The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.HP.350 Dean St.HP-1989-18-4- - Ax ; 31 9 - li 49 - {% . 350: 1>ga w. . R;*,1-trid AW -1 2737-182-001 through 005 3& 26'En Atia",bi 80* 11- P- 5 9 7 L IAI r~~/////96 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council ~~Â£ ~,~k THRU: Bill Efting, Acting City Manager 0% ~ ~ FROM: Amy Margerum, Planning Director */t DATE: December;' 18,4 1989 * RE: Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned Unit Development: 2nd Reading of Ordinance 69 SUMMARY This memorandum summarizes the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned Unit Development application which was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Resolution 88-8 (July 26, 1988) and discusses major changes in the community and to the Municipal Code since the last consideration of the application by the City Council. To assist in understanding the site planning issues associated with the application the following figures are attached for reference: 1. Figure 1 - Zoning in the Site Vicinity 2. Figure 2 - PUD Site Plan; 3. Figure 3 - Dean Street Elevation; 4. Figure 4 - Landscape Plan; 5. Figure 5 - Durant Avenue Elevation; 6. Figure 6 - Mill Street Elevation; 7. Figure 7 - Entry Level Plan; and 8. Figure 8 - Monarch Street Elevation. BACKGROUND Sandy Stuller will present the majority of the background for this agenda item at the meeting. The limited information in this section is provided to assist in understanding how the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned Unit Development has changed over the past five years. 1 .. On May 5, 1985 the City of Aspen granted final approvals to the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned Unit Development as proposed by the former applicant, American Century Corporation and Commerce Savings and Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Roberts application") . Figure 1 depicts the zoning in the site vicinity. The Roberts approval consisted of a five lot Subdivision/Planned Unit Development (PUD). The land uses approved for each lot are briefly summarized below. SUMMARY OF ROBERTS APPROVAL Lot 1 - Hotel Phase 1 Final approval was granted for the Hotel Phase 1 to be comprised of not more than 300 lodge units and not more than 14 residential units. Total countable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was not to exceed 200,000 square feet and total non-countable floor area was not to exceed 105,000 square feet. (Note: "non-countable" floor area refers to building space that does not fall within the definition of floor area in the Municipal Code). Lot 2 - Summit Place Final approval was granted for 3 two-bedroom residential units containing an aggregate of approximately 7,668 square feet of floor area. Lot 3 - Top of Mill Conceptual approval was granted for 33 residential dwelling units. Total floor area was to be approximately 100,000 square feet. Lot 4 - 700 South Galena Final approval was granted for 4 four-bedroom residential dwelling units. Total floor area was to be approximately 12,000 square feet. Lot 5 - Hotel Phase 2 Final approval was granted for a hotel not to exceed 162 lodge units and 14 residential units (the aggregate number of lodge units in hotel phases 1 and 2 was not to exceed 447 and the aggregate number of residential units between the two phases was not to exceed 14). The total countable floor area in this component of the project was not to exceed 150,000 square feet (with the maximum aggregate countable floor area between phases 1 and 2 to be 318,735 square feet), and the total non-countable floor area not to exceed 45,000 square feet (with the total aggregate non-countable floor area between phases I and II to be 150,000 square feet). 2 t ../ 9 . \32*14,1 b. 4.\ \6 I r. .- / 11 \ . \A - // / 1 ' 1 \Â£\\ '1 \ Â»\ \ S\. \ --2-3// 8 - --- . / 70 <-1-4./ i . fl.-/ 1 .. 20 --~ // :1. , \ 4 1 -- // /1/,4 . . â„¢ -- 7/90 _ 4 1 I Â·SKIEICS // C~[At. ET MOTEL____- , TWO' ,Â·' ~ Â· - SINGLEFAM --I DWELLLNGS -{-r -Dwâ‚¬U.ING . SINGLE. f.oftllflt N Y .t DWELI.INC Â»31Â©N Â· ~ -D TA,pLE t.ond#SASR'#'2. CONDOMIN[49*4\*~431%~A 1 THE TIPPLIC ~ CONDOM 1%11 RESTAU RAN AND HAR / NOI,Tli OF --Elx.-: :4-- --------- ~~i\~4 \ \443Â»46 c O>U,-1411--1/ lt t>Ii-, 1-~ ~4Â»i-~.44 # 74 , 4Â«-+ . set'TH PO|NT A N D LUM. 1 1- 1+.1 + L CONDOMINIUM ..4. *rl ... - bil tÂ»41.El#i\ I :- 14*k~ \ 21.- -~ r <c< ~m,p ~&<varr~v:.up,$Â«9>-fi~ -ft 9934 3 - ------ , I,GRANT G.Itt 1-k Wlit[.1>IN(; COMMENCIAL tvt"#22'11 .TE# 111 1- 111, $ i u ut--61 1-11 Z -r i -<-14<303Â«I.Â«ftÂ·<I --forfulkÂ« ASPEN 11()liNTAIN 7 . 1 E KISri'[.\(; 1 1 I ht' 1.(1(1 4, Â· -(,.tl,Â·11,1 -1â€ž:, ' 11 31 iiI 71 )\ 1 .\(. 1- I HES - FIGURE 1 .. OVERVIEW OF SUBDIVISION/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The Aspen Land Use Regulations permits an applicant to apply for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) simultaneously with subdivision, provided the request is for a parcel of land greater than 27,000 square feet in size. The PUD procedure seeks to allow flexibility and innovation in the development of large parcels of contiguous or adjacent land. Most dimensional requirements with the notable exception of permitted external floor area ratio (FAR) and maximum permitted density may be varied. An additional characteristic of the PUD procedure is the capability to calculate development density and permitted floor area based upon an entire subdivision as compared to individual lots. Planned Unit Developments and variations to standard land use regulations are reviewed pursuant to a four step review process. A conceptual review occurs at stages one and two of the review process and a final review occurs at stages three and four. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL On May 20, 1985, the Aspen City Council granted final approval to the five lot Aspen Mountain Subdivision. On September 16, 1988 the Council approved Resolution 29 approving amendments to the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. Subsequently, the Court held the approvals to be null and void because the approval was made by City Council resolution rather than ordinance. The City Council is considering an approval of Ordinance 69 on second reading granting the following approvals: 1. Confirmation of the 172 lodge units growth management quota system allotment previously granted the Aspen Mountain Lodge project; 2. Amendment of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD plat substantially approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 26, 1988 and approval of the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Subdivision Agreement Aspen Mountain Subdivision; and 3. A growth management quota system exemption to convert four units within the Grand Aspen Hotel to employee units. As previously noted, Figure 1 depicts the zoning in the site vicinity. Figure 2 depicts the PUD plan proposed by Savannah Limited Partnership (applicant). The Subdivision is generally bounded by Durant Avenue to the north, Galena Street and Aspen Mountain to the east, Aspen Mountain to the north, and Monarch 4 ' Aspen Mountain Subdivision & Planned Unit Development , ..0---,.rÂ»i '' ' ' NOTE r~uy < 2. .4 1 1 ' ././.,11.0/.WI' .42': 2. Â·1. Of./0-0.-Of -,Al ....1 1 2 â€¢ -kÂ·.c,kiti-Â·"21 ElE'LI, ----144 ~1(~> S 1 , e e i Â· 0 ~Â·â‚¬. *'I*0931 21 -1 ler-7 - â€¢--20.-2-3 6141 WA . i - L.*5 ....O-4 .â€¢ ~~ Â·# F .2 ..<<3--. I-- --2. --- -4-2234 -==r - h 'I , i '1' PL Â·ULÂ·Â·â€¢F--'r- Â·Â· . Â£ 1~~ tr"t ~ 'r.40*68"'96'1'.4-...:33 *Â· ~ibb==LW . ; ~ ' V - *...<.li -=-- <Nit. 'c!*84//5 M ~ ~~0 ~Â· ~'~~ ~ - "0231 i . 21.Â·<42-E=ZIJIL.-- -- 1 \ ..1 4. 3 -0 6 c ~ Fl' 6-1 fT) o \ -*Ji. /1 7 1 .. 1. 1 21 <4 -ix I I I I ./ 6 9 314 4-:L-Â· -,. 1 4 4 ' 111'' ..1.21 11_.~ .".- /10; u ~4~5~1UCTFT 1 1. 4 , Â£51 2 1 E ..9 \Â·i co cri#t, L. _. __i ' +4 Â· .fÂ·19 U f' | AÂ·VE-- 3.,ruff 11 4, 1 ill! I Afi u L J.....1 1# \ ) . b. , ~ E 7 Â·- 5-veâ€¢.r A- 4/' 1, 1 IfÂ· ' : Â· p d; : ?1*qÂ»,7 -M-rfn, i )41 . L. 1411 I Â«it 4.42 9 \, 0 0 0- ~ 1-2 -___3 Lj~,it:~ "11:b . ,)4- | Ill , ==1 0. ; 6 W, .5 - L,Â·t u L 4.j -6 - 3*2 . : 10 ' i . ~_/ 6-LU_ . Li ,,i-' i,' ,,/' ~ -,24.1.â‚¬ 011 Wl,.- ~i 1 1 /' 11'f 1 1 Sllf'le f -0..TA 1./.(miD - W . e= -795%~-4-Â° : r---1 P * cv#*#** f / , 1 f~Fij ju{iEVi~ i. . ~ 1 - 1 Â»3-1 I - SII.qi-~1%11'~ T.....+ , e# i a A , 1-1-1- - - I 28 'r,i-*a , -- ' id j I 1 - 3 | ~Li--3:6",d"4<U' 9 | i'k| ~'~ TZ'Eil r W .8. - . ' 7 F.*< ( . /* - 7 /- .:1 2 -r- 111 . 6-42'. > , : i M I 0 112 . - , - L 1 2 R: n. L* 2 .21 n. 4 , 1 tk'Ob> / A -1,91 j 1 3 ]F---~ n L tl > n #* 4*,92~ 2 - /8 ,/, ,/ 1 11:lf / ) el,> e .!1 - 71-4.J l.-9 , / .1 1 4% 1 C-2- 1 2.I . U - ju-fifirtil< 41 C 1 -7 1 , = 1 ,:.it're,ruu,~,t~,~1_Â£*) o,GUU, VI .r==Â· . .At - , 4 0 n a i c h i S i'f e 0 1 1 -'; f '' , < .:/ / ' ,;' J 00.0, &â€¢ipâ€¢ t.-. ... .--0 M / , /,/: / , L._r_ 1 , 1'',111 1 1 , . lf, 4~1, 1 : f ' i ' , f 1 1 Scal: 1'â€¢50- \1/ DoremuS & wet LS Â£'ee If., Aspen Mountain Subdivision Final PUD Plan 6 --1--- i -- --' '1-11â€ž-,1 '111'111 1 -1 - 1 380913 .. Street to the west. The site is predominantly zoned LTR (Lodge Tourist Residential), however portions of the site are zoned CL (Commercial Lodge) , R-15 PUD L (Moderate Density Residential Planned Unit Development with an Lodge Overlay) and C (Conservation). The subject site contains 509,174 square feet (11.6 acres of land). A six lot subdivision is proposed. Figure 2 shows that the applicants land parcel is shaped like a dumbbell. The lower portion of the site (lots 1, 4, 5 and 6) is linked to the upper portion (lots 2 and 3) by a 50 foot wide strip of land located to the west of Mill Street. Table 1, Aspen Mountain Subdivision Development Proposal and Zoning, presents a tabular summary of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The following sections address proposed land uses within the Aspen Mountain subdivision, lots 1-6. Although a PUD application allows maximum floor area and density to be calculated for an entire site, the following sections indicate the density of development and countable floor area ratios for each lot within the proposed subdivision for informational purposes. Lot 1 - Hotel Phase I Lot 1 is zoned LTR and contains 128,941 square feet of land (approximately 3 acres). The site is generally bounded by Durant Avenue and Dean Street to the north, Mill street to the east, Juniata Street to the south and Monarch Street to the west. A full service hotel containing 294 hotel units and not more than 292 hotel bedrooms is proposed. Countable floor area will not exceed 190,000 square feet, the non-countable floor area hotel space will not exceed 95,000 square feet and the parking structure will not exceed 92,000 square feet of non-countable floor area. Based upon the size of this lot and the proposed amount of countable floor area and lodge/residential units, the floor area ratio proposed for lot 1 will be 1.47:1 and the density of development will be approximately 97 lodge units per acre. For comparison purposes, the maximum allowable FAR in the LTR zone is 1:1. Two-hundred twenty (220) sub-surface parking spaces are proposed. The applicant is seeking approval for approximately 131,400 square feet of accessory hotel space. A portion of the accessory space is included in the total countable floor area. The space is allocated to the various uses identified in Table 2. 