Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19811006 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 1981 FO~M 50 C. F. HOECKEL B. B. I> LCD. The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on October 6, 1981 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Welton Anderson, Alan Bloomquist, Parry Harvey, and Lee Pardee. Approval of Minutes Commissioners Comments NEW BUSINESS Otte/Melton Subdivision Exception Minutes will be reviewed at the next regular meeting. Sunny Vann told the Board members that the City Council had met to hear the report that was prepared by the Aspen Meadows Advisory Board, a group set up to review the InstitHte issues. The report contains the recommended development plan, the minutes of all the meetings, recommendations by the various groups effected by the proposal. Sunny asked that the Board review this proposal. Sunny proceeded by introducing the new Planner to the Planning Office, Alice Davis Lee Pardee suggested that Alice review Alan Richmans' memos; he said the memos are very concise and very objective. Roger Hunt commented on his concern with the Lodge GMP application It is not specifially concerning a application, but Roger found a contradiction, in regards to accomodating the employee automobile. Alan Richman said there is no doubt about it,some of the GMP scoring needs to be updated. Alan Richman presents an application for condominiumization in the Office Zone, 135 W. Main. Referral Agency comments include City Attorney states that the requirements of Section 20-22 are applicable to all condominiumizations. However he believes that the P&Z, as a matter of policy has determined that commercial condominiumizations do not fall within the intent of Section 20-22. Building Department found the following problems with the inspection of the subject property. 1) Service disconnect not properly grounded as per National Electric Cod Section 250. 2) Subpanel neutral is connected to ground. 3) Lower east unit missing cover plates on all switches and recep- tacles. 4) Insufficient number of receptacles on all first floor offices. Engineering Dept. reviewed the above application with a site inspec- tion and has the following comments: 1) The application (plat) shows nine (9) units, three(3) being lo- cated on the first floor, two (2) units on the second floor. The Buildi n g Department will need to comment on the health and safety of units located on each floor. 2) The two units on the second floor have extremely low ceilings The Building Dept. should comment on this too. 3) The following information is missing from the plat: A. Scale, North arrow B. Basis of bearings C. Street and Alley widths, curb and gutter location from street center line. D. Zone district of the property. E. Sheet index F. Legend for symbols and abbreviations 4) As this application is located in the first block West of the existing underground power, it is logical the applicant agrees to join any untground power improvement district. 5) Following the final approvals, the mylars should be submitted to this office with the surveyors signature and seal. _~...ii""_lU .."................- Public Hearings A. Davis - Conditional Use B. 1982 GMP Lodge Competition , , 111:1 . .11>..-_ 1, .l"'-',",,~I"'I ."~;'I"oI''''''-''- -2- Alan Richman gave a brief synopsis of the Planning Office review. Alan said that in discussion with the applicant, the Planning Office was informed that the nine units outlined will more than likely be sold in combinations. The logical division of these will probably be four units, due to the fact that there are four entrances. In checking the question raised by the City Attorney, the provision of Sec.20-22 are not applied to the condominiumization of a commercia building. Thered also is not a definite size parameter to comply with. The exception is allowed under Sec. 20-19. The building conforms with area and bulk requirements also. The Planning Office recommendation is approval of this request for subdivision exception for the purposes of condominiumization with the following conditions: 1) The requirements of the Building Department as a result of their inspection be met. 2) That mylars of the final plat be submitted with surveyors signa- ture and seal to the City Engineering Dept. with the information required in #3A-F of their memo. 3) Applicant agrees to join any underground power improvement distric that may be formed in the future. Welton Anderson moves to approve the subdivision exception of condominiumization of the Otte/Melton Building at 135 W. Main Street, conditional on the 3 requirements outlined by the Planning Office in the memo Oct. 16, 1981. Jasmine Tygre seconds the motion. Olof Hedstrom aye Welton Anderson aye Al Bloomquist aye Perry Harvey aye Lee Pardee aye Roger Hunt naye Motion Carried. Alan Richman said this is an application for a conditional use permit in the Old post office building Gideon said that a change had just come up and that the Davis application would be withdrawn from this meeting. Alan Richman said