Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mountain Lodge.1983 November 29 , 1983 fro f Planning & Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 So. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Commissioners : I started visiting Aspen 20 years ago, and have permanently lived here for the past 13 years . My opinion of the proposed hotel and "MORE" is shared by many who aren' t heard because they feel helpless and/or don' t realize the horrendous , per- manent impact it will bring. Yes , Aspen' s ailing financially. Everyone, including our great country, is ailing. Assuming a 5-star HOTEL is our cure , in this case the cure is worse than the disease. It' s what accompanies the hotel/convention center "Cure" that will eventually kill the REAL Aspen. Aspen' s savior is also willing to help us by requesting to develop a multi-story free market condominium complex on Galena Street, plus a development of 40 large million-dollar duplexes and triplexes at the top of Mill Street. What do these have to do with the 5-star hotel we originally needed? He ' ll be adding more employees , more employee housing on Ute Avenue, not to mention others . He' s donating an average of 400 more cars , summer and winter, and will throw in additional pollution and congestion in the already most congested part of town. These benevolent developers stated in their proposal to the City that "A significant condominium project planned for the South end of the site and a smaller condominium project on the 700 S . Galena site would complement the hotel . " Will their new restaurants , bars , shops , and other businesses complement our already existing, ail'ing businesses? Will the 5-story above, 3 below, hotel and other large developments to come with it, complement our beautiful mountain; remaining open space; and the true character of Aspen? Who are we kidding? This humongous project will complement only the developers and the special few within. The hotel ' s amenities , such as landscaping, ice rink, etc. , are nice, but again, only for the special few! November 29 , 1983 Page Two They' re asking to use up five years worth of room allotments , all at the expense of every other person' s right for oppor- tunity in the immediate future . They want the right for more and bigger; to change our pro- tective growth plan. If this is allowed, it' s only the beginning for them, and the end of Aspen' s unique and charming character, for it would probably be unconstitutional to say "No" to our next applicant for an offensive, imposing project. 40 years ago Miami Beach was also a small, charming community and resort, until each characteristic old Spanish-type villa was replaced by a concrete canyon of highrises , blocking the view of the ocean for miles , except to a special few! Next, the regular- , long-time, dependable visitors were replaced by the "trendy" type, coming to the new "IN" resort. They also left, for the newer "in" resort, with an 8-star hotel ! They left Miami Beach in a depression, with total loss of its old charm and character, and forgot to take their concrete mistakes with them. But they didn' t have to; they built them in the next resort they ruined! You say it can never happen here? That' s what they said! Nothing, not even Aspen, can be all things to all people. Without selling out our values and character, we thrived with the support of regulars , of modest taste and/or modest means . That' s what has kept us unique, charming, and separate from all the Vails . We must preserve what brought us here and has kept us here for so long. It' s really permanently threatened! If Mr. Novak, as his publicity stated, really came here for our charm, then build a charming, unimposing 5-star hotel with convention accommodations , and forget all of the other stuff! ! Most of us still haven' t gotten over the Aspen Square, North of Nell, Mt. Queen, just to mention a few. It' s mind-boggling that this proposed development can be seriously considered! Would Mr. Novak like his proposal to be built next door to his permanent home in Washington DC? No more than any dog defecates in its own back yard! Sincerely, Carol Fuller P.S . This letter is not a personal attack on our benevolent developers , but I bet I don' t get invited to the Grand Opening, if there is one ! In 1851, Seattle, chief of the Suquamish and other Indian tribes around Washington' s Puget Sound, delivered what is considered to be one of the most beautiful and profound environmental statements ever made. The City of Seattle is named for the chief, whose speech was in response to a proposed treaty under which the Indians were persuaded to sell two million acres of land for $150 ,000 . How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the spark16 of the water, how can you buy them? Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods , every clearing and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man. The white man's dead forget the country of their birth when they go to walk among the stars. Our dead never forget this beautiful earth, for it is the mother of the red man. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters ; the deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers . The rocky crests, the juices in the meadows , the body heat of the pony and man -- all belong to the same family. So, when the Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy- our land, he asks much of us. The Great Chief sends word he will reserve us a place so that we can live comfortably to ourselves . He will be our father and we will be his children. So we will consider your offer to buy our land. But it will not be easy. For this land is sacred to us . This shining water that moves in the streams and rivers is not just water but the blood of our ancestors . If we sell you land, you must remember that it is sacred, and you must teach your children that it is sacred and that each ghostly reflection in the clear water of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water' s murmur is the voice of my father' s father. The rivers are our brothers , they quench our thirst. The rivers carry our canoes , and feed our children. If we sell you our land, you must remember, and teach your children, that the rivers are our brothers and yours , and you must henceforth give the rivers the kindness you would give any brother. We know that the white man does not understand our ways . One portion of land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his father' s grave behind, and he does not care. He kidnaps the earth from his children, and he does not care. His father' s grave, and his children' s birthright are forgotten. He treats his mother, the earth, and his brother, the sky, as things to be bought, plun- dered, sold like sheep or bright beads . His appetite will devour the earth and leave behind only a desert. I do not know. Our ways are different from your ways. The sight of your cities pains the eyes of the red man. There is no quiet place in the white man' s cities. No place to hear the unfurling of leaves in spring or the rustle of the insect' s wings . The clatter only seems to insult the ears . And what is there to life if a man cannot hear the lonely cry of the whip- poorwill or the arguments of the frogs around the pond at night? I am a red man and do not understand. The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind darting over the face of a pond and the smell of the wind itself, cleansed by a midday rain, or scented with pinon pine. The air is precious to the red man for all things share the same breath, the beast, the tree, the man, they all share the same breath. The white man does not seem to notice the air he breathes . Like a many dying for many days he is numb to the stench. But if we sell you our land, you must remember that the air is precious to us , that the air shares its spirit with all the life it supports . The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also receives his last sigh. And if we sell you our land, you must keep it apart and sacred as a place where even the white man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadow' s flowers . You must teach your children that the ground beneath their feet is the ashes of our grandfathers . So that they will respect the land, tell your children that the earth is rich with the lives of our kin. Teach your children that we have taught our children that the earth is our mother. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves . This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected. We may be brothers after all. We shall see. One thing we know which the white man may one day discover: Our God is the same God. 2 - You may think now that you own Him as you wish to own our land; but you cannot. He is the God of man, and His compassion is equal for the red man and the white. This earth is precious to Him, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its creator. The whites too shall pass; perhaps sooner than all other tribes . Contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own waste. But in your perishing you will shine brightly fired by the strength of the God who brought you to this land and for some special purpose gave you dominion over this land and over the red man. That destiny is a mystery to us , for we do not understand when the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses are tame, the secret corners of the forest heavy with scent of many men and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires. Where is the thicket? Gone. Where is the eagle? Gone. The end of living and the beginning of survival. 