6 Table 1 Aspen Mountain Subdivision Development Proposal and Zoningl Lot # and Name Lot Size (s.f.) Zoning PUD Proposed Buildout Zoning Allows Lot 1 - Ritz Carlton 128,941 L/TR 294 hotel units; 190,000 128,941 s.f.2 s.f. Lot 2 - Summit Place 5,359 L/TR 3 residential units (6 bed- Maximum of 5 bedrooms: rooms): 7,700 s.f. 5,359 s.f. Lot 3 - Top of Mill 242,813 R-15 PUD L; 10 residential units; 2 duplexes and 3 detached Conservation; 101,000 s.f.3 units (R-15 (L), 1 detached ~ L/TR unit (C): 49 bedrooms (L/ TR): 83,926 s.f.4 Lot 4 - 700 S. Galena 18,376 L/TR 4 residential units, total of Maximum of 18 bedrooms; 12 bedrooms; 12,000 s.f. 18,376 s.f. K.\ 4 Lot 5 - GranCl Aspen 86.685 L/TR 50 hotel units; 37 residen- 86,685 s.f. lial units: 115,000 s.f. Lot 6 - Park 15,000 L/TR N/A: (Proposed to be Park) 39,000 s.f. 12,000 CL TOTAL PUD 509,174 342 hotel units, 54 resi- 362,287 s.Â£ dential units; 425,700 s.f. 1( ) 11Â·.: The entire development would have been required lo provicle approximately 79,025 s.f. of open space but has actually provided approximately 259,700 s.It of open space. Addilionally, the applicant cleccled to the City 62,015 s. f. of land at the Koch properly in exchange for several City lots iii the Top of Mill site and for allowing the vacation of Dean Street. I The analysis provkled in this table based on the assumptions listed below. Alternative assumptions will result in alternative findings. 2 At an allowed internal FAR for loclge units of 0.66: l ancl an assilined room sixe of 500 s.f., this site cotild permit 1721odge rooms under zoning. 4. 1 mt a based on 1984 Conceptual Subdivision,/PUD approval. Current proposal for this lot is unknown. i. 1Â·zi:iÂ·d on 49,7,10 s.1. olland zoned L/TR, 89,161 s.f, zoned R-15(L) PUD anc! 103, 912 s.f. zoned conservation. The R-15(U PUD FARis based on the as- inned deNT]opinent of 2 duplex lots of 20,000 s.f, each (FAR = 5220 en.) 2 detached residential lots of 15,000 s.f. each (FAR- 4500 ea.) and 1 detached re>idclitial lot of 19.16 l s.f. (FAR = 4746), pills a 1 : 1 FAR for the I./TR lancl, plus 1 detached residential lot of 103,912 s,f, zoned conservation (FAR = 'r'.t,ft)). Prepared by Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, December, 1989 - .. Table 2 Hotel Accessory Space* Land Use Square Footage Conference Space 20,100 Health and Recreation 2,120 Food and Beverage 12,150 Accessory Commercial 5,770 Other* 86,280 Total 131,420 * A portion of the accessory space is included in the calculation of countable floor area. ** Other includes administrative, service, mechanical, circulation and kitchen. Source: Aspen Mountain Subdivision, Modification to the 1988 Amended Lodge GMP Submission for the Ritz Carlton The hotel includes the four sections described below, depicted in Figure 2 and referred to for the remainder of this memorandum: 1. Main Building/Dean Street - Bounded by Dean Street to the north, Mill Street to the east, South Wing Mill Street and internal courtyard to the south ' and Monarch Street to the west; 2. Main Building/South Wing/Mill Street - Bounded by the Main Building/Dean Street to the north, Mill Street to the east, Aspen Mountain to the south, and the interior courtyard to the west; 3. Main Building/Monarch Street - Bounded by the Main Building/Dean Street to the north, the interior courtyard to the east, interior courtyard to the south and Monarch Street to the west. 4. Blue Spruce Building - The building will be linked to the Main Building/Dean Street by a pedestrian overpass traversing Dean Street. This building has 5,000 s.f. of retail space and 24 hotel units. The primary hotel pedestrian entrance is the hotel's northeast corner, located at Mill and Dean Streets, caddy-corner to the ice rink/park (refer to Figure 2). The pedestrian entrance is located within one block of the Ruby Park transit center. 8 .. Figure 3 depicts the vehicle drop-off at the port-cochere south of Dean Street. Approximately one-half of the Dean Street level building facade (135 feet) is devoted to vehicle drop-off. Valets will take cars from the port-cochere to the underground parking structure which is accessed west of Mill street. The service entrance to the hotel is located on the north facing facade of the hotel, just to the west of the port-cochere, on Dean street. As shown by Figure 2, the hotel is horseshoe-shaped and oriented toward a large (40,000 square feet) internal, courtyard facing Aspen Mountain. Figure 4 depicts the courtyard. The open space is designed as an amenity for the guests of the hotel and will only be visible from Upper Monarch and Juniata Streets. The predominant view from the downtown Aspen is the north facing Dean Street and Durant Avenue facades of the Main Building/Dean Street and the Blue Spruce Building (refer to Figures 3 and 5). However, it should be noted that the Mountain Chalet Will partially obstruct the view of the Dean Street facade. The Main Building facade features numerous dormers designed to break-up the roof line. The roof ridge line heights for the Main Building/Dean Street elevation range from 48 to 51 feet above natural grade. The building is setback approximately 20 feet from the Dean Street right-of-way. The east and west corners of the Dean street elevation are broken by three story sections on each side of the corners. However, the center section of the Dean Street elevation (approximately 170 lineal feet) will be four stories above grade. The fourth story will be constructed above the eave line of the roof. To assist you in placing the proposed building in perspective, the staff surveyed the commercial core to determine the heights of other buildings. The Little Nell hotel is four stories above natural grade on the Durant Avenue and Hunter Street sides. Two stories are constructed above the eave line of the roof. The North of Nell Condominiums building is also four stories above natural grade on the Durant side, however all of the stories are constructed below the eave line of the roof. The original Hotel Jerome building is three stories above natural grade on the Main Street side. The roof line is above all three stories. Figure 5 shows that the height of the Blue Spruce building ranges from 36 to 40 feet above natural grade. The building will be 2.5 to 3 stories above grade. The third story will be constructed above the eave line of the roof. Figure 1 shows that the Blue Spruce Building will be Yinked to the Main Building/Dean Street by a pedestrian overpass traversing Dean Street. 9 . I ..... - ./. . 04#d~11 4,Â»4:3 rizrkv ty' ~~ ~' 30 N ./Â»24Â·~441464 +BY; .0 Blitkin/922/ r. 1.k . M~. r -1 f--1*@M~-11*~~ F:0~EEMID:rz-~~~ C I 1 2%.TEL-1 W - . =1 1 â€¢la I - m 1--=j 1-1 2* i477- 1 . _I =AL .1, - -yÂ·=92. f~.22!Â£~Â£; i 4 ilifi , DEAN STREET ELEVATION 2 - SCIll 0, 0 AMC,11111(NUME HAI)ID 111: R! 1-ZÂ·CARL-roN HOTEL AUBRY ARCHITECTS. PA.-SARASOTA, FLORIDA ASPEN. COLORADO CLARK, TRIBBLE. HARRIS & LI ARC1111-ECTS. PA.- WASHINGTON. DC. 6/1988 Â£ 313091=1 Monarch Street ..ruit 07 &6%7 APA AC'>6 Â£371 02704 +8124 *...m[=19=-E] S / = 01==14 114 r--17 Â£ <32/Wa,Â£753<,Lirry#6' 4--9 1 1 ~ < > overpass K k pN 29,itgaic <jftjf . b LI.lt.*,-1.v.Â£.~u..g-rÂ·--Â·Â·.I--- 11>1461#Nal 3 U. r.1 CU E \74&0% *fj-P/1 PA,&664*Ik/'FA,WEPS:=- . . lit C 'AmE<7- I 1 -- I h~-2â‚¬I~ 1 PLANT LIST - SYMBOL 8 OTAN|CAL NAME liMit)N NAME 42%,5/2Â»q \N 9 35# TREES -2 1 i iveÂ»v a...~ ] 12Â·.4.-Leaa- 1. -+TT7/1. /. ~11,1.1 Galery Ouah,4-xmen -0-1/Â·Â·Â·i 2(fq 1 ) 12>1 Poollus I.nuloides la 9 7 m e ..lul 'Hop. Hop, Fio.~ ing Ciab SHRUBS ri ........'Co -wnuni. S.....'.S .0.Al.#A ~9'De, Atrkrn K 40 4 0 po:.......... S.lub ove,0,1 Rib- All,r. I Alo~/ Cul,on' ''. ..6 1 il garden r ~~" 4 <9 1 S,:.0..ul.M Comm I 'lac )>4 ' HoloUâ€¢*Cul LumoiuS Aock Dir. 11 ''1 -,-== Wood /0.0 EN/Ous lori,i" 92" L, 1 Wile,tree,ov Allow 2 4 0/2 GROUNDCOVER Mehor,0 ...i C.,09.~ 1 1 1 1 V.-4. - p.11*#// ' 1 .01.1. ....1.1 C+04 .1-4 0 ParIP.floct'kr* fÂ·*'ou ../. C.,0.- --~.- F...li....1 I - .---- fluif~lyÂ©*<i,_Er a - 32*acy u.[2] MIl Street LANDSCAPE PLAN ~ HADID P ... i Mii Rit-/. C.Â·\I<I.-roN I larIii. Al IC I r ECIAL \Sl '1Â·.X. COLORAL)0 AUBACY Aflu,!JrECTS, P.A.+SARASOTA, FLORIDA ~ D...to>â€¢,4 Co,npe'u CLARK,TRIBOLE,HARRIS & LI ARCHITECTS.P.A.-WASHINGTON, D.C. ,-â€žâ€ž0.1.-,-,- LAN[-SCAPE ARCilliECIL ...- DESIGN WORKSHOP-ASPEN COLORADO ./ 1/86 D 3 Hn 91=:1 Â»<25/'_XQ >a Â·- 4 -L. Ul 2 1 44 2 44**L- ___l_ E,liti=== -_]r"-L -J :25!EmE!'5 4--- - TE U[f I E liE 11 N -Z *AL EE I *~ #Al 1 -1 ._ ti:ti ~ k ---2 l=keter<44=9=1=-24- hliz-k=-h=kn=4- " - 1 1 R & re 24 Fil[-~ ~iu4 t-24' -,[Pit-14 tt_' ' U i~ L -lt 1 -1 1 Â£_IL_.4 _ 1.-L..eA .'. H 11 '' 1.-i-~-1111- -11-4 ' ', t-_ 7 "-7 !-7 1 . PUAA'~ ST'XEST KL3.7.1.-Il"Cli . SCALE.. , 0 8 ARCHITECTURE HADID THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL AUBRY ARCHITECTS, P.A.-SARASOTA, FLORIDA ASPEN, COLORADO CLARK, TRIBBLE, HARRIS & U ARCHITEerS, RA.