that project profiles were included in each packet for the Board members. Alan said that "quota" is not something the P&Z members should be particularly concered with for determinatio in scoring. Alan said that he had several proceduralpoints that he wanted to make and to be sure everyone is clear about the same scoring basis. Alan said there are five catagories that an applicant must score on A-E. An applicant has to score 60 percent of the total points available, in other words he has to score 35 points in total in categories A thru E. They have to score a minimun of 30 points in each one of the categories. Please remember bonus points can't help an applicant get into that 35 point area. Alan said to remeber that if bonus points are given to give an explanation and make commen ts as to why you are giving them. Alan introduces the first of the GMP competition: -The Lodge of Aspen will have a little more than 15,000 sq. feet of parcel, it will have a three bedroom house on the property which will be occupied by the applicant. A proposal to build 31 lodge unit and four employee units on the site. -Aspen Inn Expansion is a second phase development which has received a GMP allocation-by P&Z and City Councilin 1978. This project is currently under construction. It is a proposal to concentrate additional units in an area which has been designated as an area of tourist development and it does have an 0-2 zoning. The parcel is about 111,000 sq. feet. The site includes sveral other structures including existing Aspen Inn, the Blue Spruce, etc. The proposal is to build 96 lodge units in addtion to those which are in existence and also a proposal for 50 grades within it.; in other words a conference facility, twenty four employee units, a health club facility all of those proposals are continued through the application and they ought to be completed on a timetable, which has been agreed to as far as previous application. --<-,~----=-'-"-"~""''-~' ...-.',,_.,_.",-.-.....-.,.. ,- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM\iI C.F.HOECKElB.B.IiL.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, lq8l - 3 Alan Richman said that the Planning office provides three (3) points, as far as the Water system goes. These points are given if the applicant is improving the level of service. _ The Lodge of Aspen has talked about sharing the cost. _ The Aspen Inn expansion will flake easements which have permitted inprovements. They have promised to provide an interconnect service to provide water service not to their specific project but to the area in general. Alan said as far as the Sewer goes, the sanitation district felt that both developments had standard level of service. Improvements were not requested from either of the applicants. As far as Storm Drainage goes, in the case of the Lodge of Aspen there is a proposal to expand the storm sewer located at Ute Ave. Originals, up Aspen road to catch its runoff. The Engineeering Dept. is particularly Lnpressed with that, also felt that curb and cutter improvements should be requested. As far as theAspenInn Expansion the applicant proposes Dry walls which would retain runoff on site. There was some mention of overflow outlets. The Engineering Dept. questioned the necessity of that. The Planning Office suggest three to the Lodge of Aspen and tom to the Aspen Inn Expansion. Lee Pardee said that any statement that is not in the proposal should not he mentioned at this time and is irrelavent. Olof Hedstrom agrees 'vith Lee on that point. Alan Richman continues with Fire Protection. In the case of the Lodge of Aspen the applicant suggests only one fire hydrant. The Aspen Inn had quite adequate service already availa~le to it. Two hydrants in proximity to the project. Roger asked if in the wording if the Planning Office has said "has proposed" that is definite. Alan said Yes, once it gets to the Subdivision stage those has proposed become Subdivision agreements. As far as roads the Engineering Dept. had a problem with the roads in the vicenity, and proposals 06 roads, in both applications The Lodge of Aspen the statement was "Any street improvements propos- ed by the Little Annie Corp. should apply as well to this applicant The right of way on Aspen 110untain road is deficient. In general an area of poor road right of w~y aud poor access. The Aspen Inn they suggest that the cost of the most substantial impact of new units in the area that curb and gutter would be re- quired on Mil~ Monarch, Dean and Long streets. Perry Harvey asked if there was a letter from Engineering to that effect. Perry said he was curious because Little Annies will be operating that road at the end of Original Ute, He wonders how much money the apllicant Engineering thinks the applicant should spend to operate the road. Perry feels there should be something in writing from the Engineering Dept. on this. Perry Hsrvey asked who ooms the Aspen Mountain Road? Bill Dunaway said that it is a County road. Olof wanted to remind the commission that the conversation is inter- esting but . we are scoring on what the applicant has proposed and what he plans to do. Perry Harvey said that doesn't think an applicant should have to go out and improve City and County roads and that would effect his scoring on the ~tter. Alan Richman continued with the second overall category is Public Transportation which involves two separate ratings; 1) Distance from a Ski Lift 2) and whether it abuttes a transitroute(The Planning Office interpretation of this is that the facility itself must be directly on a bus route.) "...