3 - First National Bank in Aspen T.S.Starodoj,II TM�a&iWWM'" President December 6, 1983 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gentlemen: Aspen is a world class resort, without a first-class hotel facility. It needs such a facility, and the proposed development on the Cantrup property deserves every consideration. The proposed model, presently located in John Doremus's office, represents a sincere attempt at addressing both the economic and aesthetic issues. Every effort should be made to provide Aspen with a quality facility. Sincerely, Thomas S. Starodoj President TSS:vaw First National Bank P. O. Box 3318, 420 Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81612 303/925-1450 CA CENTRAL BANCORPORATION,INC. MEMBER FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION fP CRAWFORD PETROLEUM COMPANY 3401 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD 0 LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90803 TELEPHONE 433-7484 AREA CODE 213 November 28, 1983 Planning & Zoning Commission 1.30 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81.61.1 Dear Commission Members: As a citizen who plans to continue residing in Aspen forever, I must express my feelings about the proposed Aspen Mountain Lodge. It is awesome to think of a five story hotel structure directly across the street from an existing four story mistake. Picture yourselves standing on the corner of Galena and Durant (freezing, of course, because you will be standing in the shade) and looking south on Galena. A Grand Canyon will be created, w1h.ich will become a box canyon with the construction of the multi-story 700 S. Galena condominium complex. Since the street curves at 700 S. Galena, this particular property is gUite visible from town. I feel that the Planning & 'Zoning Commission should make it a requirement of approval. that the 700 S. Galena parcel be landscaped permanent open space so that we will at least be able to see green at the end of the tunnel. I am greatly concerned that this hotel, if approved, will use up our GMP lodge allotment for nearly five years into the future. This, of course, locks us into having one type of accommodation (expensive) being built for half a decade to come. For all we know, in this shaky economy, we will need inexpensive, quaint bed and breakfast type accommodations to recapture the not so affluent repeat skier and summer. lover. These more modest accommodations should not be prevented. By the developer's own admission, the hotel will be operated by a major hotel chain. All we need is a "charming" Hilton hotel in the heart of Aspen. God forbid! Y Planning & Zoning Commission November 28, 1983 Page 2 As anyone can plainly see from the plans, the proposed landscaped open space for all practical purposes will only be viewed by the hotel occupants. Open space should be shared by all, without having to walk around many stories of bulk to find it. The other open space "provided" is laughable, since it is already preserved above the 8040' line. There is no question that if the rezoning requested by the developer is approved, it will create more unnecessary commercial space. This would be an injustice to our present fine establishments that desperately need our support. With the several hundred additional auto trips anticipated in the area daily, we may need a traffic light at Durant and Galena to get across the street. Help! In summary, I strongly urge you to: 1. Require the property at 700 S. Galena to be landscaped permanent open space. 2. Not give away future year GMP lodge allotments. 3. Not rezone and create more commercial space. Please give these points your serious consideration. Thank you. Sincerely, Don Crawford L±r 7 PLAiNNING vrFicl WESTERN AUTO RADIO SHACK SONY AND MITSUBISHI TORO KITCHEN LOFT Miners, Building Supply 319 East Main Street P.O. Box X Aspen,Colorado 81612 Phone(303)925-5550 12-6-83 TML *�T f7�.� TjT Iry n T^TTTT,^ C0T�jf 11_vS q � O y '� :,i11�iL 1�l J & LGt111J.T. �.� 1:1 i.L�J�.�10 Iv In reference to the com-ilex in question at the base of A. pen Mountain, it is our desire to express the followin,_ ~)oints ; I'Myone who has been involved in the building process in the City of "aspen durin- the east 10 years is quite knowlegeahle concernin the strin-ent controls which have beer, thus far enforced. :?jt the time the Miners ' Buildin crc� bein built , we attempted to work closely with the. planning office. .r c a- result , an Ordinance was immediately nassed which nullified 'our total plan , cuttinz, off the -ear portion of th.e building as being in the "�Tie�' �1ane `.,'e continued to negotiate until 8 a.tl f2ctoly E olution was reached thOUr h we were forced to Pacrifice -ood deal of square footage , time , funds , etc . At the cenpleti.on, we felt that our sacrifices were North the effort ONLY if the City continued to hold true to these sane stringent zonin- controls. We are now hearing that all rules .should be bent in the name of a "first class hotel" . Considering; the fact that most of the lodges in town were restrained from making the improvements which they desired in the past- 'few ye`tiro , it does not seem equitable to no:r give .,ll f.,rowth percent.,-eU for the next five years to one developer. Let ' s allow the resident-owners to have this o--,)ortunity, not a bi,,; out-of-town developer. It is not necessary to house all oarticipants of a I.athering in one complex or to have enough restaurants in the coL--,,-)'Lex to feed everyone. Ou.r, town is unique, 1jet ' s not ruin the base of the mountain with this"out- of nlace" com.nlex. Sincerely, DERIVATION OF MULTI-YEAR QUOTA ALLOCATION Aspen riountain Lodge UNITS 1. Proposed number of lodge units in the Aspen 447 Mountain Lodge. 2. Existing lodge units verified to date. 214 3 . Additional existing lodge units to be verified. l =—A__2 4. Pew lodge units for which an allocation is required. 172 5. Unallocated lodge units from prior years' quotas. - 37_ 140 6 . 1983 L-1, L-2 , CC and CL lodge quota. - 35 105 7 . 1984 L-1 , L-2 , CC and CL lodge quota. - 35 70 8 . 1985 L-1, L-2 , CC and CL lodge quota. ?. - 35 35 9. 1986 L-1 , L-2 , CC and CL lodge . quota. 2 - 35 0 1The thirty-six ( 36 ) lodge units awarded to the Aspen Inn in 1.978 which are presently under construction plus six ( 6 ) additional units in the Aspen Inn basement, subject to settlement of the Cantrup litiga- tion , final PUD approval and the transfer of title to the Aspen Inn site to the applcants. 2Upon deed-restriction and conversion of the Alpina Haus Lodge to employee housing, forty-four ( 44) units will be credited to the L- 1 , L-2 , CC and CL lodge quota thereby effectively eliminating the need for the 1986 quota allocation and reducing the 1983 allocation to 26 units. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A MULTI-YEAR LODCE GMP ALLOCATIOPT TO THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE AND CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUDDTVISION APPROVAL FOR THE LODGE, PORTION OF THE ASPEN DIOUNTAIP? PUD Resolution No. 84-_ (Series of 1984) WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11 . 6 of the Municipal Code, October 1st of each year is established as a deadline for the submission of growth management applications for lodge development allotments within the L-1 , L-2 , CC' and CL .-one districts of the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, in response to this provision, applications were submitted for the Lodge at Aspen and the Aspen Fountain Lodge requesting development allotments of forty-six ( 46) lodge units and two hundred and three (203) lodge units , respectively; and WHEREAS, a duly noticer_'l public hearing was conducted on November 22 , 1983 by the Aspen Planning and 'Zoning Commission to consider these lodge growth management applications and to evaluate , score and rank them in conformance faith the criteria set forth in Section 24-11 . 6 of the flunicipal Code , as amended by Ordinance X35 (Series of 1983) ; and WHEREAS, the Commission ('.id evaluate, score and rank the applications submitted as follows : 1. Aspen Mountain Lodge - 60 . 71 points 2. Lodge at Aspen - 4 .50 points and WHEREAS , as a result of the Commission' s scoring, the Lodge at Aspen failed to receive a minimum of sixty percent ( 60c ) of the total points available under Section 24-11 . 6 (b) ( 1) , ( 2) , ( 3 ) and (4) of the Municipal Code, a minimum of fifty-one (51) points ; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did consider an appeal of the scoring of the Lodge at Aspen application at their December 27 , 1983 regular meeting and did deny said appeal pursuant to Section 24-11. 6 (e) of the Municipal Cede ; and WHEREAS, the Aspen i•-Zountain Lodge application has been revised in response to var-.ous concerns identified by the Planning Office , Resolution No. 84- Page 2 the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council so as to reduce the requested development allotment to one hundred seventy-two ( 172) lodge units ; and WHEREAS, the available quota for the 1983 lodge growth management competition is sixty-seven (67) lodge units, consisting of the annual thirty-five ( 35) unit lodge quota for the L-1 , L-2, CC and CL zone districts plus an additional thirty-two (32) lodge units which remain unallocated from prior years ' quotas; and WHEREAS, the Cit_v Council may award, pursuant to Section 24- 11 . 3 (b) of the Municipal Code, a development allotment for an entire project to be constructed over a period cf years provided that each year during the scheduled construction the annual allotment provided for in Section 24-11 . 