are looking at the finished elevation of that terrace so it is a 6 ft wall once again maintaining the level planting beds to serve as a softening edge between the sidewalk and the base of the building. Mari: Is that terrace going to be terraces for the use of the rooms? Haggard: It is a pretty classical balustrade with interruptions. Where you see the circle we are indicating there is small planter bowls with a pilaster below that creates a pedestal with an open balustrading between. It is transparent and this is the terrace that has been designed for use by those residents, the hotel guests. A similar balustrade will follow the line of the building there so that as you make your way up Mill Street you see a fence separating you from the buffer and terrace. Curt: Trees: What we have done is develop a rather straight forward concept with street trees. Street trees are good. The more the better. And what we tried to do is surround the parameter of the property with street trees. In this case Maples of 3 inch caliber. The same trees that will be used further down at Little Nell's so that we get continuity along Dean Street as well. The trees are planted on about 14 ft 6 in centers which is about the same as the Jerome and conform with the room module. The other thing we have tried to do is once we have created that tree canopy and started to provide some shade and softness on the edge of the building is to provide another level of interest to the pedestrian by providing a level of detail planting. In this case mixed perennial beds around the parameter as well. At this major pedestrian entrance to the building, we have some raised planters here that have Crabapples to provide color and some seasonal change and to demarcate that entry and underneath that a mixed perennial border of things like Bell Flowers, Day Lilies and Columbines. Then along the front a mixed perennial border here with a focal element. Moving up Monarch Street there are planters about on 15 ft width on modules so there is a series of level planters. There is an existing Spruce here and we modified the parking here so we could retain that large tree. 11 PZM3.22.88 .~...." We have come off the sidewalk a distance of probably 20 X 60 feet with a small park space with low seating walls at sidewalk levels. Someone moving along Monarch could step off the sidewalk and sit there along the edge of the pedestrian by these perennial plantings. Then a stairway down to this level. The other change we discussed earlier--the Blue Spruce site--the 3 existing Spruce trees that are here remain. We have shown at this time that these street trees plantings continuing in that location. The size of the trees are what were requested in the staff comments. They are Maples which are an excellent tree and should do well in that location. Tree grates and guards: Our sense of things is that because this does not receive the kind of pedestrian circulation levels such as the Jerome that they really don't need that level of protection. Tree guards, in our minds take on downtown Denver urban connotation. We really prefer not to use those. If we need to deal with a grate type situation that may be appropriate. We would prefer to take a look at tree well with brick pavers or something of that sort which has a nicer feel at the pedestrian level. We have added 8 Spruce along the ski trail. We think that is important to soften this end of the building visually. But we don't want to go too overboard in this area because it is a ski trail and as you know evergreens and skiers sometimes come into direct contact with each other. Roger: The 14 or 15 ft centers for the trees sounds awfully close together. What happens when those grow. Ron: Maples tend to be rather upright trees. The trees at the Cantina are 12 ft centers and those are Norway Maples. The trees at the Jerome are 14 ft 6. We are at a rather high altitude and trees don't grow at a tremendous rate here. In 20 years they will be about 25 to 30 feet tall with a diameter of 6 to 8 inches and canopy of 20 to 24 feet. Jim: What is the treatment or surface material going to be from the walkway pedestrian level to the area below the canopy underneath the trees? Ron: Probably a brick banding material on the sidewalk area and a pre-cast concrete paver so it will have a rich texture and a nice color. It will be a concrete material with a brick band. 12 PZM3.22.88 Ramona: The approach to the commercial part--are they steps or ramps? Ron: There is a grade access into the building here. Roger: My comment about the trees is you are going to end up in 20 years under this scheme with what amounts to a hedge approximately 2 to 2 and 1/2 stories high. Is that what you want to accomplish? Ron: We do have a situation where although there are good views from these rooms upward to the mountain, the foreground view and down is to the street. I think having branches and trees at that level enhances the view. Roger: I am not sure you are going to end up with healthy trees in the long run. What is your plan when these trees are overlapping? Ron: trees every can't where If we were fortunate enough to get to that point where the were the size where they grew together, it might be that other tree would have to be removed or tr im them out. I recall a situation where street trees have gotten to a size it has been a problem. I would welcome that problem. David: Is snowmelt pretty much out to the pavement at that particular corner? Ron: It is assumed that this immediate area of access would be snowmelted and access off the major pedestrian areas and the parking accesses. David: There has been talk about the entrances up Monarch and up Mill and that should be snowmelted as well. We have changed our code so that snowmelt is no longer a bad thing. It is now a good thing. Ron: This is an access for skiers who could still have their skis on down to this area. I would say that the grades here would allow movement and they could take them off here and probably walk down. Mar i: Is the sidewalk on the other side of those plantings? Where is the sidewalk on Mill Street? Parry: Right underneath the Street trees. Alan: The condition of the CO for development on Lot 1, this park would have to be installed. That is the time frame we are talking about. 13 PZM3.22.88 Parry: It has to be installed and as part of phase 2 under the approved plan there is a whole different concept for that parcel. Alan: Essentially a building on each corner and ice skating rink and a cuI de sac. Parry: The other plan in going through the approval process, the concern was that people walking through here not be able to just cross Durant anywhere on the street. The original plan was level. It had a circle in the middle with radiating sidewalks. The purpose being to direct pedestrian flow. Ron: As you can see the buildings that were here are not here anymore. The space is provided as park space with street trees used further down Dean are planted to continue the continuity. The large Aspens that currently exist will remain. What we have tried to do rather than to just simply provide an open space is to create some sense of what the use might be in that area. To tilt the land form toward the mountain with some Spruce so there is a fairly flat mound that tilts very slightly toward the mountain. It's just a very simple open space. Jim: Across the street from there we have got Rubey park--a relatively street level oriented area. So it becomes somewhat of a pedestrian viewplain up towards the mountain on an angle from the Grande Aspen. Are those deciduous trees that you have got there at street level--when those are at canopy when the canopies are full, are they going to present a barrier from the visual pedestrian level from across the street? Ron: Our sense of it is that the mountain slopes up so dramatically here--there is quite a bit of grade change before you get to the base of the mountain--that the actual viewplain over existing buildings is fairly high and up the mountain. You are talking about if I am here at Rubey Park and looking up the Mill Street corridor? There is a tremendous amount of grade change as you to up that direction. I feel confident--anything we plant here will be short of Oak trees. Alan: Those trees are an awfully long way from Rubey Park too. You are crossing a major street and then you have a block. Welton: If they block anything, they are going to block the bottom floor of the Durant. Jim: Do you propose underground watering for all of the landscaping? 