~ ,..,.....""""'.....'"-..... ., ,...,....",. - 4 - Alan Richman said that the Planning Office scored five points to theLodge of Aspen and four points to the Aspen Inn Expansion. Perry Harvey commented that The Aspen Inn Expansion received one less point because he doesn't Abutte~he bus route. Alan Richman said the way that scoring goes is that 6 points on the basis of Ski and four points on the basis of transportation averaging five points. Al Bloomqnist asked if the Blue Spruce was part of the property of the Aspen Inn. Alan said "Yes" Al asked if it was part of the density transfering, contiguous in the sense that its, there are streets through it, so we can construe that it is on the bus route. Alan Richman siad Yes. Alan Richman said that in the Police protection category , The Plan- ning office gave both the applicants :a two. They were rated at the maximum of two points being in immediate proximity to the Downtown Commercial Core. Alan said that quality of design is the third general area. First of all the projects are rated on their Architectural design which considers height and their location, the size and height of the building. It looks at whether or not it is an excellent or one that is first floor. Looking at the Lodge of Aspen, the Planning office found the scale to be quite similar to the surrounding devel- opments, we find the design concept whereby it breaks it up from a one floor to a two up np to a third floor. The moldularity of the elevation change, the Planning office finds helps in terms of design. The Planning Office rated the design Excellent. On the Aspen Inn Expansion while the new building that is propose d is not as large as the existing building, The Planning office finds it to be a rather massive building. The Planning office rates the design as a two. In terms of Site Design, the Planning Office had an extreme problem with the Lodge of Aspen, the way the applicant addressed himself to a site design criteria, which if you read includes open space, under ground utility, circulation access for service vehicles, The applicant did not address himself to any of these features. The statement that 6940 sq. ft. are about 45% of the site is Open Space, but there is no landscaping proposal before us. The Planning Ofiice found that to be a major design flaw and rated the application as one. The site design for the Aspen Inn Expansion does Propose specific landscaping. The Engineering Dept. was uncertain about trash and service vehicle access. The Palnning Office found no major design flaws. The design is standard and acceptable and was rated as a two by the Planning office. Energy, the rating that was used was looked at by the 1) Insulation 2)Solar Energy devices and 3) efficient fire places. The Lodge of Aspen proposed insulation, solar collectors, and effi- cient fire places. The Planning office awarded three points. The Aspen Inn Ex pans ion proposed insulationstandards in excess of code, efficient fireplaces as maximized energy conservation, and solar energy was spoken to as a possibility. The Planning office rated that as a two. Amenities -- three points available based on usable open space pedestrian bicycle ways. The Lodge of Aspen did not address usable open spa-e, The Planning office hence rated it as a One. The Aspen Inn Expansion does on the other hand have proposed open space in frontof the Inn, the Planning office rated that as a two. The visual impact considering the scale and the location and the maximumization of public used scenic areas. If the applicant conforms to underlying area bulk requirements, the Planning offfice parti~ularly likes the Lodge of Aspen height and glassed in walls and scenic views for the guests. Neither of the Lodges were exceptiol al in this category so the Planning office rated them both as standar( at two. Services for guests you have six individual areas a total of six points. Meeting areas proposed in both lodges, dining facilities in both" accessory recreational facilities in both, As far as conferencE and banquet facilities( the planning office did not award apoint to the Lodge of Aspen as regards to the lounge area being nsed for conferences. The Aspen Inn Conference area did rate a point. Both sites are approximate to Skitrails. Both were rated a one. " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.lJOECHlB.B./ll.