-WASHINGTON, D.C. 6/1988 9 38091=1 .. The most significant public pedestrian view of the hotel will be from the proposed ice rink/park (refer to Figures 3 and 5). Pedestrians in the ice rink/park will view the northeast facade (primary pedestrian entrance) which features a 60 foot clocktower. However, the profile of the hotel as it relates to the sky and the mountain will be publicly viewed from most of the commercial core and many of Aspen's residential neighborhoods (refer to Figure 3). During the land use review process, the applicant was responsive to staff and Planning and Zoning Commission requests to breakup the mass of the building on the Mill Street elevation (main building/south wing). Figure 6 shows that an 80 foot section of the south wing is limited to a one-half to one story above natural grade. This section of the building will contain the apres-ski lounge and courtyard and serve as a visual break between the four to five level elevations to the north and south. The apres-ski lounge is easily accessible to skiers walking west from Little Nell on Dean Street. However, the main interior courtyard will be isolated from the general public and the apres- ski courtyard by an internal pedestrian gallery which links the Main Building /Dean Street to the Main Building /South Wing/Mill Street. Refer to Figure 7, the entry level plan, to help understand the pedestrian flows which are likely to occur between the hotel and surrounding land uses such as Little Nell, Ruby Park and the ice rink/park. Figure 8 shows the Main Building/Monarch Street elevation varying from 2.5 to 4.5 levels above grade. The roof ridge line heights range from 38 to 53 feet above natural grade. The facade is 206 feet long. Figure 2 shows that the interior courtyard will be accessible to pedestrians from Monarch and Juniata streets on the south and east ends of the property. This is the only portion of the interior courtyard which is visible to the street and accessible to pedestrians. Lot 2 - Summit Place Figure 2 shows that Lot 2 - Summit Place is located on the west side of Mill Street, just below Summit Street. The lot is zoned LTR (Lodge Tourist Residential) and contains approximately 5,360 square feet. As previously noted, the maximum permitted FAR in the LTR zone is 1:1. The applicant is seeking approval to construct 3 two bedroom townhouses containing an aggregate of not more than 7,700 square feet of floor area. This represents a countable FAR of 1.44:1. The Summit Place units are replacement housing units which are' exempt from the residential growth management quota system 'and requirements to provide employee housing. Six sub-surface parking spaces are proposed to be located beneath the development. 13 ./* 3.-IT # / : .. I .:.'V 2: ' - . .,'2~ 41 1 : . $: 4 1.1 1 ... ti Â£, H , .-.. 34 Â·.41] . ~- --- : 6, I LÂ·.. 2. i ]: I , i I.-2 1 ' " -Â·- Â·- & -Â· , ' -Â·Â·Â· - 1' *Â·â€¢'9 1 Â· 1 In m m *-* I !â€¢lituituit,t~Itillwo 1 1 , 3Â®~!~-fiCÂ®ffl ~f h'6. 1.--4%,]1-Mti--~-~~R] 1 2-1 MILL 5TREET ELEVATION 3 - 0 .Â·A, AIM IM,'I HADID in!. Ri;-/ C'Â·\141'11)4 Hart:.L AU,IRY ARCH[Tl:CrS. PA -S~MASOTA. IÂ·li * I DA Â©1Â·16. CULORADO CLARK, 1*111!LE. HARRM & U ARCHInrrs. P. - WASHINGTON. DC 9 Euln E)13 0 4 --_ 2 L j f SERÂ¥1(1! i U , 1 4----61----M---------W O 00 ~ 1,...civwmr---1 TRUCI D<Jet 1 |PU~CHIS"01 1 0 o I M t'.0/.,UL w , KrTCHEN '122_Dert SF-~~ t~ 1 4 -IL f M m L u o |MEN I ' c-L----F=tRil------ 1./24 r AA 6 Â· ced,muit. 0 GALLERY <~~ P. IVITE b 'Â· 21 t' 11 -1 4=. 1 4 0 -M 0 3 4 'k--=10.-O--49 2 1 SERVO ATOR JL-- - 0-=t GAU.ERY ' 6 M 11 , , ____ .-__73 ~ __31L_ _-MALÂ·j]iâ‚¬Â· ~4-11*820-Ck~ -..A,: i * 1 fi i Â·,Â·41,Â·lu,â€ž44=1 Bllia. , -- .242#4 \41.2 i, I -JÂ· l Â·Â· . 2 rn .,r. Â¥Â»flj. 9 i-i, i p .Â·, p. 4 0/.i- 0/ 15<21,9 x>-i:4 POE : ----;ll 8Â£ IF.>4-Â¢>/1~><1 4,â€¢*IR.2-&' '. '2~V-./ ' / NÂ·U,%>4 1[gsH-IM.1- VIEW r -----C 7944>7.'*bfÂ·~ ix Av.ASAW CONCIERO~ K : I f....O LEVEL 4;& E U CE,rrRAL 1 LANT 0.4 L ' )*1. .~Â£*25 Xy. A /<11 P>Rplf<Â£ FIREA.Act Â© 071Â»74 DOWÂ» U-1 - _ â€¢'El-1 --r------[{Â»44{1104,412Â»11%b - ..... ---1___ 'bATOR ...-1 =fr -1 GALLERY ~ Lon" I 4 Ir')=1 1*'v -12-=i ~ ~ PARKING LEVEL ||' : 11 1-1 MBA. MEN 53 a H- - 6.-.~ - -'t-Fial=,061/LILIS . 'Ir-' 13 L, gr. F#* â€¢ S.R.K. 7 ' 1 SKI LOBBY SUNDRY ./9 2---%"diAYM'P n It ..121 SKI IDUr.,1. f* a,ultÂ·r~.w f7-. 19 0 F ' .-7Â·W I 1 Â·71 ic -1--7/1---/11 C - 1,- .1, 1 1 1 - 4 lip/X ... A ~ '.1,1. 1 '11"1'. 1.rvN ~ Â·59 N. p -i--- r----- -~ i . 1 1 ....Nal , â€¢ StÂ»FE UP tiffin-9---*I -6- ii-____--iffft) F-- - I ' i ENTRY LEVEL PLAN 4 0 THE Rriz-CARCIDN HOTEL 0/ ARCI,rTnet'Ult!. HADID ASPEN, COLORADO AUBRY ARCILITECrS. PA.-SARASOTA, 11ORIDA CLARK, TRIBBLE, HARRIS & [.1 ARCI IllECm P.A.- WASHINGTON, D C. ' '11,1,8 2 3&1AE)1=1 1 re.... 77 -7.-Â·-'.9-'f I.-.- .1*74 0 i''Â· Â»~44' '~'';. . Â· Â·C Â· - Â·---1 Pt:Â·D>, o N~ tj"N, ' '44 . . NE z Â£40- 1...Tf vi? . I, .... I U./ 2 -1-â€¢~â€¢ CA P.... , .: . ~ .Â· ~_-f l,r.,1 r Blf ... C 1 0 - 210"t~ -Â·i f.t Q.. - =126=!- I|11. ~JEE 'jf?W&1~Â©1 -- W j & L '* 1 + # tbcncf it*,4 i ~1 1 lim. I'.. ..... I :: . ~; 1. I ... ;: Â· ,: ... Â· ' 1~' , ~. 1.i / 1,' . il I ....."~ 1... , L= .~ --=_~-Lhi-:; ~ffÂ·UL~~eMfiht, =t i~*~~ ~--~~ ~~~%1 -â€ž ~z~ â€¢r'-~'~ U:I 393~ Tfl. --- .~ i--~- - I~ :"r=4 -"'7-"-~ p,921 r~--1 :12.4~ <.a - EE -E.938 f j 40 ,<20.Â· 89Â»4 4.6X / 2 MON'MCI'llt.IE! 'IEVATION -,1 - 0 ta= I.'41 Ill'.1 HADID 1111 1< i. l.Â·Ilt'Â·.11'1111 ..MÂ¥ Al<//Ill'.I'A ...AM'll I.(JklIM 8 3 Hn 91 =1 .. Lot 3 - Top of Mill The Top of Mill site contains 242,813 square feet (approximately 5.6 acres) of land located within three zone districts. The site contains 89,161 square feet (2.1 acres) of land zoned R-15 PUD- L (Moderate Density Residential/Lodge Overlay), 49,741 square feet (1.1 acres) of land zoned LTR (Lodge Tourist Residential) and 103,912 square feet (2.4 acres) of land zoned C (Conservation). The Top of Mill lies at the southern terminus of Mill Street at the base of Aspen Mountain (refer to Figure 2). It is linked to lot 1 of the subdivision by a 50 foot wide strip of land located to the east of Mill Street. The site consists of two distinct areas, the lower part which lies between the Mountain Queen parking structure and Mill Street, south of Summit Street and the upper part which consists of a natural bowl starting at the termination of Mill Street. In September of 1984, the City Council approved Resolution 23, granting the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena conceptual PUD/subdivision approval. In conjunction with the conceptual subdivision approval the City of Aspen entered into negotiations with the applicant (American Century Corporation and Commerce Savings Association) to trade several City owned lots within the subdivision to the applicant for the Koch lumber site. The conceptual approval allocated 33 residential dwelling units to the Top of Mill project. The dwelling units are replacement units exempt from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). The October 1988, Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision Agreement links lot 3 - Top of Mill to lot 5 - Hotel Phase II. The agreement stipulates that the 47 dwelling units may be allocated between lots 3 and 5. In other words those units not allocated to one site may be utilized on the other, subject to zoning and subdivision approvals. It is the Planning Office's and City Attorney's position that all of the original Roberts approvals, including the Top of Mill conceptual subdivision/PUD approval, were superceded in the Spring of 1988 with the exception of stipulations documented in Resolution 88-11. The development of the Top of Mill was not addressed by Resolution 29 and the amended PUD. It was anticipated that the Top of Mill would be addressed as an amendment to the PUD at a later date. Lot 4 - Galena Place A / Lot 4 - Galena Place is an 18,376 square foot lot zoned LTR (Lodge Tourist Residential). Figure 2 shows Galena Place is located on the east side of Galena Street just to the south of the Tippler. Galena Place is presently under construction and is 17 .. nearing completion. It comprised of 4 three-bedroom residential units containing an aggregate of not more than 12,000 square feet. This represents a FAR of .65:1. Lot 5- Hotel Phase II and Ice Rink/Park Figure 2 shows that lot 5 is bounded by Durant Avenue to the north, Galena Street to the east, Fasching Haus to the south and Mill Street to the west. The lot contains 113,685 (approximately 2.6 acres) square feet. The portion of the lot bounded by Durant Avenue to the north, Galena Street to the east, Dean Street to the south and the existing buildings to the east contains 12,000 square feet and is zoned CL (Commercial Lodge). The remainder of the site is zoned LTR. Lot 5 is the existing site of the Grand Aspen Hotel and the parking lot to the north of the hotel. Resolution 88-29 stipulates that development on the lot will be limited to not more than 50 hotel rooms, 47 residential units and 115,000 square feet. Residential GMQS development credits for lots 3 and 5 are linked. Forty-seven residential 47 residential GMQS credits are to be shared between lots 3 and 5. Those credits not used on lot 3 may be utilized on lot 5. The total floor area on lot 5 is not to exceed 115,000 square feet. The applicant has submitted a land use application for a development on lot 5. Pursuant to Resolution 89-46, the City of Aspen is not processing the new land use application. As part of the subdivision process, lot 6 (ice rink/park) is to be created. The applicant is to construct and operate an ice skating rink/park as a permanent community activity center. AFFORDABLE HOUSING The 1988 amendments to the PUD estimate that the development of Lots 1,2 and 4 will generate 269 full time equivalent employees (FTE). The applicant proposes to mitigate 198.5 employees or 73.7%. The land use code requires the applicant to house 60 per cent of the employees generated by the hotel. In addition, the applicants have agreed to audit the actual number of employees generated and if necessary adjust their affordable housing commitment to meet the 60 per cent standard. Table 3 shows how the applicant proposes to provide housing for 198.5 employees. A. 18 .. Table 3 Employee Housing Proposal Project Location # of Employees Existing New Res. Change Credited Res. Units Const. in Use Hunter Long House* - 69 yes Alpina House 46 yes Copper Horse** 43 yes Grand Aspen Hotel 3.5 yes Ute city Place 37 yes Total 198.5 112 37 49.5 L, * The applicant made a no interest loan of $250,000 for Hunter Long House project. This enabled the project to be refinanced and the Housing Authority to build 5 new 2- bedroom deed restricted units. ** Residential units which existed, but were not deed restricted. Source: Aspen Pitkin Planning Office, December, 1989 A 19 .. The setting in which the Planned Unit Development is being considered today, followed by relevant changes to the Land Use Code, are summarized below. SETTING The 1966 Aspen Area General Plan, 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan and the 1982 Short-Term Accommodations Report all identified the base of Aspen Mountain as the most suitable site in the City of Aspen for significant expansion of the Aspen/Snowmass resort's tourist accommodations bed base. Although there have been changes in the upper Roaring Fork Valley since 1982, the Planning Office reconfirms the recommendations of past studies that the proposed site is the best site for a major tourist accommodations facility. The site is easily accessible to Aspen Mountain, downtown Aspen, and the mass transit system. In the past eight years since the publication of the 1982 Short- Term Accommodations Report and the creation of the L-3 zone district (subsequently renamed the Lodge Preservation (LP) zone district), 514 existing tourist accommodation rooms have been totally rebuilt and 210 new rooms have been constructed. According to Joe Wells' and John Doremus' analysis in the 1987 Amendments to Aspen Mountain Subdivision, 113 units have been lost from reported short-term accommodations inventory. The staff has not cited these data to initiate a discussion of how many rooms are justified within the hotel based upon changes to the reported short-term accommodations inventory. We cite these data to document the significant improvement in the quality and number of tourist accommodations facilities in the Aspen since 1982. Although significant improvements in the quality of tourist accommodations have been made since 1982, a large scale convention/conference facility has not been constructed in Aspen. However, a large conference/convention facility has been built in Snowmass Village. When the original Roberts approvals were granted in 1985, the community expressed a desire for a large scale conference facility to be developed in Aspen. Although the City of Aspen and Pitkin County have taken some significant actions to address major limitations to growth in the upper Roaring Fork Valley since 1985, the following significant planning issues which faced the community in 1985, and in 1988, have been exacerbated and are still issues of concern to most citizens of Aspen. 