14 PZM3.22.88 " Ron: It would have to be. What we are trying to do here is _ something that could be a stage. It's not much of an amphitheater but it does have that kind of raised elevation. We are trying to tie that in with Wagner Park. Alan: What I heard were comments here responses to issues that I raised and I feel quite comfortable with the responses that I heard to the questions that you raised on the landscaping plan. The only possible negative was on the tree guards and that is something that we can talk to our consultant about. I think from the standpoint of comparison to the approval, we are in good shape and in terms of the desirable implementable plan, it is quite desirable. We would support the landscaping with the conditions the applicant agreed to. I also heard tonight for the first time that not only are they adding a park in the place of this mechanical vault on Monarch Street but there will be some steps down from that park to allow people to get access into the main area of the open space. Although it is going to be somewhat limited, it will also be somewhat open. Parry: The mechanical units now up on the roof. We talked about screening them. Ron: The units themselves are only 8 ft tall and they are going on the roof right above the tenant corridor which is 30 ft in from the inside face of the building. We are going to screen the units with a similar roofing material that we are using. Parry: The transformers are staying on that Monarch Street area because they have to be at grade and accessible for service. Curt: Our assumption is there will probably be a little wall that will contain those. There is planting all around that area. Ron: There are 2 transformers that are about 6 x 6. They sit side by side in that 16 X 26 square at the far south of the si te. They are about 4 ft high. We are assuming there is a screen that comes around that and then planting around the screen. Alan: Residential units: The real question here was the residential units in the Blue Spruce building which there is no building now proposed at least for the time being on the former location. The other 5 residential units which are proposed for the hotel are essentially similar locations to where they were in the approved version. So there really isn't any question. They 15 PZM3.22.88 were 14 being approved. Now we have got 5 requested. So I don't see any particular issue there in terms of the residential units. Jim: Did we get a commitment that the Blue Spruce site the temporary park that is going to be completed simultaneously or at the same time? Has there been any commitment to that? Parry: We will back to It is a staging area for the construction of the hotel. go right into the park assuming we haven't already come you. Alan, Service delivery area: I did not raise that question because the service delivery area is in the exact same location that it was in under the approved plan. However there may now be some changes so you need to look at this. Ron: Right the now the service area for the building is in the same location. The depth of the area itself is roughly 30 something feet from the inside face of the building to the truck ramp itself. Alan, Revisions parking program: Based on the submission that we reviewed the parking requirement for this space is 261 spaces. This was more than was required in the PUD agreement and that is because of the changed development program to this hotel phase. The applicant wanted to provide 28 of those 261 spaces via a cash-in-lieu payment which is allowed under the new code. Unfortunately the applicant is dropping that request. I say unfortunately because all of us who have heard that they are dropping that request really would like to support the idea of the applicant providing parking by cash-in-lieu since the city is trying to get into a parking program at this point in time. At this point the applicant would like to provide all the parking on site. We mentioned that we didn't think the Mountain Chalet would be interested in providing subgrade parking any longer but it appears the Mountain Chalet does want to provide some underground parking. Therefore our request that there be some service parking on South Mill between Durant and Dean should be dropped. We are not interested in that service parking because I believe the Mountain Chalet parking exit is going to be in that location and that parking that we were trying to reserve there was principally for the Mountain Chalet. Parry: Ralph Melville spoke to Council and got a permission to do a parking exit ramp on Mill Street between Durant and Dean. So we can't address that because we can't authorize parking in front of his driveway. 16 PZM3.22.88 Alan: In any case the issue that we raised is mute at this _ point. There is not an issue. In the applicant's revised design, they are proposing that some of the park ing spaces be what are called "stacked parking spaces". In other words parking space that only valet parking would allow the party moved in and out and an individual would not be able to get back through all the parking spaces. The code does not permit stack parking at this point in time. It only provides for stack parking to single family and duplex type of uses. The applicant is going to raise the question with you. I advised them that there is no way that I can see under the code that you can vary a design configuration on the parking. The code is very specific in not granting you authority for any variations except in the number of parking spaces. You may find that because this is to be valet park ing and because this is a PUD you have some interest in seeing a stack parking arrangement. The applicant is going to be able to present some rather strong benefits that will come out of the stack parking. The only way to do it will be to amend the code. If you have interest in that I would suggest that you make a recommendation on that tonight and we will bring it up with Council during the code revision of the hearing process which we are now in. There is no other way I can see to resolve that issue. The parking spaces will have to be accessible as normal parking spaces would have to be or if they are to be stacked we will have to amend the code possibly to allow stack parking for lodge development only. David: We can vary the parking. It could be less. Joe: As submitted in our application there were a total of 261 park ing spaces required on Lot 1 using the same methodology in the prior work. For phase 1 the total spaces required for Lot 1 and Lot 5, the Grande Aspen site, and that requirement is 351 spaces total. Since we have been rethinking the Blue Spruce site, we have broken out the numbers for the uses within the Ritz Carlton building itself and the Blue Spruce building and the requirement for the Ritz building is now 249 spaces of which 240 are proposed to be in a parking structure and 9 are guest loading and service based on the surface. So the parking that is proposed under the new scheme with the Blue Spruce site on hold is 249 spaces total. We think that one of the benefits that accrue to the community as a result of having the Ritz involved is their strong commitment to valet parking. We think this will resolve several things. First of all we think it will discourage auto use. Once you turn 17 PZM3.22.88 your car over to the valet parking attendant and he stores that car for you, you are less likely to go to the trouble to call down and have him bring your car around than if you simply went down to the parking structure and got