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 1981 5 - The final area of rating is the performance of local public policy goals and there are three separate areas of review here. 1) Reduction of tourist rental space below maximum of FAR Explanation of how these points were arrived at. The Planning Office looked at the overall - so you have a maximum point 7 5 to 1 The actual maximum FAR is .667 to 1. this was computed for both sites then compared the sq. footage which each applicant propos~ not to build on. In the case of the Aspen Inn there calculations did not followthis method Both lodges were rated as a two. Employee housing both applicants were supposed to house 75% of their employees on site. The Aspen Inn proposes 24 units with a two person occupancy per room and the Lodge of Aspen proposes 4 units with a two person occupany per room. The Aspen Inn does make mention as to the types of rooms. Formal ammendment is needed to respond to that statement. Both projects because they house 75% or more of the employees on site were rated a six. Auto disincentives, you've got three separate criteria; limosine service, reduction of parking below the minimum, and the prohibition against the employee parking on site. Both applicants addressed them selves to this with the Lodge of Aspen proposing two Limos , and no on site employee parking. The Aspen Inn proposing 12 limos, 114 parking spaces and prohibted employee parking on site The Planning Office added up points in categories A-E... The Lodge of Aspen was awarded 47 points, and the Aspen Inn Expansion was awarded 45 points.There were no bonus points awarded to either of the applicants by the Planning Office. Perry Harvey asked who determines the number of employees at the facility? Is ther a formula that the applicant is given? Alan said no Perry said that in the Planning Office memo it was discussed that the Aspen Inn has not yet on such the construction of 24 employee units or the imenity package which were the original basis on how points were awarded to the applicant. Alan said that that was in the "78, there is a timetable which has been agreed to by the applicant. Sunny Vann said that this is a phased application, the original representation of prior competition shows not only the first phase in which they receive allocation, second phases as well. He computed the employee demand for the entire project, he proposed to construct that in its entirety. Lee Pardee said that in the reduction of this phase instead of, ... should we not application? Alan Richman said that he based it on the entire site 111,000 sq. ft. the only thing that Alan exempted from that were two RMF developments Which clearly have no bearing on tourist rentals . Olof Hedstrom asked that applicant now give his presentation. Chuck Vidal is representing Mr. Cantrup for presentation of applica- tion. Chuck Vidal felt that in the planning office memorandum there were some comments made that could be considered prejudicial, relative to history. The P&Z can however, evaluate this application objectivly and deal with the relavent issues. Mr. Vidal commented that this project is part of an overall comprehensive upgrading of a significant number of tourist accomodations that will be part of a major PUD that will be submitted in the future. If the board is interested they are prepared to show a model of the overall project. Spencer has some specific comments relating to the recommendations by the Planning office. Spencer said that in those categories where the--------- recommends the maximum points they are in agreement of recommendation. Spencers comments will be directed toward th e other categories. . FAR, we are looking at only be looking at the total ,..._,....-...,_....u "'II ~- "...'........ - 6 - 1) Sewer, the maximum awarded is three points and the Planning Offic. recommendation is for two. An applicant is entitled to three points by definition when there are no forseeable deficiencies. Spencer refers the P & Z to a letter from Michael Kuhn dated July 16, 1981. "In regard to the proposed Aspen Inn Expansion, I see no problem in providing sanitation service to the proposed expansion," Spencer said that since there are no forseeable deficiencies he doesn't see why they are not entitled to all three points. 2) Storm Drainage, the maximum awarded points is three and they were awarded only two. Spencer said that may have lost a point there because of the reference to overflow outlets on to Monarch and Mill Streets. A memo of March 13. 1978 from Joe Wells regarding the 1978 GMP application for the same site. The recommendation there was to award the maximum three points specifically because the "applicant agreed to route site run-off to either Mill or Monarch on the basis of the preference of the City Engineering Dept. " Spencer said that since they have complied with that recommendation he feels that they should receive the maximum of three points rather than be penalized for it. A referral from Jay Hammond of Engineering Dept. Sept. 17th, 1981 which in fact recommends a full three points for this category. 