1 (b) is reduced by the amount of construction permitted by the approval ; and WHEREAS, certain additional reviews and approvals are required by the Aspen Mountain Lodge pursuant to the subdivision and zoning regulations of the Municipal Code including, but not limited to, the following : 1. Conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the lodge portion of the Aspen mountain PUD. 2. A rezoning from R-15 to R-G (P%BO) for the Penedict/Larkin parcel on Ute Avenue on which the applicants ' propose to construct approximately fifty (50) employee housing units . 3 . Conceptual PUP/subdivision approval for the proposed fifty (50) unit employee housing project. 4. An exemption from the City ' s growth management allotment procedures for the construction of the fifty (50 ) employee housing units . 5 . An exemption from the City ' s growth management allotment procedures for the conversion of the forty-four (44) unit Alpina I3aus Lodge to c'eed-restricted employee housing. G. An exemption from the City ' s growth management allotment procedures for the reconstruction of two hundred seventy- five (275) existing lodge units located on the Aspen Mountain PUD site . and WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the applicants' request for conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the lodge portion of the Aspen 'fountain PUD at a study session held on January 11, 1984 , and at s-bsequent regular meetings held cn January 23rd and 30th , t . Resolution No. 84- Page 3 February 6th and 21st, and on March 5th, 12th and 19th, 1984; and —, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did table its consider- ation of the applicants ' requests for rezoning of the Benedict/Larkin parcel , conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the proposed fifty (50) unit employee housing project , and exemption from growth management allotment procedures for the project' s construction pending Council' s award of a development allotment for the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD; and WHEREAS, the Commission did find, pursuant to Section 24-11 . 2 (j) of the Municipal Code ; that the conversion of the forty-four ( 44 ) unit Alpina Haus Lodge to deed-restricted employee housing, as set forth in the Aspen Mountain Lodge growth management application , will result in negligible growth impacts on the community, and that said change in use is exempt from complying with the growth management allotment procedures of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office and Building Department have verified, pursuant to Section 24-11 . 2 (a) of the Municipal Code , two hundred thirty-three ( 233 ) existing lodge units on the Aspen Mountain PUD site which may be reconstructed exempt from the City' s growth management allotment procedures; and WHEREAS, an additional forty-two ( 42) lodge units are eligible for verification pending the settlement of outstanding litigation between the Cantrup Estate and the City of Aspen. NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado: Section 1 That it does hereby allocate , pursuant to Section 24-11 . 6 (f) of the Municipal Code, a development allotment of one hundred seventy- two ( 172) lodge units to the Aspen Mountain Lodge, said allocation to consist of the following: 1. The thirty-two ( 32 ) lodge units which remain unallocated from prior years ' quotas ; and 2. Thirty-five ( 35) units each from the 1983 , 1984 , 1985 and 1986 L-1 , L-2 , CC and CL lodge quotas . The above allocation shall expire , pursuant to Section 24-11 . 7 (a) i Resolution No. 84-- Page 4 of the Municipal Code , in the event plans , specifications and-.E•ees sufficient for the issuance of a building permit for the one hundred and seventy-two ( 172) lodge units are not submitted on or before June 1 , 1985 . The City Council ' s reasoning with respect to the above allocation reflects the following considerations : 1. The need , as outlined in the Planning Office' s 1982 draft Short-Term Accommodations Report, to substantially upgrade the quality of the community' s lodging accommodations while maintaining a balance between the quantity of our accommodations and the capacity of our ski areas. 2. The 1.973 Aspen Land Use Plan identifies the Aspen Mountain Lodge site as the most appropriate location for the development of new short-term accommodations. 3 . The opportunity for additional lodge development in the L-1 , L-2 , CC and CL zone districts , beyond that proposed by the applicants , is limited given the remaining availability of undeveloped parcels and the relatively limited expansion capability of the districts ' existing lodges. 4 . Although there are potential growth impacts on the community associated with the award of a multi-year allocation in the amount required by this project, such an allocation is justified given the off-,,setting benefits which are expected to accrue to the community and the fact that the project' s construction schedule will help mitigate potential impacts. 5. The approval of a single major project will have the effect of confining construction to one time period rather than piecemeal phasing of numerous small projects over many years . 6. The entire Aspen Mountain Lodge district will benefit from a project of this magnitude as a result of the applicants ' commitment to participate pro rata in the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission ' s proposed lodge improvement district. 7. The historical. precedent which exists for the award of a multi-year lodge allocation. 8 . A desire to ensure the availability of lodge quota for future competitions in the event the proposed hotel is unable to proceed in a timely manner . Section 2 That it does hereby instruct the Planning Office to credit, pursuant to Section 24-11 . 2 of the Municipal Code , the forty-four (44) units removed from the lodge inventory as a result of the conversion of the Alpina Haus Lodge to deed-restricted employee housing to the L-1 , L-2 , CC an6 CTS lodge quota , said credit to take effect at such time as the un . .. re deed-restricted and removed from the lodge inventory. Resolution No. 84- Page 5 Section 3 That it does hereby grant conceptual PUD/subdivision approval pursuant to Sections 20-10 and 24-8 . 7 of the Municipal Code , to the lodge portion of the Aspen Fountain PUD, as revised, subject to the following conditions : 1 . The applicants continuing to investigate architectural revisions to the proposed hotel so as to give the appearance that , although under common ownership and/or management, there is more than one lodging facility on the site. 2. The external floor area of the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD (i. e. , Lot 1 ) not exceeding 310 , 275 s . f . and the external floor area for the entire PUD ( i . e . , Lots 1 , 2 , 3 and 4) not exceeding 438 , 200 s. f. 3 . The height of the proposed hotel not exceeding forty-two (42) feet from natural grade to the midpoint of the roof with the exception of elevator tower areas which shall not exceed fifty-five ( 55 ) feet from natural grade to the midpoint of the roof . 4. The applicants ' resolution of the Fire Department' s concerns with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas of the lodge site for fire protection purposes. 5. A determination by the applicants as to whether or not the proposed hotel intrudes into the Wheeler Opera House viewplane and the submission, if required, of an appropriate request for review pursuant to the view plane provisions of the Municipal Code. 6. Written clarifications as to which substantive representations of the TDA, Associates traffic and parking analysis the applicants intend to implement as part of the Aspen Mountain PUD, in particular , further clarification with respect to those techniques designed to mitigate the potential impacts of occupancy on adjacent streets. 7. Written clarifications as to the nature and extent of the improvements to be undertaken by the applicants in support of their request for the vacation of various public rights- of-way and the granting of encroachment licenses necessitated by the Aspen Mountain PUD. 8 . The vacation of Dean Street being conditioned upon the retention of all utility rights , public use of the street for circulation purposes, and the submission by the applicants of an acceptable maintenance and use agreement between themselves anc'.: the Mountain. Chalet. 9. Each utility franchised in the City signing off on all proposed street vacations so as to ensure that the loss of these rights-of-wav will not interfere with each utility' s current or future needs. 10 . The applicants ' submission of a detailed subdivision plat indicating the specific parceling of the Aspen Mountain PUD site. 11. The applicants ' submission of an acceptable survey of the Aspen Mountain PUD site clarifying, property descriptions. Resolution No. 84-_ Page 6 12 . The applicants ' resolution of the various issues rai-sed by the Environmental Health Department in their memorandum of October 22 , 1983 , with respect to various specific details of the proposed hotel operation. 13 . The reconstruction of existing lodge units being limited to the two hundred seventy-five (275) units verified pursuant to Section 24-11 . 2 (a) of the Nunicipal Code, being accomplished within five (5) years of the date of demolition and being restricted to the Aspen Ilountain PUD site. 14. Written clarification as to the applicants ' intentions with respect to ownership of the proposed hotel vis-a-vis how the hotel will be managed. 