in your car and drove away. We think that it will increase the use of the shuttle service to be provided. It will also allow us to increase the efficiency of the parking layout if we can find the mechanism to do this so that we can pull the parking structure back away from the southern property line as is shown on the drawing. That will do several things. First of all save about 8,000 cubic yards of excavation. That is approximately 1000 truck trips that will be saved by that effort. It will reduce to some degree the amount of shoring that has to be required and therefore reduce the amount of pile driving that occurs. So we think there are some significant benefits if we can find the mechanism to do it. We have got TDA transportation consultants taking another look at this. Obviously there will have to be some strong commitments to retaining the valet scheme. But we would like to have the opportunity to continue to work with staff to try to resolve the specifics of the program. There are some spaces that must be provided to the residential units which will not be tandem spaces. Generally speaking there is an emphasis on tandem parking as presently shown. There are 240 spaces in the structure. Wi th the exception of 30 spaces that have to be designated for specific employees which we think can also be tandem since they will be specific employees and will be able to establish their schedules and 8 residential spaces required for the 5 residential units, all of the parking will be valet parking. Jim: So over 200 valet spaces. Logistically what is that going to be like trying to organize your valets running in and out, up and down the ramps, bringing up cars? Parry: The odds are 50/50 that the guest's car is going to be in the front slot. That means he has got to pull a car up in the isle. And then get the other car out. Jim: Just the same there are 200 cars and not knowing which car is going to be requested at which time and if there is 1 in back of this stack parking arrangement-- Parry: But the stack is only 2 cars in any given space. So only 1 car has to be moved to bring any car out. 18 ~ PZM3.22.88 Parry: Horst Schultze who has not had a chance to speak. He is Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer from Ritz. Horst: We have recently opened a location in Palm Springs. On the first day we had a banquet of 500 and we were sold out. And everybody arrived in cars. Unlike here, everybody arrived in cars. And it was a matter of organizing like we have in other hotels where we have various jobs. We have regulars who call down--what car is next and there was no problem. Jim: What do the guests say about this service? Why do they like it? Horst: Our guest does not want to walk or go into a structure that is not a lobby type level. Jim: Doesn't that indicate though that there would be more use by the guests using their vehicles being that they do not have to go down into the garage and extract their car from the parking space. One of Joe's points was that it was going to be a disincentive for the guests to use their cars in town. Horst: There shouldn't be a problem. Parry: The guests will always be required to use the valet. The other spaces will be for employees and/or the residential units because the guy who is in residence will have the authority to go get his car. Horst: That is what our guest wants. Jim: Do you have any plans of co-ordinating a rental car out of this hotel? Horst: We have not negotiated. We have initial contract with rental companies. Generally we do have a situation where they are relatively close and we call. We have a direct line contact. We call and they are here within 5 minutes. That is generally the situation we have. In 1 case we have 5 cars on the property. Jim: But any rental cars that you kept on site would be part of these numbers or additional numbers to it. Horst: We make an arrangement with the company. Jim: I just don't want you to come back and say "We need this area where we have excavated for a rental car franchise". Parry: The only other thing I wanted to say is that we talked to Jim pavisha about in terms of doing a program where when we have 19 PZM3.22.88 space available in the parking garage, whether we try and tie it in to some kind of announcement but have it available for day skier parking. The Ritz will know how many of their guests have cars and they will know if they have got availability of 75 parking spaces or 100 parking spaces on a given day. There is a lot of underground parking around town that is way under utilized. I know at the Grande this winter we were running about 30 to 35% of the guests had their own cars. If those kind of ratios hold true, we are going to have an awful lot of empty garage space down there and since we are going to have valets on anyway we would like to do a program that would enable us to absorb a little of the day skier parking demand in that facility. It would get people to use the hotel. Roger: That is exactly what I would like to see cash-in-lieu activated for. Obviously you certainly have some requirements for parking spaces but planning-wise we really didn't want to see that much continuing activity parking-wise in that section of town. Alan: Your adopted transportation plan says it is inappropriate to put additional parking on that side of Durant. You don't want to be bringing the traffic down there. The Commission is going to have to deal with this one way or another. A commercial parking lot is not an allowed or a conditional use in this zone district. Parry: So they have to have breakfast or something? Alan: No, they have to be guests of the hotel. Parry: Well, I mean if someone coming for dinner, they are allowed to park in our garage. Alan: You have got a couple of code problems here on top of the bigger problem that Roger raises which is it is contrary to your plan. Welton: There is basically 2 questions we need to resolve on parking. First is whether or not to request 28 parking spaces be cash-in-lieu or actually physically you provide on site and the second one is answering the stack parking. Jasmine: I know it is contrary to our plan to have additional parking there. But I think the parking cash-in-lieu is very much like the employee housing cash-in-lieu. Where are you going to put this stuff? Where do we have these locations? You don't 1 And as part of this submission we have an opportunity to get some parking available to the public. It is not in an ideal location but it is there. And although it is not in a location that we 20 PZM3.22.88 like, it is in a location that all the people who use Aspen Mountain love. And I can tell you that since the gondola has gone in, I live all the way down on Water Street and have cars lined up all along Waters because people are still taking their cars, get to the mountain and there is still a tremendous need for day skier parking. Even though it may not be the ideal location, I think this would be a wonderful use if it can be worked out as far as code. Part of the thing that would make it work would be the fact that you do have valet parking available. The only problem that I have wi th valet parking and stacked parking is that as a Planning & Zoning Commission, I don't really see a mechanism whereby we can enforce this kind of valet parking if for example for some bizarre reason they decide we don't want to do valet parking anymore and we have approved that parking based on having valet parking and the valets disappear. Parry: It would be in the PUD. Jasmine: Yea, but so what? Michael: How would you get your cars out of there if there are no valets? Parry: It gets you an enforcement to come and-- Alan: Shut down the hotel Parry: Shut down the hotel. Or put fines in there. Jasmine: Anyway those things could be problems. Other than that I really do not have a problem with stack parking and the valet parking. And I really would like to see some of the parking used for day skier or day shopper traffic if we can work it out. Roger: There are better places for shoppers and