3) FIre Protection the maximum is three points the Planning office is for two points.Spencer said that with respect to the water the applicant has granted three water easements to the City without any compensation what-so-ever, which improves the service to the fire area. Spencer refers the board to a letter in the aplicati on page fifteen from Gary Esary, then acting City Attorney. Regarding the access, the loation is only three blocks from the Fire Department. The Planning office is recommending a penalty of one point based upon a"question of access to rear of the project". Spencer refers to a letter from Willard Clapper, Fire Cheif "I would like to see what we have there prior to construction". Mark Danielson presents letter into the record " to whom it may conce cern, Oct. 6, 1981 My comment on letter of remodeling Aspen Inn I was concerned on access to inside courtyard and back of project on South Mill Street. Mark Danielson has shown me where Juanita Street will make this possible. With this access avaiable I do not have any problems with this proj ect. Signed Willard Clapper." (Roads)4) the maximum award is three points the recommendation is for one pt Spencer would like to point out that in 1978 the exact same site two points were awarded. The project is literally surrounding by majoe street linkage. The project will not alter existing traffic patterns or overload the street system and will not require increased road maintenance. Spencer said there will be limosineservice parking reduction as a result and emplyee parking prohibition , this will help to reduce parking. The Planning Office penalized the project for failure to promise paving, curb, and gutter on Mill, Monarch and this was never beforebeen a requirement that this be addressed in a GMP application; however, the project is willing to provide whatever is necessary. 5) Public Transportation, the maximum award is six points the recommendation from the Planning offfice is for four points. Spencer said that this project is well within walking distance of Lift 1A and Little Nell Lift and is clearly within 520 feet of lA Mark Danielson reads a letter verifying the 525 ft. distance Spencer said that the site does abutte the bus route and was found to be true in 1978. It is adjacent to Rubey Park transit center and he feels that the project should be given maximum scoring. Spencer refers to a letter of March 13, 1978 from Joe Wells wich recommends the fulls six points at thattime. 6) Architectural design the maximum is three points the planning office awarded only two. The main issue is the compatibilty with the surrounding neighborhood development. The project is and will be perfectly compatable with the surrounding area. 7) Site Design the maximum is three pointsthe recommendation is for two points. The Planning Dept.stated that landscaping previously proposed had not yet been provided and further stated that the Blue Spruce might not be demolished thereby that part of the landscaping plan may not be implemented. The Blue Spruce is being considered for temporary employee housing RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C.F.HOECKELB.B.Illl.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 1981 - 7 - Spencer said in regarding access for service and trash, that area is shoom in exhibit eight. 8) Energy the maximum award is three points the recommendation is for two. The proposal satisfys all the criteria for the maximum points. With respect to the insulation standards, solar energy devices, effi- cient fireplaces. The project is providing solar collectors. 9) Pmenities the maximum scores three points the recommendation is two. Spencer said they are providing a substantial amount of usable public open space and every conceivable public emenity that a lodge or a hotel will provide. Spencer quote what will be provided. Pedestrian walkways, public benches, bicycle paths, bike racks. 10) Visual Impact the maximum award is for three and the recommenda- tion is for two. The project is being located and designed to reduce the visual impact. Spencer asked that the board compare the two projects in these categories. He asked how they could possibly be scored so closely. The spaciousnous and the quality of the meet in areas, the conference areas, the dining facilities, the accessory recreational facilities, etc. Our project is offering every conceivable service for guests. Spencer suggests that the Aspen Inn Expansion be awarded bonus points in these areas. 