15. The applicants continuing to investigate solutions to the problem of increased pedestrian congestion in the project area, in particular , the move of pedestrians between the proposed hotel , Rubey Park and the adjacent commercial core. 16 . The applicants ' participation in the proposed CCLC lodge improvement district . said participation to be on a pro rate basis or on such other basis as the district may deter- mine. 17 . All material representations of the applicants ' growth management and conceptual PUD/subdivision applications not specifically referred to above being made a condition of this approval. 18. The expiration of Council ' s conceptual PUD/subdivision approval , pursuant to Section 24-8 . 8 of the INunicipal Code , in the event a preliminary PUD/subdivision application is not submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 24-8 .11 within six (6) months of the date of this resolution. 19. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD subdivision approval . Section 4 That it is the intent of the City Council to consider the applicants' requests for a rezoning from R-15 to R-6 (rslo) for the Benedict/Larkin parcel , conceptual PUD/subdivision approval of the proposed fifty (50) unit employee housing project , and exemption from growth management allotment procedures for the project ' s construction at such time as the Planning and Zoning Commission completes its review and that the granting o.' a multi-year allocation and conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD is expressly conditioned upon the applicants' provision of employee housing consistent with the representations of their growth management application and Resolution rlo. Page -7 sions Colorado al Code • Aspen ► the rlunicip City of of of the the provi the City Council A PPROV 'I;n Y b 1Q84 * eeting on ,!arch h 26 ' it regular m at the ASPEIj CITY COUT3CIL ---- ,tirling► rlayor j,1 i ll i am ATTEST rity C1er . Kathryn I{och. MEMORANDUM TO: Sunny Vann FROM: Alan Richman RE: Lodging Inventory Analysis DATE: December 8 , 1983 I have reviewed and updated the data included in our Short-Term Accommodations Report (April, 1982) so as to respond to various questions posed by the Planning Commission in recent weeks. Follow- ing is a summary of my approach and findings. I reviewed the entire list of short term accommodations in the Aspen Metro Area from the prior survey and identified approximately 54 facilities which could be considered to be traditional lodging faci- lities. The remaining accommodations include condominium complexes and single,-family or duplex houses. I found that the 54 lodges contain approximately 1727 units, including 1380 lodge rooms (no kitchen) , 259 lodge apartments (1 or more rooms with kitchen) and 88 dorm units. The condominium complexes and houses contain 1041 units, for a total short term accommodations in- ventory in the Aspen Metro Area of 2768 units. The total pillow count in these units is approximately 10, 750. I focused on the 1727 units in lodges as being most pertinent to any questions with respect to the Aspen Mountain Lodge. First, I categorized these units as to whether they were rented at economy, moerate or expensive rates. I based this analysis on information pro- vided by ARA, supplemented by calls to individual lodges, when necessary. I was able to obtain information from lodges accounting for 1684 total units. Following is the breakdown among these facilities. Economy = 291 units = 17% Moderate = 773 units = 46% Expensive = 620 units = 37% The facilities within the Aspen Mountain Lodge project represent a considerable proportion of the inventory. The Continental Inn includes 172 units, or almost 28% of all expensive units in the Aspen Metro Area. The Aspen Inn includes 65 units, or about 8 . 5% of all the moderately priced units in the inventory. The Alpina Haus, Blue Spruce and Copper Horse collectively include 86 units, or almost 30% of all economy units in the inventory. The total lodge inventory includes only 88 dorm units. Of these, 14 are found in the Copper Horse and 7 in the Continental Inn for a total of 21 dorm units within the project, almost 25% of the entire inventory. Other lodges with dorm units are as follows : Snowflake Lodge 2 dorms Mountain Chalet 3 dorms Holland House 8 dorms Highlands Inn 9 dorms Endeavor Lodge 8 dorms St. Moritz 12 dorms Little Red Ski Haus 5 dorms Boomerang Lodge 1 dorm Snow Queen Lodge 4 dorms Heatherbed Lodge 15 dorms All of the dorm units are located in lodges rated as economy or moderate. e Another important question we can answer from our inventory is what percentage of our lodge units have been .or are about to be recon- structed. I find that within the past 5 years, the following lodges have been totally reconstructed: Woodstone Inn 92 units Red Roof Inn 50 units Applejack Inn 35 units Aspen Ski Lodge 33 units Ullr Lodge 24 units Prospector Lodge 23 units Hotel Lenado 17 units Coachlight Chalet 11 units TOTAL 285 units The 285 units which have already been upgraded represent 16 . 5% (1/6) of the traditional lodge inventory or just over 10% of the total short term accommodations inventory. Projects currently under review would considerably augment the number of units we have upgraded. These projects are as follows : UNITS TO NEW PROJECT BE REBUILT UNITS TOTAL Aspen Mountain Lodge 269 211 480 Highlands Inn 37 132 169 Holiday Inn 120 -0- 120 Hotel Jerome 39 67 106 Carriage House 6 20 26 Endeavor Lodge 4 -0- 4 TOTAL 475 430 905 Should these projects be constructed, the 475 units which would be upgraded would constitute an additional 27 . 5% of the traditional lodge inventory. The total number of units which the community would have upgraded in about a decade would be 760 units or 44% of the lodge inventory. The 760 units also represent slightly more than 1/4 of the total Metro Area short term accommodations inventory. We should also take into account the degree to which projects now being considered would increase the inventory. The 430 new units plus the 31 units allocated to the Lodge at Aspen in 1982 would increase the inventory of lodge rooms by 33% (1/3) and the entire accommodations inventory by 16 . 50 (1/6) . At that point, 1190 of our lodge rooms would be new or recently rebuilt - . fully 65% of the 1810 total lodge units and 37% of the total accommodations inventory. Obviously, this analysis does not take into account any attrition of facilities which may take place during this time, nor any other addi- tions which may take place among lodges, condominiums and houses. As a last point, it is worth noting that with the exception of the Continental Inn and Holiday Inn all of . the units within projects we are now considering fall in the economy or moderate price ranges. I would expect that following the reconstruction of these facilities, the total profile of Aspen' s Lodging might shift more toward the expensive end of the price spectrum. However, once again, it is very difficult to estimate whether any existing units will drop into the lower price categories as a result of the growth in the lodge inventory. Ski Capacity/Accommodation Balance Inventory - Metro Area 54 Lodges with 1727 units Condo's. S. Fam. and Duplex with 1041 units Total - 2768 units/10750 pillows Aspen Metro Ski Capacity Aspen Mountain - 3000 Buttermilk - 4000 Aspen Highlands- 4500 Total 11,500 Pillows in Existing Units Continental Inn - 653 Aspen Inn - 186 Blue Spruce - 134 Copper House - 53 Alpina Haus - 80 Total 1106 Hotel Peak Occupancy 980 persons PUD Peak Occupancy 1189 persons Need for Upgradin In last 5 years, 285 lodge units have been rebuilt Woodstone Inn - 92 Red Roof Inn - 50 Applejack Inn - 35 Aspen Ski Lodge - 33 Ullr Lodge - 24 Projector Lodge - 23 Hotel Lenado - 17 Coachlight Chalet - 11 Total 285 = 1/6 of all lodge units and 1/10 of all accommodations Aspen Mountain Lodge plus Jerome will rebuild approximately 314 additional units (2/10 of all lodge units over 1/10 of all accommodations) while adding about 275 new units. 314 + 285 = 599 units or 35% of all lodges, 20% of all accommodations being rebuilt by the end of those 2 projects. t MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman RE: Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD DATE: January 27 , 1984 As Sunny will be abesnt from your meeting on Monday, January 30 , I will be responsible for presenting information to you regarding the Aspen Mountain. Lodge PUD. Mayor Stirling would like to begin the meeting with a definitive review of the architecture, FAR and height of the proposed building. The applicants are therefore submitting for your review additional data regarding project peak occupancies and detailed area and bulk calculations. I would expect there to be considerable discussion of these items, including time for comment by Council and the public. Please note that the Planning Office has not had opportunity to review the methodology employed by the applicant in calculating the FAR for the individual sites. I met with Joe Wells and John Doremus, representatives of the app- licant, to discuss any.