skiers than this location. Jasmine: Where? Built? Roger: No. Proposed to be built. David: Employee housing has been proposed to be built too but we don't see it anywhere. Roger: I understand that. It has to come up to a vote of the people and that is what we are trying to work toward right now. But the object is to get it in a more logical location and this to me is not a logical location for day skier and day shoppers 21 PZM3.22.88 compared to the other areas that are identified. There will be proposals to build parking. Mari: What I don't understand about the parking--suppose it is Christmas and you have got the garage pretty much maxed out and somebody gives a big Christmas party and invites 300 of their closest friends to come and they all come in and let's say a lot of them are in their cars. Do you save space in your garage for those people to park underground? Parry: Part of the code says you don't build just for peak. But that is avoiding the issue. You are making the assumption that 200 of the guest rooms have brought cars with them over Christmas. And now there is a big party there. I don't know the answer to that but we don't build for--what we build for here is to accommodate what would be a normal percentage of the guests bringing cars. Horst: Less than 20% bring cars. Mari: What about the person who is not staying in the hotel but just wants to go to the coffee shop? Does that person get to park in the garage? Parry: and the it. Yes. They pull up under and get a valet parking ticket car is taken away and they come and get it when they want Mari: OK. So how do you distinguish between that person and the person who is just going skiing? Parry: I imagine the valet will ask them if they are here for dinner. Horst: They are being asked at all times if they are guests of the hotel or if they are using the outlets of the hotel. If they are using the outlets. then we give them a ticket. We ask them would you please have it validated. They go in and the waitress or bartender or whatever show it validated, they come back and they get their car. Mari: So if they don't actually use the hotel or spend money in the hotel, they don't get a validation and they can't get their car? Parry: If they park there and go off skiing it will cost them $4 or $5 to park their car. David: I think it is great that you are offering us your extra parking. I think it is absolutely wonderful. And as a 22 PZM3.22.88 representative of some people of the City on this I hope we get that. No, it is not the best place in the whole world for parking. But we don't have any parking now and we are not going to get any in the next year. And we might get a hotel next year. So I think it is a great idea. I think that I would like to negotiate with you on the stack parking idea and have you give us some cash-in-lieu because if all the things you have said, we are saving an extra floor having to go down and dig through so I would love to negotiate on that. Parry: site? Are we talking about reducing the parking requirement on David: spaces, have to dollars. If you don't have to give all the designated parking you might not have to build 2 levels of parking. If you build 2 levels of parking you are saving X amount of Parry: Not any more. You are just trying to take them back. David: If we negotiate to let you have that, then we have saved you some money and we will take some cash-in-lieu of that and help out our car parking situation as well. I really appreciate you offering some of your extra parking. Everybody else comes with the attitude of this is our parking. We are not going to give it to you and we will let it sit there empty as it is all over town in every building until it is sold for $17,000. But you are offering us something and I think, we as a Planning Commission, should take it and try to work with it. Parry: You understood his point that parking is not an allowed use there so-- David: I know the City has all kinds of reasons why we can't do things we need-- Alan: That was not the point at all. If we want to do it then we have got to take the action to make it happen. David: What I am saying is we should do that. I think it is a great idea. Welton: We need a consensus of cash-in-lieu versus on-site and whether the stack parking is going to fly. Parry: Let me just address the cash-in-lieu because I know it is confusing. We threw this thing out when cash-in-lie didn't exist which it still doesn't. There is nothing on the books and so-- but it was $10,000. So we looked at it and we said you can't have too much parking in this hotel. What Mari says happens so 23 PZM3.22.88 we had to go ahead and get our plans drawn and then I talked to Alan and Alan said "By the way, cash-in-lieu is going up from $10,000 t $15,000 a space before there is any ordinance". We looked at the economics of our parking and it came in below the $10,000 per space so from the standpoint that we didn't know whether there would be--we had to get some foundation plans going and excavation plans going. We didn't know whether there was going to be a cash-in-lieu ordinance. We didn't know what the dollar amount was going to be. We did know that it was going to be less expensive for us to do the parking on-site and we figured if we could work a program so that we could offer it for day use, that portion of the parking and one day maybe 50 spaces another day maybe 150. We figured if we could do that because it was nothing on the books and there was no program for it and the cost was rising before it got on the books, that is really why we decided to go back to the parking. I am not saying we did not want to do it but I think Alan brought up a good point today. He said "You know, cash-in-lieu for employee housing and cash-in-lieu for parking shouldn't be very much different. It is an alternative for the person who can't provide it on their site. But if you can put it on your site and you can handle it--Ritz is going to offer the valet parking because it is part of their service to their guests anyway and they wouldn't do it any other way. The cash-in-lieu for us just didn't make any sense so we dropped it. Alan: Number l. If the applicant wants to produce parking on- site I think under the code you are going to be hard pressed to force them to take an option. Cash-in-lieu has to be seen as an option. Production on-site is certainly what is required and that is the point that parry is raising there. The parking requirement, the dollar amount has gone up. Or at least we are proposing to the City Council that it go up. I think that the cash-in-lieu equivalent should be higher than what it requires of an applicant to do it on-site. The cash-in-lieu equivalent shouldn't be so attractive that the City becomes the parking developer in the community. Cash-in-lieu should be used when it is difficult or impossible for it to be produced on-site. I think we certainly want some parking produced on this site. Welton: As Alan and the applicant said, they can produce it all on-site. I don't think we have much leverage to apply elsewhere. Once I stayed in a fancy hotel and they had valet parking and you wouldn't think about getting your car because nobodv went and got their car. That is the way it is operated. 