11) Reduction of tourist rental space below the maximum allowable internal FAR, the maximum award is three. Admitedly the 8232 sq. ft. indicated in the application is erroneous, it is the wrong figure. The computation is wrong, actually the proposed building is 96 units mutiplied by 450sq. ft. per unit for a total of 43,200 sq. ft. Which is a reduction of 25, 305 sq. ft or 36 % from the Planning Offi analysis of 68,505 maximum sq. ft. that is internal tourist FAR. In any event, Spencer asked the board to understand that they are applying for q6 units. The Planning Off. feels that the correct allocation would be 54 units. Spencer proposes that even if the plan is incorrect and the Planning Off. is correct, that if you take 54 units and multiply it by 450 sq. ft. and it will give you a total of 24,300 or a reduction of 44,00 sq. ft. or a 64% reduction. Spencer said that any way you look at this they are well within that 15;( maximum and should be warded the full three points. Lee Pardee asked why they wouldn't be taking the whole project, its not the 96 units its the past, the present and the complete project? Spencer said that the past are being subtracted. There are several ways to calculate this. Spencer said in conclusion, that he wants to emphasis again that he thinks it is in the Boards discretion and perogative to award bonus points. Mark Danielson respectfully requests that bonus points be awarded to the application for several areas that see an outstanding overall design and the easements that we have given to the city, the tax that we will be providing for the Aspen Mountain Interconnect. The tourist facilities that are provided by the Aspen Inn again the restaurant, lounge, nightclub, recreation facilities, spacious lobby, terrace and pool area, underground parking, conference and banquet facilities. Employee housing is being provided in access of what is required under the code. We are reducing the F~~. Stone and Wood will be used in the construction. Al Bloomquist statedthat he was present at the Council saw the PUD overall ~Bster Plan model of which this project is just a small part. The overall concept in which this fits should be explained and a part of this record. Spencer stated that this will not complete all of the allocations that are needed. Chuck Vidal said the best way to answer the second part of the question is to show the model. _'__"_""'4'~"~"'_+~^'~ 1""."""-""'''' Ji, j ~'__<<''''_"'''''''''''I.-,'''~f.P_''._'. . wlilll . ... - 8 - Welton Anderson asked what precisely is being constructed? Chuck Vidal said that it is under construction , 54 units. Perry Harvey has a question of the applicant nnder emenities. The applicant mentions the large open space and landscape area, in front of the Inn itself; now that is not the Blue Spruce, is that right? Alan Richman said not that is not the Blue Spruce. Perry Harvey said that secondly the applicant mentions Arya Restaurant and the Conference and Dining facilities under emenities It is Perrys understanding that they are not to be .considered emenit: ies. Whydoes the Planning Office state that proposed open space is located in front of the Inn and is also associated with the Blue Spruce . and future conference facilities? Alan Richman said that he based it on some interpretation in the application. Perry Harvey said that if he looked at the site plan across Long Street you have future conference center. Are you in this appli- cation calling this open space and yet planning on making that a Conference facility. What are we dealing with in the way of open space ? Mark Danielson said that the open space that the Inn is specifically talking about is the large area in the front. This was not calculated in any of the calculations on the Blue Spruce property. The open space calculations are based upon the areas back in here (Mark points to the plans) . Roger Hunt has a question relating to transportation. Is Long Stree a through street? Mark Danielson said that Long street is not a through street now, however the Inn is proposing that it will be a through street. Perry Harvey said that the facilities that are in the Lodge are existing as part of this applicatio~ Mark Danielson said yes this is true. Olof Hedstrom opens the public hearing Spencer siad there was a question about the FAR calculations and ask. ed if the Board was satisfied about the response. Olof asked that the comments be restricted to The Aspen Inn Expansi. Bill Dunaway said that the plan shows the restaurant on a certain level and asked what it was called. Mark Danielson said it is like a Terrace level.Olof Hedstron told th. Board to proceed to the Lodge of Aspen. Jim VanBrewer said they were in agreement with all the positive aspects of the evaluation. The 1st section to be addressed where the applicant sees a discrepancy is the Sewer. The applicant! guarentees that they will provide the required sewer assesments and tap fees etc. The proposed sidewalk curb and gutter plan is shown as additional in! formation in the application. The application agrees and guarentees the participating for all the above improvements; sidewalks, curbs and gutters. The Aspen Mountain road abutting the Lodge will be resurfaced, blacktopped. The applicant now addresses the issue of transportation. It is esser tially based upon the fact that Little Annies Ski area is not existing and the Lodge is one block away from the bus route, so the applicant thinks that this item should be reconsidered. Site Design- all of the utilities are underground and the land- scaping is discussed in the supplemental. Trash removal is located in the rear of the site and snow control, the structure is engineered for Snow stops etc. and the basic