1. The traffic bottl'Sneck at the entrance to Aspen; 2. _ Traffic congestion on Highway 82 (summer traffic on the Castle Creek bridge has increased from 23,000 to 26,000 average vehicles per day from 1986 to 1989); 20 .. 3. Poor air quality; 4. Downtown automotive vehicular congestion; 5. Limited downtown parking; 6. Significant demands for affordable housing in the upper Roaring Fork Valley. In addition to the preceding unresolved issues of concern, several old issues have become more important to the community and some new issues have evolved. The issue of preserving Aspen's historic character and village, as well as its pedestrian scale seems to have become a greater community concern. In light of the recent demolition and/or reconstruction of many long-time unrestricted affordable housing dwelling units, increasing displacement of long-time City residents to down valley locations, construction of many second homes and a growing perception of Aspen as an elitist, exclusive community, there is an increased awareness of the need to utilize the land use process as a mechanism to achieve a majority of the City Council's adopted goals and preserve and restore Aspen's sense of community. CHANGES IN THE LAND USE CODE In April of 1988, the City Council made extensive changes to the Land Use Code. While many changes in the code occurred, staff will only identify those changes which, if applied, have the potential of bringing this proposal out of compliance with the existing code. The following is a summary of those changes and how they effect the Aspen Mountain PUD. Open Space The primary change in the open space definition which impacts the PUD is in the Grade Limitation section. The old code allowed open space to be 10 feet below the existing grade of the street which abuts the open space. The new code only allows open space to be counted if it is not more than 2 feet below the existing grade of the street which abuts the open space. Virtually all of the open space which is internal to the Hotel Phase 1 site is more than 2 feet below grade and therefore not countable as open space. Even with this change in countable open space on Lot 1, the entire PUD has potential adequate open space to meet the requirements of the underlying zone district. This is due primarily to the considerable amount of potential open space on Lot 3, Top of Mill. 21 .. Planned Unit Development (PUD) In this section of the code the primary change effecting the proposed development is external floor area ratio. The PUD section of the old Land Use Code permitted variations in a number of dimensional requirements. The new code retains all of these variations except External Floor Area Ratio. Table 4 illustrates that the Aspen Mountain PUD is over its allowed FAR by approximately 63,413 square feet. Staff would like to point out that total FAR for the PUD assumes the Robert's conceptual plan for the Top of Mill. As a result, the proposed development does not comply with the new Land Use Code. OTHER CONCERNS Parking and Building Height While these aspects of the Hotel Phase I proposal do not conform with the underlying zone district, they are allowed to be varied based upon the PUD section of the code. For informational purposes, the Hotel Phase I is providing 220 subgrade spaces, while the code would require 228 spaces for this development. The development proposes building heights over 50 feet. The code allows maximum building height in the L/TR zone of 28 feet. Housing The proposed development on Lots 1,2 and 4, has committed to mitigate 198.5 employees. According to the employee housing mitigation analysis in the original proposal, this development will generate 269 employees (FTE) and therefore, the applicant is mitigating approximately 73. 7% of the development's generation. Staff has some questions regarding the adequacy of the proposal's 269 employee generation number for a 294 room luxury hotel and seven luxury residential units. Discussions with the Housing Office and inquiries about other luxury hotel operations indicate that the 269 figure is understated. The 1989 Affordable Housing Guidelines of the Housing Authority requires that a range of .2 to 2 employees per room be used for calculating the impacts of lodge development. The low end of the range was for low service types of motels and the high end for full service luxury hotels. The 1988 PUD agreement used a factor of .2 employees per room, not including retail space. The Housing Office has indicated that 2 employees per lodge room would be a more appropriate estimate for total employee generation. Furth*r, staff has conducted a phone survey of hotel employee/room mix both locally and nationally and established a range of 1.1 - 2.0 employees per room. For comparison purposes, the aggregate number of employees per room for the proposed development (lodge plus retail) was approximately .92 employees/room in the 1988 approval. 22 . Table 4 Aspen Mountain Subdivision Development Proposal: Square Footage Variations Pursuant to PUD 1 Lot # and Name Lot Size (s.f.) Zoning PUD Proposed Buildout Zoning Allows PUD Variations Lot 1 - Ritz Carlton 128,941 L/TR 294 hotel units; 190,000 128,941 s.f.2 Excess of 61,059 s.f. s.f. 1.01 2 - Summit Place 5,359 L/TR 3 residential units (6 bed- Maximum of 5 bedrooms; Excess of 1 bedroom rooms): 7,700 s.f. 5,359 s.f. and 2,341 s.f. 1.o[ 3 - Top of Mill 242,813 R- 15 PUD L; 10 residential units: 2 duplexes and 3 de- Excess of 17,074 s.f. Conservation; 101,000 s.f.3 tached units (R- 15 (L), 1 L/TR delached unit (C); 49 bed- rooms (L/TR); 83,926 s.f,4 I.01 4 - 700 S. Galena 18,376 L/TR 4 residential units, total of Maximum of 18 bed- Underbuilt by 6 bed- 12 bedrooms: 12,000 s.f. rooms: 18,376 s.f. rooms and 6,376 s.f. 4 1.01 5 (11'and A.spen 86.685 I./TR 50 hotel units: 37 residen- 86,685 s. f. Excess of 28,315 s. f. 10 U lial units: 1 1 5,000 s 1 l.(H G - Park 15,000 L/TR N/A: (Proposed lo be Park) 39,000 s,f. Underbuilt by 12,000 CL 39,000 s.f. TOTAâ€žL PUD 509,174 342 hotel units, 54 resi- 362,287 s.f. Excess of 63,413 dential units; 425,700 s.f. s.f. NoTE: The entire development would have been required to provide approximately 79,025 s.f. of open space but has actiially provided approximately 2 59,700 s,1, of open space. Additionally, the applicant deedeel to the Cily 62.015 s. L of land at the Koch properly in exchange for several City lots in the Top of Mill site ancl for allowing the vacation of Dean Street. I The analysis provided in this table based on the assumptions listed below. Alternative assumptions will result in alternativeÂ·ftndings. 2. .,\; ,li I ,1|1(,wiÂ·d intl:rnal IÂ·LAR for lodge units of 0,66: 1 and an assilined fc)(.)111 size of 500 s,fâ€ž this site could permit 17210dge rooms under zoning. 1, 1),an b,1.bed on 1984 Conceplital Siti)(livision/PUD approval. Current proposal for this lot is unknown. i P. rÂ·,Â·i| 011 Â·li).7,10 9.1. 011:111(l 7.()11('(11./'1'14, 89.1 (91 s.1. Zoned |4-15)(11 PUI) und 103, 91'2 .s.f. zontÂ·(1 conseivatic)11. The 12- 15(14) PUD FAR Is based on the n.s- 4.inniÂ·d lit'\'Llc)pment 01'2 dupler lots (31 20,000 s.1, ench (FAR = 5220 e.1,) 2 clet:ic:lit:d residi'Illial lots of 15,000 s.1. each (FAR - 4500 ea.) and 1 delached i , i, IiÂ·nlial lot of 19,1 l; 1 b.f. (1Â·3\14 =.17,1 (,3, 1)1 11% .1 1 : 1 FAR 1(.,t- the I./TR I:, i id, plils 1 ill: tached residenlial lot of 103,912 s.f. zoned conservation (FAR = Prepared by Aspen/Pilkin Planning Offlce, December, 1989 .. This calculation was clearly a concern with past review bodies because the current proposal requires an audit two (2) years after the Hotel begins operations. This audit will address the actual employee generation of the hotel; however, adjustments to the original mitigation will be made only if the total mitigation rate falls below 60%. The applicant's original intention for providing mitigation of 198.5 employees (73.7% of 269) was "...an inducement to the City to approve the amendments to the Aspen Mountain PUD..." This apparent concession to the City will disappear if the actual employee generation figure changes significantly. An additional concern staff has brought to the attention of the applicant is the verification of the number of employees proposed to be housed by the applicant given the size of those units. The Housing Office and Zoning Office have conducted a site survey of the Alpina House and the Copper Horse to determine if the number of employees which were committed to be housed in these facilities can be accommodated under the Housing Authority's standards for occupants per square foot. The results of this survey indicate that the Alpina House can accommodate the number of employees committed to, but the Copper Horse cannot. The proposal indicates that the Copper Horse will house 43 employees. The Housing and Zoning offices indicate that based on the minimum standard of 125 s.f. per occupant the Copper Horse can only house 16 employees. It should be noted, based upon the above survey, that the proposed development has overstated its mitigation efforts by 27 employees. The finding that 27 employees will not be accommodated in the Alpina House