24 PZM3.22.88 I don't have any problem with stack parking because I am sure they have stack parking there and I don't have any problem with providing on-site. Roger: My only problem with the stack parking is that from the developer's point of view they are equating a stack space equalling a space in another parking structure value wise and that is not quite correct. They are able to develop stack spaces less expensively than another developer. Joe: Roger, we did the calculations before we contemplated going to stack parking and it is cheaper for us to do just a standard parking structure space than it would be to go stack. Parry: You cut down on your aisles when you stack the parking. Our parking space to do it regular standard parking was less than $10,000 per space. Now with stack, it is going to be much less but in terms of relating it to the cash-in-lieu option, we did that when we costed it before the tandem parking ever came up. Jim: The only way you can get all the parking on-site is stack parking. Is that right? Parry: No. We can do it. Let me be the first to get this out in the open. It is going to save us money to do the tandem parking. It is going to save the community a lot of truck movement. It is going to save about 10% of our excavation and hauling. There is a community benefit involved. There is a benefit to us involved. And it is the same situation for the Ritz Carlton as the operator half of the application because they are going to be doing valet parking regardless of what it looks like. It just means that their kids are going to have to run farther if it is all regular parking. MOTION Wel ton: Would somebody make a motion instructing the Planning Office to start the necessary code amendments to allow stack parking in PUD and Lodge developing situations. Jasmine: I will so move. Ramona seconded the motion. Mari: The thing that worries me about this is that the potential for this hotel will not always be a Ritz Carlton with valets like Jasmine said. And I think we could wind up with substandard space for parking if it became something beside a Ritz Carlton. That could happen. 25 PZM3.22.88 Parry: I would recommend that there be some language in the PUD to the effect that-- Roger: I agree with Mari. Additionally I don't see a benefit at this point in the apparent bulk of the building so I don't see where we are getting that great a community tradeoff here. Conceivably if they required less area for parking that could conceivably show up somewhere in reduced bulk of the building. And I am not seeing that. Parry: It will show up in reduced non FAR space. ever goes away, we will do something in the PUD that us to make out through cash-in-lieu. If the valet will require Mari: We are just creating another enforcement problem there. Welton: Well, the PUD mechanism is the best mechanism we have for addressing future potential problems. Mari: We can make up lots of rules. later down the road. It is enforcing the rules Welton: It's on file. Parry: It can be enforced. That is the point. And if it becomes a problem and you don't have the mechanism to enforce it then you are lost. If you have the mechanism to enforce it and it is enough of a problem it can be enforced. Michael: I don't want to belabor the point but if we set the precedent and we make it stack parking and if it comes at day's end it is still going to be stack parking. The day's end guests for $9.95 are going to get their car through a valet. They are never going to get their car out of there. So what is the difference? It has to be valet parking if you have stack parking. Welton: In big cities there are some pretty seedy parking lots that have valet attendants and they stack them 12 deep. Jasmine: Since my motion is to direct the Planning Office to come up with a means of doing this, I think that these comments which I certainly started by saying .What happens if and when the valets go away?" are concerned that perhaps the Planing Office could come up with some kind of approach that would give us a kind of protection that we need in order to do this. I don't think that is unreasonable. Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Roger and Mari. 26 PZM3.22.88 Welton: Is the 249 parking spaces on-site acceptable? Mari: 249? I have got 278. Joe: On page 50 of the application, park 261 on Lot 1. That has been revised because of the change in the Blue Spruce to 249 total. Parry: 240 in the parking structure and 9 service and dropoff under the porte-cochere area. Welton: Co-ordination with the Improvement District? Alan: We haven't done the commercial base and the parking question which will require a code amendment. Also the code amendment is going to have to deal with whether we would allow commercial day skier parking underground in a hotel. MOTION David: I move that the Planning Office put together some kind of ordinance for us to look at to conditional temporary use. Jasmine seconded the motion. Jim: I still think that we have got to stay with the parking plan that we are trying to work out with the City and I would oppose putting a day skier parking area in a hotel in this area which use is inappropriate for that type of use. I agree with Roger. The vote was 3 no and 4 yes. Alan: Do you want to see those or are you initiating those to go to Council? Welton: Why don't we initiate those to go to Council and let us look at them on the way. Why don't you co-ordinate them for the code and put copies of them in our boxes so we can review them. And if there are any problems we can contact you on an individual basis. Alan, Co-ordination with the Improvement District: What we have asked for here are a number of improvements that are going in on this property and we have got some comments from some people in the Wienerstube area who are expecting to see extensive construction associated with the Galena Street Improvement District. They would really like to see that District go ahead this year and we would like to see it all under one construction period. 27 - PZM3.22.88 We want to make sure that the improvements required--the underground utility installations required of this project happen at such a time that they will insure that there will only be one construction per iod for that Improvement District. I am not saying that it has to happen this summer or this spring but when the Improvement District happens that is when the utility installation should go forward. And I am told that this isn't a problem. Parry: We would like very much to co-ordinate that. Currently the approval calls for a condition of co. But certainly if we get this amendment processed and we get under construction, my only question would be if we are still fooling around in an amendment process, and it won't be fooling at that point, it would be deadly serious, and this Improvement District is going through and I don't know what I have got then I don't know that I can just--without approvals the financing won't be in place until the approval is in place so I don't know where I will be funded to do these. Alan: The 2 would seem to go together. project unless you get that approval. Parry: I understand. You don't have a Alan: If you get approval, we want to make sure these things co- ordinate. Parry: I don't have a problem with doing that in co-ordination with the District. Alan, Drainage. AJ: This is the utility plan for PUD. The old plan for the old Aspen Mountain Lodge included an underground garage under Mill Street. Water detention for the old plan was in a portion of the underground garage in a section of Dean Street and Mill Street to house a 2-story concrete structure involved pumping it. The new plan deletes the parking garage under Mill Street. In addition the facility will on Mill Street shown approximately here and will enter the storm sewer system by gravity rather than by pumping. The storm sewer system structure will be located so there will be no conflict with the water system and there will be no drainage problem. Parry: The issue of that change is great. I mean we don't have to pump it up and it is much more efficient. 