snow removal equipment is on the site and contract snow removal will be used also. Jim VanBrewer said that there was a deficiency of two points; open space emenities is on the site and are restricted to the Hot tub and other recreational facilities. He said that because of t limitation of the site this is the extent of the emenities that can be provided in the open space. Section of Visual impact - The Planning office commented that the project indicates a criteria for a positive evaluation, the applicant feels that it should be given a three point value just on the basis of that. Jim said there is a pedestrian way that moves across the Elks property. The pedestrian way is continued across the front of the site. Perry Harvey asked if the Lodge was providing a walkway, or if it already exists? , , BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.. DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 1981 - 9 Jim VanBrewer said that that the walkway already exists, but that the applicant plans on continung the walkway. Jim spoke of the visual impact and said it was not obstructing any of the visual experiences within that site which are already not com- promised. Jim said that this is a small lodge and is the first Lodge that has been built since the GMP has been inaugerated. The character of the Lodge, 35 units, the applicant believes that the lounge area that they provided in the center modular is suitable for a meeting of about 50 people and Jim would put this in the scale of acceptable. Jim said that this is a small intimate lodge and would certainly increase the socialbility of a Lodge this scale and then the reduction SA of tourist rentals space below the maximum allowable has been pointed out in the Planning report. As far as bonus points considerations; this is the first attempt to build a new Lodge and it also has the effect of improving the key corner locations some 400 fett from the Little NeIls lift. All of the employees will be located on the premises, with no living quarters below grade. The design of the lodge represents an attempt to develope an intimatecale in keeping with the Aspen tradition. The Lodge was designed with a 14% reduction. The project can be built without any deficiencies in water, sewer, storm sewer drainage, fire protection, sidewalks curbs, paved driveways and streets adjoining the site. The location is within walking distance of the Commercial Core and Public transportation. As previously stated the applicant feels that the design does not interfer with the pedestrian traffic site. The applicant is willing to guarentee in writing writing prior to the issuance of the permit complete construction within one year, issuance of building permits not wih standing acts of God. Provided license engineering supervis- ion during construction, and correct any deficienciy within 10 days of notification except the decision of the City Attorney regarding the interpretation of the Code. Lyle Reader wanted to point out one other thing; this is on page 20 of the application; detailing scetch of landscaping, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. Lyle asked that the two Plats be accepted as clarification of the two drawings. Perry Harvey said that he had mentioned earlier the employee issue and; if you have 31 guest rooms, a front desk, a maintenence crew, limosine drivers, maids, and employees for dining facilities he would like for the applicant to tell him how eight employees can handle those categories of jobs. Lyle Reader said that some would be maintenance contract and there are 1200 sq. ft. allocated for en~loyee housing consisting of four rooms, so that is equivalent to 300 sq. ft. per room. Lyle said therE is a posibility of having dormitory type rooms, and increase the nu~- ber of employees. He said they have not done an analysis of what it would take to operate a lodge. Perry Harvey said to Lyle reader " You are saying that you are going to provide housing for 100% of your employees and now you are saying that you will provide for eight employees or maybe more...I am just trying to find out how you came to that figue of eight employees" Lyle Reader said that he had no previous experience in the Lodge business. Olof Hedstrom asked if there were any more questions from the Commission? Al Bloomquist asked where the solar collector was located? Jim VanBrewer said it was in the center modular. Al asked if it is facing North? Jim VanBrewer said that it was being done with reflectors. Olof Hedstrom opens the publi~.hearing. Jerry Huey ( Manager of the Aspen Elks) immediately adjacent to the new proposed project. Jerry pointed out page 22 of the packet, he said thatit is directly abutting the Aspen Elks property line. He expresses concern over traffic congestion and the area behind Ute Ave. The Lodge has aproblem keeping this area clear of snow. He expressed concern over the County road which is not maintained and uommented that it was very narrow. "' ~." - 10- Jerry Huey said he has been in the Lodge business for 37 years and in