-new issues which might be heard on Monday. I had wanted to present information to you on the transportation issues surrounding the project, but the applicant' s consultant on this issue is not available at this time. The applicant would like to review transportation issues (i.e. parking, street vacations and encroachments) with you on February 6 . The new issues that we would like to focus on for the meeting on January 30 are those associated with the Planning and Zoning Commission' s rationale for recommending the allocation of sufficient units to build a lodge at a maximum of 480 units. The 10 issues we will address can be found on page 3 of the resolution contained in your packet. Please call me if I can provide you with any additional information prior to the meeting. r 4 ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD Project Peak Occupancies Projected Hotel-Peak Occupancy as per L&H report of 1/11/84 980 Residential: 700 South Galena - 12 u-nits*- - 35 - - - Top of Mill - 33 units* 165 Summmit Place - 3 units* 9 Total Occupancy Residential units 209 Total Proposed Occupancies 1,189 Existing Existing Lodge Units: Continental Inn (actual Xmas '83) 578 Aspen, Inn Including Chalets & apartments(actual Xmas '83) 117 Blue Spruce, Including apartments (actual Xmas '83) 52 Blue Spruce Annex 17 rooms @ 2.15/unit as per L&H report 36 Existing Residential Units: Towne Place - 4 units Actual 11 Paas House - 2 units Actual 4 Hillside Apts. - 14 units Actual 32 Chase Duplex - 2 units Actual 1 Melville #2 - 1 units Actual 5 Black - 1 unit* 5 Summit Place - 2 units* 6 Demolished residential units* 6 units* 18 Total occupancy residential units 82 Total Existing Occupancies (865) Net Increase in persons 324 *Based on formula: 1 bdrm. = 1.5 persons/unit, 2 bdrm. = 3/unit, 3 bdrms. _ 4/unit, 4 bdrms. or more = 5/unit. J. Doremus 1/20/84 TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Doremus and Company DATE: January 27, 1984 SUBJECT: Aspen Mountain Lodge We are forwarding some additional information regarding floor area and open space for the Aspen Mountain PUD, in response to questions that came up at last Monday' s meeting. We will present the information at Monday' s meeting. As we point out in our applications, when the zoning code was written and the standards for the L-1 and L-2 zone district were established, the City could not have anticipated that such a large parcel in an area near the Commercial Core, designated for intensive tourist development, would come under one owner- ship. The PUD regulation was adopted to accommodate considera- tion of a project such as this and all of the elements of the proposal can be accomplished within the flexibility provided for under PUD procedures. It is very difficult, however, to compare the proposal to the Area and Bulk Requirements of the Code. The Code does not, for instance, clearly describe how to calculate maximum development allowed for sites which lie in more than one zone district nor for mixed use projects which include both lodge and resi- dential, development. For instance, because of a Planning Office interpretation, our FAR calculations have always omitted the 103, 912 square feet of land zoned Conservation which is within the PUD. The Code is silent on this issue, however, and we have included a calcula- tion in Table 1 which indicates what the FAR would be for the overall PUD if the Conservation-zoned land is included in the I calculation. i The intent of the PUD regulation is to encourage flexibility, innovation, and variety in land development. Inherent in the PUD procedure is a philosophy that development of larger sites offers both an opportunity for efficiencies as well as community benefits that are unlikely to be achieved under piece-meal development of the same land that warrant consideration of variances from Area and Bulk Requirements. Because the criteria are quite subjective, the process necessarily leads to negotiation and refinement between the City and the developers. We believe our current proposal is very responsive to the suggestions made by the staff and P&Z i E to date and we anticipate the need for further changes to address additional concerns raised by Council members . As the following tables indicate, we believe our proposal responds well to the PUD intent by clustering the most intensive deve- lopment in the area nearest the Commercial Core and maximizing the open space on the more remote portions of the site. Floor Area Ratio In response to Councilman Collins' request, we have prepared an analysis of proposed floor area and floor area ratios on a parcel-by-parcel basis (See Table 1 ) . The conceptual lotting plan which is enclosed has been designed to reflect logical ownerships, rather than to try to balance area and bulk calculations on an arbitrary basis . For instance, the Top of Mill condominium owners would retain ownership of the large tract of land to be included in the Open Space Easement, so that they can assure proper maintenance. As Table 1 indicates the FAR for the entire PUD site is 1.27 : 1 if the 103, 912 square foot Conservation-zoned parcel is omitted from the calculations and 1 .01: 1 if it is included. Table 2 compares the Lodge proposal first with North of Nell and Aspen Square which have both been mentioned as projects which have unacceptable impacts on the community and secondly with the existing Continental Inn. Both North of Nell and Aspen Square present imposing full- block facades immediately adjacent to the sidewalk which clearly plays a role in the two project' s impacts, but their above-grade FAR is an additional measure of their relative impact. In the case of Aspen Square the above-grade FAR is 1 .80: 1 and at North of Nell a startling 2.87: 1 . In contrast, Table 2 indicates the above grade FAR for the Aspen Mountain Lodge, as proposed for Lot 1 as drawn, is 1. 49: 1. This can be compared to the present level of develop- ment at the Continental, which has an above grade FAR of 1 . 36: 1 . Open Space Table 3 illustrates open space included in our conceptual proposal. When there is a minimum open space requirement in the Code, it is 25% of the site. The open space commitment for each lot in our PUD proposal exceeds that 25% requirement. The open space provided on Lot 1 under the new Lodge proposal is 31% of the site. It should be noted that this figure does not include the open space areas within the room wings. The two smaller lots, 700 South Galena and Summit Place include 40% and 46% open space respectively. Open space at the Top of Mill site is fully 75% of Lot 4. For the entire PUD site, the open space commitment is 53% of the site, in excess of 6 acres, including 3-3 /4 acres in the Open Space Easement. January 27, 1984 TABLE 1 ASPECT MJUNTAIN PUD Proposed Floor Area and Floor Area Ratios by Parcel Lot 1 Aspen Mountain Lodge Proposed External Floor Area = 377,650 sq.ft. Parcel Size = '24T.1144 sf. External Floor Area Ratio (FAR) = 1.57:1 (Aggregate FAR permitted under existing zoning, ccnsidering the CL zoned land, is 1.05:1) Lot 2 S unynit Place C ondcminiums Proposed External Floor Area = 7,668 sq.ft. Parcel Size = --T,-24D-s-q- External Floor Area Ratio (FAR) = 1.46:1 Lot 3 Top of Mill Condominiums Proposed External Floor Area = 99,000 sq.ft. Parcel Size = 135 129 sq. (excluding Coned land) External Floor Area Ratio (FAR) _ .72:1 (excluding C-zoned lard) Proposed External Floor Area = 99,000 sq-ft. Parcel Size = 242,041 sq• (including C-zoned land) External Floor Area Ratio (FAR) _ .41:1 (including C-zoned land) Lot 4 700 South Galena C ondcminiums Proposed External Floor Area = 19,260 sq.ft. Parcel Size = sq• External Floor Area Ratio (FAR) _ .89:1 TOTAL, PUD Site Proposed External Floor Area = 514,078 sq.ft. Parcel Size = 406,113 sq.ft. (excluding C-zoned lard) External Floor Area Ratio (FAR) = 1.27:1 (excluding C-zoned land) Proposed External Floor Area = 514,078 s ft. Parcel Size = 5U '1U, ' s (including C-zoned land) External Floor Area Ratio (FAR) = 1.01:1 (including C-zoned lard) January 27, 1984 TABLE 2 ASPEN MXWAIN PUD Canparison of Above-Grade FAR' s for Various Projects Aspen Mountain Lodge Parcel size: 241,144 sq.ft. Above-Grade Floor Area: Total Hotel Space 495,150 sq.ft. - Less Below Grade Space 135,000 sq.ft. Total Above-Grade Space M T,155 sq.ft. Above--Grade FAR: 360,150 sq.ft. - 1.49:1 4-4 sq.ft. North of Nell Parcel Size: 30,750 sq.ft. Above-grade floor area: Oommercial Space 27,100 sq.ft. Condonini ums 61,383 sq.ft. Total 483 sq.ft. Above-Grade FAR: 88,483 sq.ft. = 2.87:1 3;756 sq.ft. Aspen Square Parcel Size: 54,000 sq.ft. Above-Grade floor area: Commercial Space 19,020 sq.ft. Condanini um 78,294 sq.ft. Total - 7;314 sq.ft. Above-Grade FAR: 97,314 sq.ft. = 1.80:1 Continental Inn Parcel Size: 43,612 sq.ft. Above-Grade floor area: Conference Roans 2,587 sq.ft. Building One 32,342 sq.ft. South Wing 24,292 sq.ft. Total -ST,= sq.ft. Above-Grade FAR: 59,221 sq.ft. = 1.36 ; l 3,612 January 27, 1984 TABLE 3 ASPEN MDUNTAIN PUD Proposed Open Space Square Footage by Parcel Land in Additional Open Space Land in Total % of Parcel Size Easement Open Space Open Space Total Lot 1 1 Aspen Mountain 241,144 21,500 54,010 75,510 31% Lodge Lot 2 Summit Place 5,240 1,550 850 2,400 46% Condcmini uns Lot 3 Top of Mill 242,041 83,000 99, 500 182,500 75% Condanini uns Lot 4 700 South Ga 1 ena 21,600 -- 8,700 8,700 40% Condcmini uns Total PUD Site 510,025 106,050 163,060 269,110 53% 1 Does NOT include open space internal to roan wings in courtyard areas. � �� ��► ,�„ - - ' r:•'�l I.r• / r ✓. »/�, / r i„�//�/ r+.�.+.�.-i ;,moo\� eGw Jxy . l ,� STREF.I' SUM T,- ACE CONDOMINIUMS - \ 5240 SQ FT. -� r `//, ` `•� 11. C �flo- x+07 � "'- —. _ � '`- SNARL STREET F / 1 I i JUNIATA STREET OLBERT STREET / C 'PILL S LOT I ' , ! ASPEN MOUNTAIN IADGE -. 2 44�O FI _r —�--- LANN ST.YACATIONl --I - a` � I?EAN ST. VACATION 1 ,p z .i TSSp - t - i 1 •. :----- . 