28 ---- PZM3.22.88 The other issue in here is the issue that involves the top of Mill and storm water drainage--In discussing this with the Engineering Department it became apparent that this is kind of a City wide problem because this stuff is coming down into the City. And the solution to it was really to look at on-mountain detention and some kind of master plan that would divert storm water--snowmelt comes from there--divert it at the source at the east and west of town. It is a pretty major plan. We have talked about a commitment that would be in the $200,000 range that would fund a study and masterplanning and then would also contribute to the mitigation of this. We own some properties that when the Top of Mill was originally looked at it was the conceptual approval stage. It was stopped right there pending some kind of resolution of this problem. Little Nell Hotel came in. They did a bunch of studies and they looked at the drainage under that site and sort of said .Well it goes the other way". So we can have a drainage study done the says it goes the other say. But that is not going to solve the problem. My concern is simply that this is a little open ended right here because it says .Participate with other interested parties in the mitigation". There may not be any other interested parties. They may say .Oh and by the way it is 7 million dollars for whatever. You really can't do much on the Top Of Mill site. It is very difficult to build ponds on hillsides. So we thought that this was a better overall solution because the City Engineering said we gotta handle this and so that is why this is where it is. And it is not trying to dodge the issue. We have to do what we have to do on the Top of Mill site and design in terms of storm water for that site but we can't hold everything from the mountain on that site and so that is why we are making this statement here. Jay Hammond: As Parry is explaining we looked at what was being proposed for the Top of Mill and essentially the TOp of Mill site was concerned legitimately with offsite flow, offsite debris capabilities coming onto the Top Of Mill residential site. In looking at that in the scope of our concern for drainage across the entire base of the mountain it became apparent that a solution specific to the Top of Mill first of all would only benefit the TOp of Mill and secondarily would become probably obsolete if, in fact, we can implement a mountain-wide solution to the concern for mountain runoff and for drainage. So in our discussions leading into this amendment process we have encouraged the applicant to participate with the interested parties. The City may be one of the parties, the Ski Co., Pitkin County may be one of those parties. We have been doing work overtime with concern for the mud slide on Strawpile and so 29 PZM3.22.88 forth. The theory is that this developer would now become one enti ty involved in the mountain-wide program and study to determine what is needed across the base of the mountain. They would be mostly focused on the up front portion. They would do the initial studies. They control property where easements may be required and things of that nature. So we see more benefit from an area wide basis to attacking the entire problem across the base of the mountain, getting some of that master planning for drainage undertaken at this time and then implementing solution as quickly as we can. Fire protection improvement needs. Alan: The comments that we got from Jim Markalunas and Wayne Vandemark questioning some aspects of water supply and fire protection. The only one that I think that we need to bring to your attention is the relocation of the fire hydrant. It will require approval and can be accomplished as part of approval. Joe: Both the hydrants to be relocated and the new hydrants are shown on the utility plan where they are to be located. We have relocated one hydrant at Markalunas's request. Construction schedule. Alan: The rezoning request has been dropped. There is no need for rezoning request because there is no development proposed on the Blue Spruce site. Shawn Yancey, project manager: I want to assure you that PCL is very sensitive to this community and are going to do whatever it takes to try and reduce the impact of this project. We have a lot of experience in mountain and hotel work and have the experience to handle this job. One of the major concerns was the excavation process. We will have 2 excavation ramps on the project. Based on a May 1 start date we anticipate 6 weeks of heavy work on the excavation and that equates to about 20 trucks working. We will have another 4 weeks of light work and that will be the equivalent to about 6 trucks. So we can accomplish the bulk of the excavation, the heavy work to be finished before the summer tourist season. It is important to note that his amended plan anticipates the removal of approximately 2/3 of the amount that was anticipated under the original Aspen Lodge plan. If we can reduce the garage, that takes are looking at approximately 9,000 cubic has to be disposed of from the site. another 8,000 out. We yards of material that We talked to County 30 PZM3.22.88 - officials as well as private property owners and have tentative commitments for the removal of that material. Another concern has been the piling operations. They are not going to be pleasant. But they are going to be very short in their duration. Based on a May 1 start we feel we can get the piling work done in a 2 week period. We can start approximately May 15 and be done somewhere around the first of June. There has been some discussion about pedestrian walkways along Monarch and one along Mill. Entrances to the site--we have got gates here at Mill and Dean, one at Monarch and Dean and one on Durant. Fencing: We are going to have 6 ft high security fence around the entire site as well as any staging areas. We anticipate utilizing tennis green, the green fabric material on critical exposure such as Durant and wherever it is needed to mitigate the impact to joint properties. Our staging areas are going to be the Blue Spruce Site and Dean adjacent to the project. We may utilize the Top of Mill site and the area in front of the Grande Aspen, north of the Grande Aspen for vehicles that have to come to the site. Street closures: we anticipate having Dean street adjacent to the site closed for the duration of the project. We intend to close Mill Street for a period of June 1 to December 15 of this year. Gates will be provided at either end for emergency access. This area is needed as a staging area as an off loading area and the original excavation will cut back into the street slightly. Jim: How are you going to barricade the side of Mill Street? Shawn: A Jersey barrier is the A shaped concrete barrier you see long the highway. The reason for those was to facilitate the plowing of the streets so the fence will either sit on top of the barrier or behind the barrier. So it will be very easy to keep the streets clean. Alan: Did you say December 1st on Mill Street? parry: From June 1st to December 15th. Alan: OK. Because I just need to inform you Council has asked for an ordinance that would prohibit construction vehicle or any construction type activity happening in public right of way. And we are proposing November 15th being the date that people need to be out. 31 PZM3.22.88 - Shawn: We can work with that December 15th date. The major concern is we have got pre-cast direction going on in the fall of this year and we will need to utilize the street for a mobile crane to pick some of the pre-cast. For a 3 week period of the fall of this year we are going to have to close a portion of Monarch Street as well. During that period of time we will re- open Mill so that at no time will both of those streets be closed. At no time the south. accesses. will there be less than 2 accesses at those areas to At no time will this plan result in less than 2 Shawn: I have been working with Jay quite closely, Jim over at the Building Department and with Tom Dunlop on the environmental issues. We have covered such as the dust program, keeping the streets clean and how to handle the situation. ,- Jim: I have a concern about the screening and temporary sidewalking. It sounds like the only plan is putting this tennis mesh netting around 2 areas. Shawn: That is a negotiable point. It is in the areas where it is a high impact area. What has been identified today is the Durant frontage for sure and probably a portion of Monarch at this point. Chances are this is going to be a critical area with the dolomites. Hadid owns the property here and this is a parking lot so that is probably not a critical area. Jim: And the sidewalks are going to be the plywood type of things we have seen around town? Shawn: No. This is the Jersey barrier to create this walkway. It will be an asphalt base for walking surface, a jersey barrier to control pedestrian traffic to keep it flowing down that way. We are going to also have informational signage to deal with vehicular traffic needs and for all the pedestrian needs. There will be courtesy signage applied at appropriate locations which we still need to work out to direct guests as to how to reach their destinations at properties above the site. Roger: What about pedestrian and service access to the back of the Mountain Chalet? You have a dumpster back there don't you, Ralph? Ralph: Yes, but at the same time they are doing that, we are going to be digging up Dean and putting in underground parking. Shawn: We are working with Ralph to co-ordinate his parking 32 PZM3.22.88 .