and the concern that the assumptions used to calculate employee generation may be understated lead staff to conclude that the Council may want to readdress the employee housing mitigation portion of the PUD agreement. Attachments: -Ordinance 69, Series of 1989 -List of Documents Used in Preparation of this Report ritz.ghldas 24 .. ORDINANCE NO. (~ (Series of 1989) AN ORDINANCE GRANTING SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND CONFIRMING GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA ALLOTMENTS FOR THE AMENDED APPLICATION FOR THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD was approved by the City Council on May 20, 1985; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD approval, a PUD agreement and final PUD/Subdivision plat was recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder on December 2, 1985; and WHEREAS, an application for amendments to the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD and its growth management allotments was submit- ted to the City on January 29, 1988, and later supplemented on June 3, 1988; and : WHEREAS, on March 8, 1988, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission initiated the public hearing process with respect to the proposed amendments, which hearing was continued at meetings on March 15, 22 and 29, April 5, June 28, July 12 and July 26, 1988; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing process, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution 88-8 recommending to the City Council approval of the aforesaid amendments, a copy of whiclk- is appended hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the City Council continued the hearing process initiated by the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to .. the proposed amendments, which hearing was continued at meetings on August 1, 9, 16, 24, and September 6, 1988; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing process, the Applicant submitted a "First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreement Aspen Mountain Subdivision" incorporating conditions imposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and amended by City Council; and WHEREAS, by Resolution 29, 1988 adopted September 12, 1988, the Aspen City Council attempted to grant the approval requested; and WHEREAS, the District Court of Pitkin County, by Order dated October 27, 1989 in Fred Smith, et al. v. Hadid Aspen Holdings, et al., 88 CV 321, declared Resolution 29, 1988 null, void and of no effect, inasmuch as the ordinance procedures of Section 4.10 of the Aspen Home Rule Charter were not followed prior to adoption; and WHEREAS, in compliance with the Court's Order of that date, the matter has been brought forward for consideration pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 City Council does hereby grant the following approvals with regard to the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD project, subject, however, to the conditions set forth below: 08/SDI .. (a) Confirmation of the 172-unit growth management quota system allotment previously granted to the Aspen Mountain Lodge project; (b) Amendment of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD plat approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and approval of the "First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Develop- ment/Subdivision Agreement Aspen Mountain Subdivision, a copy of which is appended hereto; and (C) A growth management quota system exemption to convert four units at what is now known as the "Grand Aspen Hotel" to employee housing. Said approvals are expressly subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission which, to the extent not amended bv this approval, are hereby adopted and incorporated by the City Council. Section 2 The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign the Subdivision/PUD Plat and Agreement and such other documents as may be necessary to effectuate this approval. Section 3 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance 'is for any reason held invalid or A unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision a:id shall not atiect the validitv of tlie 5 1-1 111 a l 2 1 n C :Dortions unerecÂ·z. 08/SD1 .. Section 4 Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 18th day of December, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law of the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 19 William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 19 - .- F William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: nathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 08/SD1 -4 .. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS , TO THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD Resolution No. 88-8 WHEREAS, on May 20, 1985, the Aspen City Council approved the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 1985, the PUD Agreement and Final - PUD/Subdivision Plat_ for the projecz were recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder; and WHEREAS, in January, 1968, Savannah Limited Partnership fhereinafter "Applicant") submitted to the City of Aspen GMP and PUD Amendments to the Aspen Mo tain Subdivision/PUD; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 1988, the Aspen Planning and Zoning 2 Commission (hereinafter "Commission") initiated a public hearing n"--occ with resnect to the Applicant's requests, which was con + i "11 od with meetings on March 15, 22 and 29, April 5, June 28, July 12 and July 26; and WHEREAS, during the course of these meetings, significant- chances have been made to the Applicant's proposal due to requests made by the Commission, the Planning Office and the Dublic; and WHEREAS, as a resul & = these chances, the Commission _ C- concludes that the Aspen City Council should an=rove zhe Applicant:s requesz, subject to certain conditions listed herein. NOW, THEIZEFORE, BE 'IT RESOLVED by the pommission ..... C L _ - following L. ... ... - U.. 15 ZO M O o c -Â·- n o . B-- 1 9- the Asnen L.- W ' L- - --1 . 1 .. Resolution No. 88- Page 2 1 1) Confirmaticn of the 172 lodge unit GMQS allotment previously granted to the Aspen Mountain Lodge. 2) Amendment of the Planned Unit Development. 3) Subdivision of Lot 5 to create a new Lot 6. 4) Rezoning of Lot 6 from CL and L/TR to Park. 5) GMQS Exemption to convert 4 units at the Grand Aspen Hotel to employee housing. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Commission that 1-S recommendation shall be subject to the following conditions: 1) There shall be no more than 155 lodge rooms and 4 employee - units in operation at the Grand Aspen at the time a foundation permiz application is obtained -ko 17 6 -- U _ L.1 J L ..4 .- I- Carlton Hotel. 2) The applicant shall deed-restrict 4 units C & U. 1 c Grand Aspen Hotel for rennal to and occupancy by a minimum of 3.5 moderate income emplcyees. The applicanz shall be r-- the 01 permitted to replace these units with other units o__ PUD site which the Housing Authority finds are egual to or benter than the on-site units in terms of size and quality . and which shall also be restricted to moderate income rental and occupancy by a minimum of 3.5 employees. 3) In order to maintain the employee generation represented by the applicant, there shall be no more than 204 dining sears and 4,500 ss. ft. of net (defined as 80% cf gress) dining area, exclusive of lounge area and exclusive cf seasonal oundcar dinin=, within zhe Ritz-Carlzon hotel. 4) There shall be an audit performed cf the hotel afzer its co-nne f,#- 1 --_v.._ _#__ vear of coeration to determine the actual number cf full time equivalent employees wcrking in the hotel. In the event the audit determines that the hotel has a higher full time equivalent employee count than was calrul= ted = A A < ;i 4-7 1 P._ -3 1 017 = a he_ pc, r the a=olicant shall crovide L. â€¢-- -- &-v.A L- - .-- ... V - ... V f $- c ->:- V of those nersons based on the - I-- .K- - Dercent .- housinc Plans for the -*V--- & W razics represenzed nerein. =a 5,2. receive final -"~~~"- I = - n -1 I- ... = Fl - _ - - c 4 - - u v c - --..... 0 - I - L. - U I - An''cnn- -- il - .9 --0 i welve Lanths cY =he audiz and :he reguired shall receive a Zertizicaze cf Occupan=v 72-r.â€ž If -he audiz dezermines zhan zhe .noze_ - ------ cf zle auitz. - has a lower full nine equivalent employee ccuzz than was calcula-Jed herein, the applicanz shall ressive a crediz fer W-/ u ..U Those adi_-_unai Ders=ns housed -9 %.* .i- .-1 --* IV - --- $.- .. Resolution No. 88- Page 3 represented herein. For the purposes of this requirement, the audit shall be performed and full time equivalent employees shall be defined according to the Hcusing Authority guidelines in effect at the time -k . u.. lS 2ppi-OVal. The cost cf the audit shall be paid for by the applicant, but the choice of auditor shall be mutually agreed to by the applicant and the Housing Authority. 5) The applicable ratios for provision of employee housing shall be as follows: a. The unit mi>: shall consist of at least 56% low income - and no more than 44% moderate income units. b. Calculation of employee generation shall be as shown in the attached exhibit A. 6) There shall be a minimum of 220 parking spaces provided in - the parking structure, of which 18% may be compact spaces, with minimum dimensions of 7 1/2 ' x 16'. There shall also be 10 spaces provided for surface loading within Lon 1, of which 2 shall be for truck loading withiI-1 the service area. The following spaces shall also be provided on Lot 5 during Phase I: y surface lot west of Grand Aspen: 55 spaces surface lot east of Grand Aspen: 18 spaces parallel parking on Dean Street: 13 spaces angle parking on Dean Street: Â· 9 spaces guest and service loading: Â· 6 spaces subgrade in Grand Aspen garage: 28 spaces total number of parking spaces: 129 spaces 4 7 -ho 7) The applicant:s commitment PUD Agreement to participation in -che Lodge Improvement Diszricz shall be revised zo indicate a commitment zo provide im=rovemenus on all preject -W- r--resvend zo those =lanned fer rhe Souch Galena/South Mill Imorovement Disuricz. The annlicant shall also commit to constructinc those - imorovements adjacent zo the hotel which were cricinallv - . ....-Ir-- conzractor, using 1.'-/...Acg for constructicn by dis.- J.V- M. I n A c Vi .1 be fran the district zo che transferred applican=. 8) The b.-_..nÂ·.c_ts- deue:tien facility in Mill Sureez shall be b.l- 1V.--1.--- * -I- I.* A - r-$1-1/0 - ,-- Â·â€¢- nâ€¢ - - nn ; n 0 -I . = - n designed tc arcid uzilizv UW..--- VUS and .../ -C' -L- U------- -U .- -- 0 - -- il *. .- main zo prevent f ree zing, zo z.he SC-=--'=-4~7 1 --... u.j - sazisfazzion cf the Cizy Engineer. .. _ .