'DURANT •AVENUE �Ya DRAWING TITLE + CONSULTANTS DRAWING N0, ASPEN MOUNTAIN iLYNE BCNYI:Ytl ('O CEI''I'I 'All Aye'lul"::Ju'N;A! Nul llflirciw,l,:Ml The Lodge-Galena•Top Of Mill . American Century Corporation DATE 1 DECEMBER 1983 -- ACC 6A86Y o --- •WD — I r' J� I 11w 8400 — — Im m 790 iD I a —1 IrA rink „30 - fT ._. ]XIMN'`AVENUE ° r -- - - - -— ASPEN MOUNTAIN DRAWING 7ITL6ruMn�K DRAWING NO. Conceptual Plannedr • The Lodge-Galena-Top Of Mill Unit Development American Century Corporation DATE 1 December 1983 DDR 0 w IN ,; :.�.sxarnomn:�-�..a:,. ,. _..u::trxm:x.:..:::...'.k <*Y -4isist• _ X13 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 25, 1984 FROM: John Doremus RE: For next Monday's City Council meeting Generally deal with GMP issues (growth, impacts, ) esp: the need to upgrade the quality of Aspen's lodging; Benefits of site as most appropriate location for the development of new short-term accommodations; the perception that the Aspen Lodge takes away the opportunity for others to compete for development (Wells' study); the approval period and construction schedule relationship to short-term impacts of project; historical precedent and need for multi-year allocation; presentation of array of hotel amenities and site improvements as justification for size of project (number of rooms); and a presentation of FAR and people impact. The issues of pedestrian and vehicular conjestion and parking solutions will be presented the following week. RESOLUTION vF THE' ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE GRANTING OF A MULTI-YEAR LODGE GMP ALLOCATION TO THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE, RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE LODGE PORTION OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED REZONING TO COMMERCIAL LODGE OF THE CHASE DUPLEX, TOWNPLACE APARTMENTS , HILLSIDE LODGE, MOUNTAIN CHALET AND BLUE SPRUCE NORTH SITES, AND GRANTING AN EXLMPTION FROM GROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR THE CONVERSION OF THE ALPINA HAUS LODGE TO DEED RESTRICTED EMPLOYEE HOUSING Resolution No. 84- 1 (Series of 1984) WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11. 6 of the Municipal Code, October lst of each year is established as a deadline for the submission of growth management applications for lodge development allotments within the L-1 , L-2 , CC and CL zone districts of the City of Aspen; , and WHEREAS, in response to this provision, applications were sub- mitted for the- Lodge at Aspen and the Aspen Mountain Lodge requesting development allotments of 46 lodge units and 203 lodge units, re- spectively; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on November 22 , 1983 by the Aspen Planning- and Zoning Commission to consider these lodge growth management applications and to evaluate , score and rank them in conformance with the criteria set forth in Section 24- 11. 6 of the Municipal Code, as amended by Ordinance #35 (Series of 1983) ; and WHEREAS, the Commission did evaluate, score and rank the appli- cations submitted as follows : 1. Aspen Mountain Lodge - 60 . 71 points 2. Lodge at Aspen - 49. 50 points and WHEREAS, as a result of the Commission' s scoring, the Lodge at Aspen failed to receive a minimum of 60 percent of the total points available under Section 24-11. 6 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) of the Muni- cipal Code , a minimum of 51 points; and WHEREAS, the available quota for the 1983 lodge growth manage- ment competition is 67 lodge units, consisting of the annual 35 unit lodge quota for the L-1 , L-2 , CC and CL zone districts plus an addi- tional 32 lodge units which remain unallocated from prior years; and I osol.uLi.on Noy. -- 11age Two WHEREAS , certain additional reviews and approvals are required by the Aspen Mountain Lodge pursuant to the subdivision and zoning regulations of the Municipal Code including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Conceptual PUD/subdivision approval for the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD. 2 . A rezoning from L-1 to CL, Commercial Lodge, for that por- tion of the Aspen Mountain PUD site currently occupied by the Chase Duplex, Townplace Apartments, Hillside Lodge, Mountain Chalet, and Blue Spruce North. 3 . An exemption from the City' s growth management allotment procedures for the conversion of the 44 unit Alpina Haus Lodge to deed-restricted employee housing. 4 . An exemption from the City' s growth management allotment procedures for the reconstruction of approximately 277 existing lodge units located on the Aspen Mountain PUD site. and WHEREAS, certain of these additional reviews were conducted by the Commission at a duly noticed public hearing held on November 29 , 1983, and at subsequent Planning and Zoning Commission meetings held on December 6th, 13th, and 20th, 1983, and on January 3 , 1984 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Com- mission of the City of Aspen, Colorado : Section 1 That it does hereby find that the 1983 growth management appli- cation submitted for the Lodge at Aspen is ineligible for a develop- ment allotment pursuant to Section 24-11. 6 (a) of the Municipal Code and, therefore, does hereby consider the application to be denied. Section 2 That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council allo- cate to the Aspen Mountain Lodge the 1983 L-1, L-2 , CC and CL lodge quota of 35 units; the 32 lodge units which remain unallocated from prior years; and sufficient additional quota (approximately 92 units or two and two-thirds years quota) from future years, as provided for in Section 24-11. 3 (b) of the Municipal Code, to allow the construction of a maximum of 480 lodge units, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicants continuing -to address the Commission' s concerns with respect to the bulk, mass, FAR and unit count of the proposed hotel so as to reduce its actual and/or perceived visual impact and mitigate potential growth related problems, in particular, increased vehicular and pedestrian congestion, resulting from a multi-year quota Iti`:;() I tl L i ()n NO allocation. Its recommendation with respect to the alloca- tion of a multi-year quota notwithstanding, the Commission reserves the right to require a reduction in the total number of lodge units contained in the proposed hotel as a condition of preliminary PUD/subdivision approval if neces- sary to obtain said reduction in the visual impact of the project and the mitigation of growth related impacts. 2 . The expiration, as proposed by the applicants , of all allocated quota in the event the applicants fail to submit plans , specifications and fees sufficient for the issuance of a building permit for the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD on or before June 1, 1985 . The Commission' s reasoning with respect to this recommendation re- flects the following considerations : 1. The need, as outlined in the Planning Office ' s 1982 draft Short-Term Accommodations Report, to substantially upgrade the quality of the community' s lodging accommodations while maintaining a balance between the quantity of our accommo- dations and the capacity of our ski areas. 2 . The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan identifies the Aspen Mountain Lodge site as the most appropriate location for the develop- ment of new short-term accommodations. 3 . The opportunity for additional lodge development in the L-1 L-2 , CC and CL zone districts, beyond that proposed by the applicants , is extremely limited given the remaining avail- ability of undeveloped parcels and the relatively limited expansion capability of the districts ' existing lodges. 4 . Although there are potential growth impacts on the community associated with the award of a multi-year allocation in the amount required by this project, such an allocation is justified given the ,off-setting benefits which are expected - to accrue to the community and the fact, that the project's construction schedule will help mitigate potential impacts. 5 . The approval of a single major project will have the effect x of confining construction to one time period rather than piecemeal phasing of numerous small proj(,cts over many years. 6. The entire Aspen Mountain lodge district will benefit from a project of this magnitude as a result of the applicants ' commitment to participate pro rata in the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission' s proposed lodge improvement district. 7. The historical precedent which exists for the award of a multi-year lodge allocation. 8 . The applicants' assertion that approximately 480 lodge units are required to ensure the economic viability of the proposed hotel given the nature and extent of the ,proposed guest amenities, conference facilities and overall site improvements to be provided by the project. 9 The applicants ' 'assertion that the bulk, mass and visual impact of the proposed hotel can be reduced prior to pre- liminary PUD/subdivision approval without-. a reduction in the total number of lodge units. 10. A desire to ensure the availability of lodge quota for future competitions in the event the proposed hotel is unable to proceed in a timely manner. Section 3 That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council grant conceptual PUD/subdivision approval , pursuant to Sections 20-10 and ROSOlttLion No . 'Page Four 24-8 . 7 of the Municipal Code , to the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD subject to the following conditions : 1. The applicants continuing to investigate architectural revisions to the proposed hotel, in particular the Durant Avenue, lower Mill Street and conference entrance facades, so as to reduce the hotel ' s mass, prevent the shading of adjacent streets, and maintain and enhance public views of Aspen Mountain and surrounding scenic areas . 