- garage which goes under Dean Street with the construction of our work. Ramona: Your excavation appears to go till about the 15th of July. If you are delayed we are going into over half of our summer season. Alan: Unless you go with our recommendation that if they don't start it, they can't finish it in time. Shawn: There are two keys in my mind to mlnlmlZe the overall impact and be on schedule. One is an early start and the second is our 19 month schedule. We are proposing to complete this project in 19 months which is an ambitious schedule but very attainable. And to the extent that we are delayed and we have to work through more of the winter trying to get the structure enclosed, that is going to hurt us. Michael: Do we have any authority to prevent construction during certain periods? Alan: You have got several types of authority. Number 1, it's an issue in the PUD agreement. Construction phasing is a PUD issue in the code and is addressed in the agreement. An identified specific schedule for the project to be built within. Obviously this project is not being built within a construction schedule that was anticipated back in 1985 and that is one of the things that the applicant is proposing to amend. The Planning Commission and the City Council will develop a PUD agreement with dates for construction to begin then. We have very different circumstances today than we had in 1985. The Little Nell project will start no later than April 15 so that for everyone truck coming out of this project there is going to be another one behind it coming out of Little Nell. They have got both demolition and excavation to do. It would seem to me if the construction can't be completed during the off season, it would be very irresponsible of us to allow it to occur during the summer and we ought to take the limitations that are allowed us. You have absolute authority. It is an extremely important issue. We are very concerned about the amount if construction that could go on in that area this summer. Shawn: With respect to noise and working hours: We do not anticipate doing exterior work between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7: 00 am. There may be a need later to be doing some painting, drywall, wallpaper but that shouldn't have any impact. Alan: That would not concern us. That is not what we are 33 PZM3.22.88 .,'.' considering to be construction. We are concerned with pounding and that kind of thing. Jim: I think the staging areas should be screened unless they have access to within the property and that we have some obligation to relandscaping the vegetation once the areas are no longer used as staging areas. Shawn: It is already contemplated that this area is going to be landscaped if another plan has not been put into motion at the completion of the project. The Blue Spruce site. And this staging area here at Mill Street will be done in the street and Dean Street as well so they will get totally finished. Alan: We ought to include that in the landscape plan commitment. Parry: When PCL gets out of that staging area, if we open this hotel December 1 or December 12, we are not going to go in and throw down sod and put trees in there. We are going to want to do it the following spring. If these guys are out of there in the summer prior to completion, we can do it then. Alan: The 2 key ones are the Blue Spruce site and the parking lot in front of the Grande Aspen. In one case we have a park that is absolutely committed to and in the other case, it is a temporary situation. We need a commitment as to when it is going to occur, how much is going to happen and the financial assurances behind it. Parry: In the memo of March 18: Apparently Jay say "Well when you are doing the walkways, you are going to get rid of parking." And it says "The applicant is considering opening to the public the newly built lot west of the Grande Aspen." Well, that is our parking for employees of the hotel and guests of the hotel. If we open that to the pUblic, then we are going to have the hotel guests and the employees parking out somewhere else. So I will be more than happy to look into opening as much of that as we can. This winter there were days when it was not full, other days when it was maxed. We have 54 spaces in that lot. There will be 155 guest rooms so 1/3 of that is roughly 50 plus employee parking. That lot is going to be overdone anyway. Whatever we can do with parking, we will do it for the public but I can't make a commitment to open that to the public because it is not going to make any difference. We will commit to making it available to the public on a space available basis. Parry, Worker housing: Currently the Alpina and the Copper Horse are under the PUD as a condition of CO for phase 1. They are to be deed restr icted for employee housing. So when we go to the 34 PZM3.22.88 - City and request a CO we hand them the deed restriction. Currently they are not deed restricted to that and the Alpina was short termed to tourists all winter. We propose to use that. If you look at the charting of the manpower loading chart from May until about November or October we don't get up to 90 workers. We can house 89 people in the Alpina Haus and the Copper Horse. We would use those for construction worker housing. Then the issue becomes what to do with the rest of them. The Aspen Meadows with the exception of June, July and August when it is dedicated to the Design Conference and the Aspen Institute use this winter we short termed it on a weekly basis to skiers. We can and are looking into using that for housing during the winter of 88/89. The time we are going to have a crunch is June, July and August of 1989. That is the only time that we are not capable of housing people in our own properties. It may be that we find a better alternative down in Basalt or Carbondale for the winter. If we do that we will obviously bus people up. The thing about June, July and August of 1989 is that is obviously the most desirable time to have people living down valley because the roads are not as bad. We will bus workers in from whatever we do. We may rent a motel in Rifle or Silt. They are going to be getting up early. And the work day is going to start at 7:30 which means that we won't be impacting the rush hour. They can sleep on the bus. I know that the City has no ordinance requlrlng people to take care of construction workers. So I know it is a tough situation and it could be very tough this year. Ramona: The workers staying at the Meadows, are they going to be bused in? Parry: They will be bused. We have to provide. And we are going to provide tool storage. They will have no excuse for bringing their pickup with the dogs in the back. Guest contractors visiting the site will park in the lot in front of the Grande Aspen. PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing reminding everyone that the only issues that we need to address tonight are open space, landscaping, room count, FAR, setbacks, parking area access, service delivery, parking, Improvement District, drainage, fire protection and construction schedule and impacts. 