--11 nr-- .1- Ir- â€ž p = I - Â£ --.Amp--C . n -.n 2-D - .IV -i -- %- --- I- 4ll- : - -_u_no-e CD......--*.-.-U -- ---- - U C .- .... d U ... tz:~ . . - .. Resolution No. 68- Page 4 i shall be revised to indicate a commitment to fund the comprehensive Aspen Mountain Drainage Plan and to implement the plan's recommendations or provide drainage easements to a maximum level of expense of $250,000, which is comparable to providing on-site facilities at Top of Mill. - 10) The applicant shall relocate one proposed fire hydrant to the SW corner U - &1 1 S intersection of Durant and Mill, to the satisfaction of the City Water Department and City Engineer. 11) The applicant shall modify the design of the tower for the bridge over Dean Street by moving its location 2' closer to the hotel to provide better clearance for truck turning. Clearance of 14' in height shall be provided under the entire bridge span, and clearance of 14 1/2' shall be provided across a 15' wide stretch of the bridge, which shall be marked accordingly. 12) The Norway Maple trees shown on the landscape plan shall be approximately 15-20' tall at the time of their planting, and . I- &/ - I-â€¢ 1 ./ shall be wateres c.,i_ uu gh an underground system to be installed by the applicant. 13) The applicant shall be required to obtain a demolition permit and complete demolition of the Grand Aspen Hotel 2; within three years of the date Of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Rizz-Carlton Hotel. Re-development of this site shall proceed in general accord with the plans presented for Lot 5, which have not been finalized as of the time of this resolution. .If final annroval oz re- development has not been granted by the deadline fer demoliticn of the Grand Aspen, the applicant shall be F I. permitted to request an extensicn c: tne deadline from the City Council. If the daze for demolition shall occur durinc the traditicnal winter season, demolition need not begin until the day after une ski lifts shall close during u 4 4.- .- season. 14) The applicant shall develop Lot 6 in general -4,3 C wuu_.- this size and cbrain a represenzations Inade -=Le=_u.-.JM Cerzificaze of Occupancy for the ice rink and associated facilizies prior zo or at the time that a Certificaze o_ Occupancy for zhe ri -z- ~- a - uck _ 4- u. 1 Hotel is obtained. 1-1 rrÂ·h P 23-lic=n- c A -1 7 4- -0 ,-, 4 -ed -n 716--7 E- _ 9- u U.-J . U.~bu_.. 1 neCeSSarv 7-n- z.heÂ« Cizy fer the ice ring ard associaze =27.1 --~.DC , n - 1 ,, 2 - .-1 - Â·Â·,- . - ... .-* - 1 4 7- 1 - :3 2 .1 J .- Z o G 14 Â·3 S exe r. p z 1 0 n allocaticn, ccnizzlenal use approval fer a reszauranz a PUD approval zo escablish dimensienal and parki Analysis of impacts and considerazion I - ,- U- c 7 -I.--f-.--Â«n -.-/-/.-Il.- I.I-- D . 1 21-Z . ' I 'tl 4 71 Â£8 4 I I ) 0 1; f.; 0 0 .. Resolution No. 68- Page 5 occurred in conjunction with the review of Lot 1. 16) The follcwing limits shall be placed on the construction schedule in addition to those proposed by the applicant or required by the City Engineer: a. A "tennis" fence material shall be used to screen all staging areas on the site. b. All construction (except painting or similar ~"quiet" activities) shall be prohibited on the site between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. c.- The applicant shall demonstrate to the City Engineering Department that permission has been obtained from adjacent owners whenever the booms on the tower cranes swing over their properties. d. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer v.. 6.1 an updated construction schedule prior to obtaining any additional building permits fer the project. 17) The applicant shall commit to meeting the Health Department requirements identified by Tom Dunlop in his memo regarding the project dated February 18, 1988. 141 18) The accessory retail uses permitted within the hotel shall be limited to the following and similar uses: sundry shop; car rental desk; travel desk; ski rental and repair store, ski and sports activity center; Ritz-Carlton.souvenir stcre; beauty shop; florist shop; and gift shop. The four accesscry retail spaces depicted in the building on Durant Street shall not be combined to create larger rezail spaces. 19) The recorded Subdivision and PUD plan sez shall be amended to include the following new drawings, which shall be reviewed by the Planning Directer and Cizy Engineer, prior .L 00 -0-B-*27.1- to determine their consiszency witn tnis aDDroval: a. A new final ulat indicatina siy -U-- five lots U-ic:1 and designating all PUD varia,ions 9-u.' L.- 4.-- U- to the projecz; b. Revised building locations for the prcject; "1-714 -9.7 0,-- D-,2 11-Ac-Ina 70.- cs,-4 C. -/%-- . -=, -t- final Ksize 0127, L---- -- 4 *-, _C,/ L.JW - - h' pn=--4 7., 4 1 -1 r -- - - c. Elevazions zer the Li k - - . I u C.-- -/=C.. C--OC- facades and three elevazions for zhe internal UJL._ -2 1- -, alÂ· - .. Resolution No. 88- Page 6 e. Flocr plans for each level of the hotel, V. I . .4. L- . A shall also indicate countable and excludable flocr area for each level. An amended subdivision/PUD agreement shall also be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval by City Council prior to final action on the PUD amendment. 20) The applicant and the City shall commit to abide by all written and verbal representations made throughout the review process, including those in written submissions, verbal presentations and those associated with City Council Resolution 11 of 1988. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby recommend that zhe City Council grant an extension to the project - to the extent. necessary zo permit the completion of the processing of these amendments, including but not limited to the recordation of a plat and agreement and obtaining a foundation 4; 2 : t..; Dermit. APPROVED by the Commission at a Special Meeting on July 26, 1988. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 2 IAdjJ ~ofi_L C. Welcon Anderson, Chairman ATTEST: 01 0 - 1 Â»- 1/. 46/-4, 4 4-Z,1/f- JaM- Carney, Depuzy City Clerk 3 ritzreso .. Â· LIST OF DOCUMENTS USED IN PREPARING THIS REPORT The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan Chapter 24, Municipal Code of Aspen, Colorado, Adopted May 25, 1988, Revised August 14, 1989. Chapter 20 and Chapter 24, Municipal Code of Aspen, Colorado, 1975. 1982 Short-Term Accommodations Report, Prepared by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office. Aspen Mountain Subdivision, 1987 Amendments to the Ritz-Carlton, Aspen, Prepared by Doremus and Wells. Aspen Mountain Subdivision, Modifications to the 1988 Amended Lodge GMP Submission for the Ritz-Carlton, Aspen, Prepared by Doremus and Wells. Aspen Mountain Lodge Final Plat, File No. 2, #039C 84-(85), Planning Office File. Aspen Mountain Lodge Final Plat, #039C-84/(85), Planning Office File. Ritz-Carlton Hotel PUD/GMP Amendment, Planning Office File. Aspen Mountain Lodge - Misc., Planning Office File. Roberts PUD Agreement, Planning Office File. ' Ritz: Bkground Info: FAR Employee Housing, Planning Office File Aspen Mtn. Lodge - Res.Preliminary GMP, #39B-84(85)., Planning Office File. Ritz - 1988, Planning Office File. Aspen Mountain PUD GMQS Extension, Planning Office File. Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD GMQS Amendment & PUD for Lot 5 2737-182-05-001-005, #60A-89, Planning Office File. Comparison of What is Allowed by Zoning to Current PUD/Subdivision, Aspen Mountain PUD, table Prepared by Alan Richman. Draft - Declaration of the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, August, 1989. Draft - Affordable Housing Production Plan, 1988, Prepared by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office and the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority. .. City Council Resolution No. 23, Series of 1984. A Resolution Granting Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Approval to the Top of Mill, Summit Place and 700 South Galena Condominium Components of the Aspen Mountain PUD, September 5, 1984. City Council Resolution No. 29, Series of 1988. A Resolution Approving Amendments to the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD, September 12, 1988. First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreement Aspen Mountain PUD, October 3, 1989. City Council Resolution No. 11, Series of 1988. A Resolution Authorizing the Aspen Mountain PUD Project to Proceed through the PUD Process for the Purpose of Processing Amendments Thereto on the Condition Set Forth Herein, May 9, 1988. City Council Resolution No. 46, Series of 1989. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Aspen Pertaining to Permitted Construction Activity on the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision, November 27, 1989. ritz.list A 7 A#L i tf~ 0 oci~-_ a,~~L 1 7.4 t 11 - \Ur. deutu~- A- Al.,ft 460 . 8 Wit . (1 Ad . 01 8EL Ad . t fe b Â¢Rk i A /,e - Il Qua - AfÂ« 4 -6 14-_ (kqoksÂ»~4 0.4- 46-, u.2.Ect-Â·'. t.15 / / W.Â·u U '.4' o am r. 0, i*Al.4 - ck & 1 4, A 4444 2 - Et-Â»4.Â©L -10 -04 6 uibuj- c 04 9 1, . c i 0 â‚¬3 600 +R + Q.AN-4 1 2 - Roy: .. (5000 01 67)10 , 12Â·5 2/\,AL A rlot- c c/yydt LKA I MEMORANDUM StYÂ¢AA 0 U>â€žk Gul*34 (#OR b TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee }SPU' M : 00-3~1 From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD: HPC Advisory Comments Date: "November 29/1989 y 1. SUMMARY: To assist the Planning Office in reviewing the Aspen Mountain PUD, staff will present the Ritz-Carlton Hotel project to the HPC for advisory comments. PREVIOUS ACTION: The project was reviewed by P&Z and Council last year, receiving approval from Council in the form of a Resolution. A recent court action found the Resolution approval process inadequate in this case, declaring all previous approvals "null and void". As a result, Council has directed staff to review the existing PUD to determine its appropriateness. An ordinance for approval is scheduled for First Reading before Council on November 27 with 2nd reading and public hearing scheduled for December 18. BACKGROUND: The HPC was not included in the review loop in any capacity during last year's approval process. Many individuals voiced their concern, questioning why the HPC was not allowed an opportunity to address in advisory capacity even the most critical issues of compatibility with community character, scale issues associated within the village context of Aspen, and basic design. Therefore, this meeting is designed to obtain the Committee's comments on the project, which will be used to guide the Planning Office comments in its forthcoming presentation to Council. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The issues to carefully consider in reviewing this project are as follows: 1. Its ability to meet the criteria of the PUD regulations beginning at Section 7-901. The Review standards in Section 7-903(B)5 - Open Space, 6 - Landscape Plan, and, 7- Architectural Site Plan should be particularly reviewed. (Note: These are copied and attached for your review.) Staff Comments: HPC's expertise, particularly under the criteria of the Architectural Site Plan, is most important in this review. The criteria in section 903(B)7 states: There shall be approved as part of the Final Development Plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural 22, character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the building with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. 2. Its consistency with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, which includes the Historic Preservation Element, adopted in 1986. The Comprehensive Plan is used as a guide and not as strict criteria. Staff Comments: The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element was adopted in 1986 to integrate historic preservation within the entire context of community planning. The small scale "village" nature and historic character of our community is critical to maintain. Staff would like HPC input on the following goals and objectives in the HP Element in relation to the Ritz-Carlton proposal: 1.F. Encourage new contemporary commercial and residential buildings to be complementary to neighboring historic buildings in scale, form, materials and other elements. 2. To maintain Aspen's unique small town character and scale as one of its major attractions to residents and visitors. C. Encourage the preservation of Aspen's community scale and small town building massing through open space, growth management and land use regulations. 3. Its overall contribution to the community in the form of community compatibility, consistencv with village scale, and intensity of the use. 2 Staff Comments: Staff feels the current proposal is inconsistent in character compatibility and consistency with village scale. Height, mass, scale, style, proportion and detailing do not relate to any architecture in Aspen, or western Colorado. We find the proposal does not contribute to the traditional character of Aspen, and that design revisions should be considered by HPC and then reviewed by City Staff to determine the feasibility of those changes, given the current structural system already in place. We specifically seek HPC input on ideas for ensuring the project fits in with the current scale of traditional Aspen and does not detract from the overall goals of historic character for the community. The HPC should consider the relationships to landscaping, materials and texture and the rhythm of solids to voids on the elevations in the advisory review. Staff will also be considering how the proposal ties into the proposed Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan and how the general pedestrian flow from both the Commercial Core and the Main Street Historic District relates to the hotel. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC make advisory comments in relation to the PUD criteria, Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and other issues as stated in this review memo, to advise and assist the Planning Office in the project review. memo.hpc.ritz 3 f -. MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD: HPC Advisory Comments Date: November 29, 1989 SUMMARY: To assist the Planning Office in reviewing the Aspen Mountain PUD, staff will present the Ritz-Carlton Hotel project to the HPC for advisory comments. PREVIOUS ACTION: The project was reviewed by P&Z and Council last year, receiving approval from Council in the form of a Resolution. A recent court action found the Resolution approval process inadequate in this case, declaring all previous approvals "null and void". As a result, Council has directed staff to review the existing PUD to determine its appropriateness. An ordinance for approval is scheduled for First Reading before Council on November 27 with 2nd reading and public hearing scheduled for December 18. BACKGROUND: The HPC was not included in the review loop in any capacity during last year's approval process. Many individuals voiced their concern, questioning why the HPC was not allowed an opportunity to address in advisory capacity even the most critical issues of compatibility with community character, scale issues associated within the village context of Aspen, and basic design. Therefore, this meeting is designed to obtain the Committee's comments on the project, which will be used to guide the Planning Office comments in its forthcoming presentation to Council. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The issues to carefully consider in reviewing this project are as follows: 1. Its ability to meet the criteria of the PUD regulations beginning at Section 7-901. The Review standards in Section 7-903(B)5 - Open Space, 6 - Landscape Plan, and, 7- Architectural Site Plan should be particularly reviewed. (Note: These are copied and attached for your review.) Staff Comments: HPC's expertise, particularly under the criteria of the Architectural Site Plan, is most important in this review. The criteria in section 903(B)7 states: There shall be approved as part of the Final Development Plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the building with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. 2. Its consistency with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, which includes the Historic Preservation Element, adopted in 1986. The Comprehensive Plan is used as a guide and not as strict criteria. Staff Comments: The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element was adopted in 1986 to integrate historic preservation within the entire context of community planning. The small scale "village" nature and historic character of our community is critical to maintain. Staff would like HPC input on the following goals and objectives in the HP Element in relation to the Ritz-Carlton proposal: 1.F. Encourage new contemporary commercial and residential buildings to be complementary to neighboring historic buildings in scale, form, materials and other elements. 2. To maintain Aspen's unique small town character and scale as one of its major attractions to residents and visitors. C. Encourage the preservation of Aspen's community scale and small town building massing through open space, growth management and land use regulations. 3. Its overall contribution to the community in the form of community compatibility, consistency with village scale, and intensity of the use. 2 Staff Comments: Staff feels the current proposal is inconsistent in character compatibility and consistency with village scale. Height, mass, scale, style, proportion and detailing do not relate to any architecture in Aspen, or western Colorado. We find the proposal does not contribute to the traditional character of Aspen, and that design revisions should be considered by HPC and then reviewed by City Staff to determine the feasibility of those changes, given the current structural system already in place. We specifically seek HPC input on ideas for ensuring the project fits in with the current scale of traditional Aspen and does not detract from the overall goals of historic character for the community. The HPC should consider the relationships to landscaping, materials and texture and the rhythm of solids to voids on the elevations in the advisory review. Staff will also be considering how the proposal ties into the proposed Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan and how the general pedestrian flow from both the Commercial Core and the Main Street Historic District relates to the hotel. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the HPC make advisory comments in relation to the PUD criteria, Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and other issues as stated in this review memo, to advise and assist the Planning Office in the project review. memo.hpc.ritz 3 0 . MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Ritz-Carlton GMP/PUD Amendment DATE: May 13, 1988 As a result of the completion of the City Council review process with the Hadid group, the Ritz-Carlton amendment process is back on track. The applicant is currently developing an updated submission to address all of the changes which have been accomplished during the review process. We expect to receive this submission later this month. Once we have received the revised application, we will refer it to several departments and develop a new memo to allow you to complete the review process. We expect to pick up the review where we last left off, at the completion of the Lodge GMP scoring. Given the many changes which have occurred, we expect to spend time reviewing architecture and site design, as well as the resulting program questions affecting housing and parking. Further, since the program for Phase II has been changed and the development of the park in front of the Grand Aspen has become a commitment for Phase I, we will also be focusing on this side of the project. In this regard, we are trying to set up a work session with City Council on May 24, to which you will be invited, to deal with design/operation issues for the public park. If this meeting is scheduled, we will inform you accordingly. Based on all of the above, we recommend that you open and continue this hearing to a date certain, which is June 28. This is an off meeting week and is the earliest date we can expect to have our work available for you. Obviously, if the applicant does not make a submission within the time now anticipated, even this date may be optimistic for review. We do not, however, want to delay the review any more than is essential, since the agreement with Council is that the review process will be complete no later than September 12. .. 