2 . The applicants ' resolution of the Fire Department' s concerns with respect to the accessibility of certain internal areas of the lodge site for fire protection purposes. 3 . A determination by the applicants as to whether or not the proposed hotel intrudes into the Wheeler Opera House view- plane and the submission, if required, of an appropriate request for review pursuant to the viewplane provisions of the Municipal Code. 4 . Written clarification as to which substantive representa- tions of the TDA, Associates traffic and parking analysis the applicants intend to implement as part of the Aspen Mountain PUD, in particular, further clarification with respect to those techniques designed to mitigate the poten- tial impacts of peak occupancy on adjacent streets. 5. Written clarifications as to the nature and extent of the improvements to be undertaken by the applicants in support of their request for the vacation of various public rights- of-way and the granting of encroachment licenses necessi- tated by the Aspen Mountain PUD. 6 . The vacation of Dean Street between Monarch and Mill Streets being conditioned upon the retention of all utility rights, public use of the street .for circulation purposes, and the submission by the applicants of an acceptable maintenance and use agreement between themselves and the Mountain Chalet. 7 . Each utility franchised in the City signing off on all proposed street vacations so as to ensure that the loss of these rights-of-way will not interfere with each utility' s current or future needs. 8 . The applicants ' submission of a detailed subdivision plat indicating the specific parceling of the Aspen Mountain PUD site. 9. The applicants ' submission of an acceptable survey of the Aspen Mountain PUD site clarifying property descriptions. 10. The applicants ' resolution of the various issues raised by the Environmental Health Department in their memorandum of October 22 , 1983 , with respect to various specific details of the, proposed hotel operation. 11. The reconstruction of existing lodge units being limited to those units verified pursuant to Section 24-11 . 2 (a) of the Municipal Code . 12. Written clarification as to the applicants ' intentions with respect to ownership of the proposed hotel vis-a-vis how the hotel will be managed. 13 . The applicants continuing to investigate solutions to the problem of increased pedestrian congestion in .the project area, in particular, the movement of pedestrians between the proposed hotel , Rubey Park and the adjacent commercial core. Itesol.tiV ion Noy. ; Kaye 1,'ivu 14 . The applicants' participation 'in the proposed CCLC lodge improvement district, said participation to be on a pro rata basis or on such other basis as the district may determine. 15. All material representations of the applicants' growth management and conceptual PUD/subdivision applications not specifically referred to above being made a condition of this recommendation of approval. 16. The above conditions being met prior to preliminary PUD/sub- division approval. Section 4 That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City ,Council deny the applicants' request for a rezoning from L-1 to CL, Commercial Lodge, for that portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD site currently occupied by the Chase Duplex, Townplace Apartments, Hillside Lodge, Mountain Chalet, and Blue Spruce North for the following reasons : 1. The uses proposed by the applicants for the area to be rezoned are inconsistent with the intent of the CL zone district. 2 . The uses proposed by the applicants are currently allowed by right or by special review under the existing L-1 zoning classification. 3 . The primary reason for the applicants' request is to enable them to take advantage of the more favorable FAR ratio available in the. CL zone district. Since the FAR provisions of the existing L-1 zone district may be varied pursuant to the PUU regulations, a rezoning merely to reduce the extent of the requested variance is inappropriate. 4 . The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the surrounding zone district classifications. Section 5 That it does hereby find, pursuant to Section 24-11. 2 (j ) of the Municipal Code, that the conversion of the 44 unit Alpina Haus Lodge to deed-restricted employee housing, as set forth in the Aspen Mountain Lodge growth management application, will result in negligible growth impacts on the community, and that said change in use is exempt from complying with the growth management allotment procedures of the Municipal Code subject to the following conditions : 1. The deed restriction of the 44 units, as proposed by the applicants and recommended by the Housing Authority, to a maximum rental price guideline of 25% of the employee ' s average annual income, or $250 . 00 per person per month, whichever is less. 2 . The deed restriction of the 44 units to a maximum occupancy of 47 employees with first priority given to employees of the Aspen Mountain Lodge. 3 . The retention of all existing on-site parking spaces and the submission of various alternatives for the mitigation of Resolution No. - � * Page Six potential impacts resulting from the non-conforming status of the Alpina Haus ' parking, said alternatives to be included in the applicants' preliminary PUD/subdivision submission. Section 6 That it does hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council in- struct the Planning Office to credit, pursuant to Section 24-11. 2 of the Municipal Code, the 44 units removed from the lodge inventory as a result of the conversion of the Alpina Haus Lodge to deed-restricted employee housing to the L-1, L-2 , CC and CL lodge quota, said credit to take effect at such time as the units are deed restricted and removed from the lodge inventory. The Commission' s reasoning with respect to this recommendation reflects the following considerations : 1. The Alpina Haus Lodge is a non-conforming use in the R-MF zone district. As a result, the 44 units removed from the lodge inventory may be credited to either the L-1, L-2 , CC and CL lodge quota or to the L-3 lodge quota. 2. The relatively limited build-out remaining in the City' s L-3 zone district and the adequacy of the existing annual L-3 quota to ensure the limited expansion of existing lodges consistent with the intent of the City' s adopted L-3 zone district regulations. 3. Since the conversion of the Alpina Haus Lodge to deed- restricted employee housing is an integral component of the Aspen Mountain Lodge growth management application, the 44 units removed from the lodge inventory should be credited to the quota for the lodge district in which the proposed hotel is to be located. APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at their regular meeting on January 17 , 1984 . ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By Perry rvey, Chair ma ATTEST: i4-, , tA, Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk • a MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - 1983 Lodge GMP Competition DATE: January 11 , 1984 The attached Planning Office memorandums are intended to serve as background information to be used throughout Council ' s consideration of the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD. Given the complexity of the memorandums, and the fact that they were not available until this morning, I do not expect you to be able to wade through them in their entirety prior to tonight ' s work session. All we really hope to accomplish this evening is to provide you with an overview of the project, identify and briefly comment on the relevant reviews re- quired by the project, and summarize the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion' s actions and recommendations with respect to the project to date. The more detailed analysis and discussion of the various issues associated with this project are expected to be dealt with in subse- quent meetings. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director RE: Aspen Mountain PUD - 1983 Lodge GMP Competition DATE: January 11 , 1984 The applicants for the Aspen Mountain Lodge are requesting PUD/sub- division approval for the development of their approximately 11. 