Aspen you usually plan one employee per two rooms. He said that for 77 rooms they hire between 70 and 80 employees for the season. Parking will be a big problem. One other physical problem which is also a financial problem. He checked with some consultants the minimum amount of rooms a hotel should have would be between 100 and 150 to break even on operational costs. Jerry feels that if the hotel does not make it they might apply for a condominiumizatio Bob ~1hite wants to make a point; he figure the Council Chamber is, about 910 sq. ft. He said that if you are going to have a lobby with a restaurant facility for 31 people ,presumably a desrk, an office, How do you do it in a space this size and then provide a conference area? He doesn't see how they could do this physically. Perry Harvey said that if you look at the site plan you see that the lobby and the lounge are separate. Olof Hedstrom closes the public hearing. Lyle Reader said that he would like to respond to Mr. Jerry Huey's comments. One, is the road going up to Aspen mountain,Mr Reader applied for a subdivision exemption and got it from the City, to subdi vide Lot 15. He acquired the West part of the road, There was a 12 ft. easement granted. He said there will be a minimum set-back. He feels many of the problems that Jerry Huey bring up are technical problems that the architect and engineers will solve. This is a very small proposed project and there are limitations to a small lodge. He said they do not plan on competing with the Continental Inn Alan Richman said that there is no question that both applicants have provided the Board with significant information on both projects. The Planning Office tries to inform the applicant right after their scoringof thenature of the scoring and any problems with the scoring. They have both addressed themselves to the problems we have found. Any questions that were raised about previous scoring of previous applications. The Planning Office does not feel that previous scoring nor by future anticipated action which may come. We need to be equally clar that past and future are not what we are rating here. The Planning office purposely ignored the past, we do not want any rating to be colored by other interpretations by other boards or other staff members. Alan would like to redefine for the Board particularly on the services the way the Planning Office has evaluated the points. That is to say that between residnetial and commercial we have redefin the criteria. The planning office used those clarified ratings in determining service, particularly regarding; water, fire, seweretc. Alan said that if y ou approve the situation you should rate a three. If you only keep an existing standard situation as standard there is no reason to give a full three points. Sunny Vann said that the Planning Office has always indicated that this is open for interpretation and that the way the recommendation is interpreted... Olof suggests that the Board start scoring the applications. Olof said that the only decision that the Planning and Zoning Board has is whether to recommend to Council the use of the 33% bonus. Sunny Vann said that the P&Z recommendation should be based on how the scoring turns out. }Perry Harvey asked if the bonus is just based on this years l8? Sunny said yes. Olof asked if there were any comments. Perry Harvey said that his feeling is that we can use alII the up- graded Lodge facilities we can get in this town and since the Growth management is a five year plan, we should recommend the use of five year quota and the bonus. Olof said that he agrees with Perry's conclusion and the reason for it Olof thinks they should take a position on the basis of Perrys state- ment that we need good Lodges and should be put in the form of a motion. Perry Harvey moves that the P&Z recommend to council that the quota from previous years be carried over to this year, and that a bonus of six nnits be added to this years quota for a totalof 54 units available to this years applicant. Jasmine seconds the motion. Olof Hedstrom - AYE, Jasmine Tygre - Anderson -AYE, Alan Bloomquist -AYE, Lee Pardee -NAYE. The Motion is carried. AYE, Roger Hunt - AYE, Perry Harvey - AYE, ( ) Welton " ..., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '.' C. F. ~OECHL B.S. a. L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 1981 - 11 - Olof Hedstrom calls the meeting back to order. Alan Richman stated that for the Aspen Inn category A-E Lodge of Aspen .. " Alan said that the Aspen Inn Expansion received 51.785 Lodge of Aspen "49.2 The Aspen Inn Expansion finishes first, before the bonus and after the bonus points. Olof Hedstrom said that we now have the official results and this information will be sent to Council. Olof Hedstrom entertains a motion to forward the results to City Council. Roger Hunt so moves Perry Harvey seconds the motion. Motion is carried. All in favor. Roger Hunts moves to adjourn. Jasmine seconds. All in favor. Meeting Adjourned. 49.785 48.785 Virginia M. Beall Deputy City Clerk -41-.-