111\ DI D Aspen TO: Historic Preservation Committee, City of Aspen 1Ic,ldings, Inc. FROM: Perry Harvey RE: Meeting of November 29, 1989 Currently the Aspen City Council is undertaking to correct the amended approvals for the Aspen Mountain PUD. As a part of the public hearing set for December 18, staff has been asked to review the approvals. We understand that since the granting of approvals and recording of the Amended PUD Agreement in the fall of 1988 changes in staff have resulted in a lack of familiarity with the process which led up to the approval. Thus a new review by staff is appropriate. Nonetheless, we are adamantly opposed to any review and comment by the Historic Preservation Committee for the following reasons: l) HPC has no jurisdiction to review The Ritz-Carlton. The hotel is not located in an historic district nor does it involve the demolition of an historic structure, and; 2) The memo from Roxanne is slanted to create a negative response from HPC as to scale, size and character. This is a blatant defiance of City procedure and a plan to create a portfolio of negativity for Council's review. Nonetheless, we always welcome the opportunity to discuss with any group of citizens The Ritz-Carlton Hotel and it's place in the economic and physical future of Aspen and are willing to do so with the understanding that HPC is not acting in any official capacity. 11qI A 9 ff--aÂ»7 Perry Ha(1-vey, Directot Hadid Aspen Holdings", Inc. PAH:ld 600 1(34 CoppenÂ· Street Suite 200 A:pon ColotÂ·ado 81611 (308) 925-4272 FAX: (303) 925 1 :187 .. Iii\1)11) Asirn TO: Historic Preservation Committee, City of Aspen 11()1(lings, FROM: Perry Harvey Ilic. RE: Meeting of November 29, 1989 Currently the Aspen City Council is undertaking to correct the amended approvals for the Aspen Mountain PUD. As a part of the public hearing set for December 18, staff has been asked to review the approvals. We understand that since the granting of approvals and recording of the Amended PUD Agreement in the fall of 1988 changes in staff have resulted in a lack of familiarity with the process which led up to the approval. Thus a new review by staff is appropriate. Nonetheless, we are adamantly opposed to any review and comment by the Historic Preservation Committee for the following reasons: l) HPC has no jurisdiction to review The Ritz-Carlton. The hotel is not located in an historic district nor does it involve the demolition of an historic structure, and; 2) The memo from Roxanne is slanted to create a negative response from HPC as to scale, size and character. This is a blatant defiance of City procedure and a plan to create a portfolio of negativity for Council's review. Nonetheless, we always welcome the opportunity to discuss with any group of citizens The Ritz-Carlton Hotel and it's place in the economic and physical future of Aspen and are willing to do so with the understanding that HPC is not acting in any official capacity. 900 7 *1 Perry Hefrvey, DirectgE Hadid Aspen HoldingÂ© Inc. PAH:ld 600 E.'int Cooper Street Suite '200 ARpen Colorado 81811 (,90:1) 9254272 FAX: (30,3* 925Â·1387 .. j . .. I lili)11) Aspen TO: Historic Preservation Committee, City of Aspen 1 halings, Inc. FROM: Perry Harvey RE: Meeting of November 29, 1989 Currently the Aspen City Council is undertaking to correct the amended approvals for the Aspen Mountain PUD. As a part of the public hearing set for December 18, staff has been asked to review the approvals. We understand that since the granting of approvals and recording of the Amended PUD Agreement in the fall of 1988 changes in staff have resulted in a lack of familiarity with the process which led up to the approval. Thus a new review by staff is appropriate. Nonetheless, we are adamantly opposed to any review and comment by the Historic Preservation Committee for the following reasons: l) HPC has no jurisdiction to review The Ritz-Carlton. The hotel is not located in an historic district nor does it involve the demolition of an historic structure, and; 2) The memo from Roxanne is slanted to create a negative response from HPC as to scale, size and character. This is a blatant defiance of City procedure and a plan to create a portfolio of negativity for Council's review. Nonetheless, we always welcome the opportunity to discuss with any group of citizens The Ritz-Carlton Hotel and it's place in the economic and physical future of Aspen and are willing to do so with the understanding that HPC is not acting in any official capacity. Â«Pen 9 ff-aÂ« Perry H~vey, Direct*r Hadid Aspen HoldingÂ© Inc. PAH:ld 600 !Â·hct C ,Â»perÂ· Street Suite '200 Aspen Colorado 81611 (303) 925-4272 FAX: 4'303) 925 1'197 .. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS FOR THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL: DECEMBER 19, 1989 1. In addition to the commitments set forth in the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision, the applicant shall provide off-site housing for a minimum of 106 additional employees in order to mitigate the impacts of the Hotel Phase I. Such housing shall be consistent with the Affordable Housing Guidelines of the Housing Authority in place at the time of final approval for said housing. 56% of the units shall be deed restricted to low income guidelines and 44 % to moderate income guidelines. 2. The applicant shall forgive the outstanding balance of the loan to the Housing Authority in return for ratification of the 69 employee credits taken for mitigation of housing impacts for the Hotel Phase I. 3. Prior to certificate of occupancy for the hotel, the applicant shall pay, to the Housing Authority, a sum of $501,809 as partial fulfillment of the mitigation of 69 employees credited to the applicant for the impacts of the Hotel Phase I. 4. The external floor area for the entire Planned Unit Development shall be reduced by 60,413 square feet. The external floor area on Lot One shall not exceed 128,941 square feet consistent with the underlying zoning. 5. The maximum height of the Hotel Phase One shall be no more than 160% of the maximum allowable height (28 feet) in the LTR zone district. 6. The application for final approval for the Hotel Phase II shall be accompanied by conceptual approval for the Top of Mill site, in order to allow the community to adequately assess the overall impact and relationship of the PUD as a whole. -P. 99 AUBRY ARCHITECTS 1133 4TH STRECT SUITE 100 SARASOTA,FLORIDA 130/7 813/992-9577 ?E L- CJ] MULL STREET I----i- UPEN D nies 1100 ND 7000.00 IST 1988 911 1939 . 20 W3364 AE1 .m \) ts]Â£ â€¢Al.*14 4 ml.mn, HIT i .' .' .r .. ..0 ... 1 4 4& A 4 A ' 9 I ..0 1 .. 1 0. * 0 , 't ...: : / 1 8 0 . r ./. . 0 0 . . . . . . . . S . 4 . .... .m9. . 1:ir. .... .... .9. .... 40.0 .m. .. 40 1.111"1111 / , ...... .... .... .m.' .... ... .... ..... ... .... . 0.1 . mi. 4,1 *i . ..... .... .... . ...m . .... .... lim a... ..... ... .... . .... ...... .... .... ...... .... ... .... ..... m. .... . ... . 1 1.1 lilli i 1 111 11.1 :millm: :mil@ :millim: #mmi â€¢Nit I i~niii~i â€¢.â€¢. m. :@1111: :@11]m :mill m- i i iii i 1 1 lilli 46 % I ... mill Â¥ --- .. .... ..m .... ..9 .... .... ... .... .... ...m .... ..7. . ... :=: .... ,.. .... ... .... .... ... .... .... ... :::m ... m... ... .... .... ... a.fl. ..4.m ..m . im .... .... 65: :=2 ... .... .... ... .... ::. .... ... ... . I. 5.1110 @111'Im: :imlilili: :711111: :millili: :.111]rd :1[111111: .11111: :~Imi: :mt"Al: :mI'llin: m'110 4 .... ... .... .... 1 1.91 Ill .1 ..m. .... .... ...0. ..9. .... ..... .... .... .m. ..9. .. .... .... .... '.m. .... .m.' ..me .... ... 1 1 m. m... . m. .m.. ... ... ... ma a... . .. am.. 1 1 REI m ia ..... .... L .... .... .. ' illl]E 4 - -*0*"*" ~ -- : : : : L mil 1.: i : .. 0.0 ... . i . . . . 1 . . t . V V V 4 4 . I e N 1 . .. 1 4 % r 4 . i ./ .0 1 0 Ar 4 % . 0 0. .0 4 , 4*9 tr z .r 0.,i J 4 . 1 9/91'1 3' I. 00 . â€¢ ., 4 i * ' ~~ .. :r 1 .... ...0 A~ 0..0 .... .... :illill. :milill: 1 I . i . 1 .... ...1 4 .... ...m . .... . :@11!11! :mill@ 7 . ... 1 0 - .. ........ .... ..m. ...2 9... I. ... ... 1,/ I . I $ 4 0 $ . I , ... 6 : =. e ./ 0 . 0 - .. 0 1 A 0 Â¢ .wun r .nur,1 , cv i o SEE 2/All FOR . 23 4.01 913/952-9977 ) CONTINUATION SARASCIA,FLORIDA 339/7 1133 4TH S[RECT SUITE 100 G7;17'rKT'rirrgn rp .. n n 1.1 2-5UL1121-9114 4 _Â£-Ree!1Â·0#=For. . ~ 1 045 Ta..loi.-4 r NOMINAL - D r- Â£.BOOF _FLAQ--1-_-_._ FEC. 94 -7 . CD 01 Â£f_IFTH .ELOQB -1._-_._ M EL.75' -51, ' i , I f LINE OF-1 ' NATURAL \ 4 GRADE ~ b FOURTH FLOOR i C 1 7- 11 - CO - 11 1 1 4 '1.h,4 m di ~HIRD FLOO&- 1 | | | | 4, >.: 1 m 9 .\SECOND FLO-QR. f, I. 1. .\HEM-TH- CLUB_._._._._-_-_ 14 9-EL.47'-07- EPARK.1110_._._._._._ 1 0. 4'EL.38'-6' b. 9 0.) ${851?~%,---Â·r------ b 01) i , Â£_HARKING-_.1._._._ 4'EL.20'Â·6' 'Â·>i :11 4 i 4 . ,, t 4 1 ,f 4 A 4' -â€¢f 7 wa Vi-g A 1 - -rt 44 11 4 ROOF SLAB 444 VEL.94'-3' ,â‚¬ ,t /1 00 1 ASPEN , 4 A DO *51)(TH FLp-QEL. -1--.--- =~ EL.84 -7 , S. ill - ' Z C.1 O Â£Ilf-TU.El-008._-_._._ 4 4' EL.750 -56 1 1 0 Z . k. t: z - 0 1 0 m O- dâ€¢, O EFOURTH FLOOR . L- M Er-. EC --r -- I - -- - - - - - \ ... 9 - W ID CD 0 81 1Â¥ /ATHIRD Fl.OOR FECTST'-=sT ---7- I -- T $ ~-1 ' 1 e 111 &924 janies U.-2 ASECOND Floy- 24 000 , J -I /1 11/ 14Â« 1 111 1.1 1 1 ---I-------72[.497-0 (703) *4Â·3500 mWA V )An:,1 1,1,0Â» 11LLL-1 0 _h~infr---,1---,z:25--0._. /<- /0% 1 â‚¬At'-U/9h 0 ~16:6:5:Ii,9-..,~~===-~ \ MILL STREET 4 ENTRY LEVEL- _- -__._ - 1 \ 1 ENTRY LEVEL DEAN STREET ELEVATION-EAST -El.35'-0' VE[TE'-0' - , < ~ LINE OF NATURAL GRADE ~ -1% In P\\ * r/ w---4-- I t , I MEZZANINE LEVEL 0 .. ~ ~ EL.25'-8' N 9' O E PROJECT W709O.00 DATE SEPT. laT 1988 REV. 4 JUNE FlTH 1989 Â£BALLRIMACEL----- 1 1 ' ------------.h.BALLROOM LEVEL 4'EL. 14'-0 SCALE O 0 0 0 MEL.14'-0' , 0 5 10 20 Â® MILL STREET ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 10Â·10'-0. All W3364AE2 10'-6' i 9'-112' ,-. H#,1.1 .1 " diA -6- 0 0. : 0 .. 9 .7 .. , .... :1 .... ...0 .... . 0 J " .... 0--1 1 4...a: .. - .... .... . SE. 4=> . Sip. .... :=: ma. :'. .. I. i ..g :milim: :illillm: :mim: â€¢ Ilinlim: ::m: :::: :::::: :::::: ::i:.: :5: .... .. 5:1 ........ :millm: :.11'Im: m tr: :@11110 . Irt . 11. . ..,0..... .... ::Ti .m9. ...: .0,1: ... ... .. .- .... .... .... ... :.:2 ... .. m.. .= .... .... .... ..* .... .. ::1:Z ... ... .... .... .... ... .... .... .... ... .. 151 :mâ€¢.= :@!. :7111~1: :711'IN; :mil!11: :miiiiiii: :mill!irt :ill!11!m: :011111: :11111111: :1#1111]11: - ':le!.1, ..1. :.:= ..Te. m.. ..... iii .1. 11:lit:11 ...... ./. .. .... .... ... .. :.1. "1 1.111 11â€ž11â€ž1,1 lilli =/. .... .... ... ... 411;.m .â€žt..1 â€ž... ylill ;1:=:4=11 U .... .... :$:: .... ... ... .. .. :@11Â® @Will: ~ ' 111~:ritillin: ... /1.Ii"Frie :im lilli: !!!1!mi: :01"Im: ..6 ......... ~ 1 11 . 0 11 t T 11 lilli '1 liE lilli I mill lili i li ja~Â¥ lili 1 12. I . 1 ... ... ., = ~ .l - ./. . E :I . . 1 1 1 ., 1 .. . .1 0 . I. 1 .: 1 0 0 I . 0 0 4,0. I .. ... .. . 0. â€¢9â€¢1â€¢7 .... ... .. ... , , 1 il[Illm: m . 0 : 4> : 9 .. I. ... a,/ .. .. .lim: 1 .1118 0. . . ... m .47 .. ... .1 -11 1,1 ... .. .all ... 1.11 .1 I. 3.5 .1 :@11!11: @111!mi ; 1Ir; III I li I ... ... ..... ..0. ...1 .... ...1 N... .. .... .... ...1 2.1. A .. .... Il .... .. ...1 ".. :.1.5 :milll]E : 1@lilli .. 1.-m .... ...0 .. 1,"1 U. .. R:: - .... .. U. . ...... .lili - 1-. â€¢â€¢ . - a ;01!11!]Ii; ...