35 PZM3.22.88 Employee housing and architecture which will be discussed March 29, 1988. Dick Butera: I am a little confused by the procedure. to me that you have accepted the size of the buildings. something the public should be told now? Have you, accepted the size of this building. Welton: I can't speak for the entire Board, but I think it is a pretty good guess. It seems Is that in fact, Michael: I don't think it is a question that we have accepted. It is a question that that is the parameters that we are here to deal with. By the City Attorney and the City Planner that the size of the project, the configuration of the project are givens. And that all we are doing is modifying an existing plan. It has nothing to do with how many hotel rooms or how big it is going to be or anything like that. If we don't like their proposal, they can go back to their original plan. Paul: They can go back to the original plan or you can suggest to them that you are not going to pass the amendment unless they do something to modify it. Michael: But if we do that then they have the rights under the original plan. Paul: They have rights under the PUD agreement that is on file until April 15th unless the City Council grants another extension. Dick: So what you are saying is that you have no choice. You are having these meetings to go over these technical issues but you have no choice. Welton: That is the advice we have gotten from counsel. Dick: Have you read the ordinance as to what it says? Both the PUD ordinance states very clearly that to amend the PUD agreement it has to be a change of circumstances. Change of circumstances not meaning change of circumstances under developer change of circumstances of the City or the surrounding area. So I think the precedent is clear that a change of circumstances does not have to do with what the developer gets or whether he sells it to his brother. Then it is clearly stated in 24-ll-7b that the Planning Director is to notify you of any substantial changes particularly in architecture and if the fact that those changes that have taken place if you do have the right to rescind the allotment. 36 PZM3.22.88 .- Now it is really in simple English. The question is if you don't want to change, that is fine. I would like to hear whether if it didn't have these legal restrictions on you whether you would change the size of this building. I would like to give the Board why you do have a choice or if this Board doesn't care whether it has a choice or not. Welton: The Board cares very much. Dick: If you have a choice without Paul Taddune's recommendation regarding that you don't have a choice would the Board entertain a making this building a smaller building? Roger: We might entertain making it a larger building. Dick: That is what I am saying--either way. Welton: From my point of view the building was acceptable after 8 public hearings and a lot of input from the community and from the Commission 4 years ago. I thought it was quite a good project and I am speaking for myself alone. In some regards there are areas where I don't like this project and in some regards this is a superior project to the one that was presented 4 years ago. Dick: Perhaps you have been advised incorrectly. All I am saying is we and a lot of people would like to know what position this Board would take if it did have a choice. Paul: If you start to take those kind of questions the procedure would be never ending because you are going to be answering all kinds of hypothetical and speculative questions. Mary Kay Jones: Unless I missed something from what he just said that you have the option of not approving this and then by April 15th that's it. Is that correct? Paul: You have in place a PUD agreement which governs the zoning and the development on the parcels that are subject of this discussion. The applicants are proposing to amend that approved development plan. If the Commission does not approve the amendment, and the City Council also approve the amendment then the zoning and land use controls will be the ones outlined in the PUD which was approved after almost 2 and 1/2 years of intense scrutiny by the Commission and the City Council. Mary: As I understand the situation that isn't what the developer wants. 37 - PZM3.22.88 Welton: The developer wants something that is in many respects identical to what was approved 3 years ago and could be built. But it is different in a lot of detail areas. So this is not a new application. This is what the applicant perceives as a refinement and a change in the architectural look for a reduction in height to what has already been approved. Some people have different interpretations of the exact wording of the code. I think it is up to the Commission to listen to our legal counsel who is providing his best interpretation of the meaning of the codes. Bruce Kerr: I am concerned about the trucks that are going to be leaving the site. Not only the route but the time they are going to be leaving the site. Not only from the way it is going to be effecting my property which is at the corner of Monarch and Durant but how it effects the other lodging properties in the community. Also what is being planned for the Blue Spruce site. Welton: There is nothing being proposed for the Blue Spruce site. It is going to be used as a staging area for construction. They are coming back in later with a proposal for that property. Between those times it is to be turned into a temporary park. As far as the mitigation for the trucking-- Bruce: rolling? What time in the morning are these trucks going to start Are they going to be waking my guests at 7:00 or 7:30? Shawn: 7:30 is the planned start. That could be moved slightly but it would mean it would go later in the evening. It is what works the best for the adjacent property owners. I can't see us starting much later than that. If we could start by May 1, the bulk of the excavation, 20 trucks, is going to be completed in the off season prior to your high season. We will only be running 6 trucks after that. Bruce Gallagher, Vice President of the Aspen Club Company and we had the same problem during the construction of the gondola building. And the same every morning with the snowcats coming out of that building there and we would inform our guests before they came to stay that there was going to be those things going on. That is one way to help--let them know before they get here. Herb Klein, representing the Mountain Queen Condo Association: Are there service plans for service trucks after construction? We are concerned about the impacts on Monarch Street. Is there a plan for no parking or no standing signs along Monarch? Is there going to be some kind of loading dock control plan? And if so, could it part of the PUD. 38 - PZM3.22.88 Horst: Generally the operator handles the scheduling. But as we have handled it in the past we have scheduled it so that they don't overlap the trucks at all. We make sure they don't overlap. We have full time people there and it is in our best interest that this not happen. In addition if there is a problem what we have done in the past, we have rented storage space and put things in smaller trucks so that would not happen. Par ry: If a problem of this type occurs we can store off the right-of-way on Dean Street. Bruce?: Pile driving is the biggest noise impact. What kind of guarantees are given that the pile driving will come in on the right time frame? Alan: We are going to write it into this PUD agreement. We are going to write a schedule for when these activities can take place. Pile driving has got to be done by June 15th. Excavation should be virtually complete by June 15th so I recognize that some of it could go beyond June 15th but it ought to be virtually complete. If we have got trucks coming down Main Street in July, we have got a major problem. Welton, reading letter from Roberta Hallam expressing her approval of this project. (attached in records) He closed the public hearing and continued to March 29, 1988. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:50. Jan~eJ!tCii~ieik 39