7 acre site located south of Durant Avenue between Galena and Monarch Streets at the base of Aspen Mountain. The proposed resort hotel to be constructed at the north end of the site , involves the recon- struction of approximately 269 tourist units currently located within the Continental Inn, the Aspen Inn and the Blue Spruce Lodge . The applicants are requesting a GMP allocation for an additional 211 units bringing the total hotel project to 480 tourist units. The applicants also propose to construct on-site in conjunction with the resort hotel, an approximately 22 , 500 s. f . conference facility, a 4 , 500 s. f. health club, extensive restaurant and lounge areas and various recreational amenities , including two swimming pools and an ice skating rink. In addition to the hotel , an approximately 33 unit residential project is planned for the southern portion of the site and a smaller, 12 unit project for the adjacent 700 S . Galena parcel . The applicants' objective is to provide Aspen with a high quality, full service resort hotel with an array of year round tourist facilities and services and extensive on-site amenities and public spaces. The ability to provide these four facilities is directly related to the size of the hotel project. While the Planning Office supports the reconstruction and upgrading of existing facilities as well as the provision of much needed tourist conference facilities and amenities , a project of this size will invariably impact the City in a variety of ways and trade-offs between competing community objectives will obviously be required. The lodge_ portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD successfully competed in the 1983 lodge GMP competition which was conducted by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 22 , 1983 . As I pointed out in my memorandum which forwarded the results of that competition to City Council , the project is quite complex and required extensive addi- tional review by P&Z . The Commission has essentially completed its review of the lodge portion of the PUD and has prepared a draft resolution summarizing their recommendations. This resolution is expected to be formally adopted on January 17 , 1984 . The purpose of tonight ' s meeting, is to initiate Council ' s consideration of the applicant' s request for a multi-year lodge GMP allocation and to consider the various additional reviews required by the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD. The various additional review requirements of the lodge portion of this PUD include : PUD/subdivision review, two requests for rezonings , exemption from growth management for the lodge ' s employee housing, a change in use exemption,. two street vacations, and, possibly, view- plane review and an amendment to the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP submission. Condominiumization of the lodge rooms will probably also be requested by the applicants at a later date. The Planning Office ' s comments with respect to each of these additional reviews are outlined below. Our specific recommendations are summarized at the end of this memo- randum. Aspen Mountain PU. January 11, 1984 Page Two CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION While the Municipal Code allows the Planning Office to waive con- ceptual PUD/Subdivision review for those projects which have re- ceived a development allotment, the complexity of the proposed resort hotel and the applicants ' request for a multi-year lodge allocation necessitate, in our opinion, conceptual PUD/Subdivision review by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council . A residential GMP application was submitted in December for the 700 South Galena project as well as a request for a GMP reconstruc- tion exemption to allow the development of the approximately 33 unit res.identia.l project at the top of Mill Street. Conceptual PUD/Subdivision review for these two portions of the overall Aspen Mountain PUD will occur concurrently with the applicants ' residential . GMP application and request for GMP exemption. A commercial GMP application will also be required for the non-accessory restaurant space to be constructed in conjunction with the hotel. To be eligible for PUD approval, an applicant must demonstrate the reasonableness of his application and plan, its conformity to the design requirements of the PUD regulations, the lack of adverse impacts of the proposed development, and the plan' s compliance with the intent and purpose of the planned unit development regulations. The purpose and intent of the regulations is to encourage flexi- bility, innovation and variety in the development of land so as to create a more desirable environment than would be possible through strict application of the zoning code. In our opinion, this appli- cation is consistent with these objectives and with the design requirements of the PUD regulations. In order to achieve PUD design objectives, the PUD regulations permit variation in most of the area and bulk requirements of the zoning code. No variation, however, is allowed in permitted uses or density. While several rezonings are requested in conjunction with this application, the uses to be included in this PUD are currently allowed under_ existing zoning. The major variations from the area and bulk requirements which the lodge portion of the PUD will require involve the applicable FAR and height requirements of the underlying zone districts. All of the elements of the applicants' proposal , however, can be accomplished within the flexibility provided for in the PUD regulations. Additional information with respect to the extent of the zoning variations requested by the applicants will be provided at your January - ll work session. .Generally speaking, the impacts of the proposed resort hotel are reflected in the scores which the project received in the GMP process. Similarly, the receipt of a GMP allocation would tend to indicate that the majority of those impacts have been successfully mitigated. However, given the fact that it is possible to obtain a GMP allocation without scoring the maximum points available in each category or without mitigating all project related impacts, the Planning Office recommends that the following additional issues with regard to the applicants' conceptual PUD/Subdivision applica- tion be resolved prior to preliminary PUD/subdivision approval. Architectural Design/Visual Impact The Planning Office' s major area of concern with respect to the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD lies in the architectural design and visual impact of the proposed resort hotel - a concern which is reflected in the relatively low scores recommended by the Planning Office in these two GMP categories . While the PUD regula- tions provide for detailed architectural review at the preliminary PUD stage of the process, we believe it is important to identify our concerns with respect to the bulk of this project at the con- ceptual level . Aspen Mountain PUb January 11, 1984 Page Three To reiterate our GMP review comments, we believe the architectural design to be innovative in that it makes use of extensive excavation to reduce the perceived bulk of the buildings and to maintain public views of Aspen Mountain. There are, however, in our opinion, elements of the project which are clearly incompatible with surrounding develop- ments and with the overall scale of Aspen in general . The applicants' use of traditional architectural treatments and the use of compatible building materials helps to blend the hotel buildings into their surroundings. However, both the main hotel and conference entrance areas substantially exceed the height limitation of the applicable zone district, resulting in major building masses which are out of scale with the surrounding lodge district. These building masses restrict public views of Aspen Mountain and will , to varying degrees, alter scenic background views from Durant Avenue, Rubey Park and Wagner Park. While variations in the height and bulk of the proposed resort hotel are allowed under the PUD regulations, we believe that the approxi- mately 50 foot plus height of the Durant Street or conference en- trance facade are excessive. We strongly recommended to P&Z that the applicants reduce the visual impact of these building masses by revising the architectural design and/or reducing the overall number of lodge units. Such a reduction, if required, would also reduce the growth impacts associated with a multi-year lodge allocation. The Planning and Zoning Commission concured with our recommendations and have requested the applicants to investigate architectural revisions to the proposed hotel so as to reduce the hotel ' s mass, prevent the shading of adjacent streets and maintain and enhance public views of Aspen Mountain and surrounding scenic areas as a condition of concep- tual PUD approval. Two additional design related concerns which have been identified at this time include the adequacy of access for fire protection purposes and the potential intrusion into the Wheeler Opera House viewplane by the proposed hotel. Although the applicants have represented that state-of-the-art fire protection techniques will be employed in the resort hotel, the fire department has questioned the accessibility of the internal areas of the site for fire protection purposes. This issue is to be explored further by the applicants in conjunction with the fire department and resolved prior to preliminary PUD approval. The applicants' representations notwithstanding, the Engineering Department has indicated that the proposed hotel may protrude into the Wheeler viewplane. The issue of whether or not the project violates this viewplane is to be addressed by the applicants and an appropriate request, if required, submitted consistent with the viewplane review provisions of the Code prior to preliminary PUD approval. Traffic Impacts/Parking Requirements While the existing road network in the vicinity of the proposed hotel is adequate to handle the increased traffic generated by the project, the TDA Associates report submitted in conjunction with the applicants' GMP submission refers to numerous actions to be undertaken by the applicants which are designed to further reduce traffic impacts in the general site area. The report also addresses a number of proposals to further reduce the demand for off-street parking generated by the new hotel . While these various actions are referenced in part in the GMP submission, the specific pro- posals to be undertaken by the applicants as part of this project should be outlined in detail as part of their preliminary PUD submission- Street vacations/Encroachments The vacation of two City streets will be required to implement the lodge portion of the Aspen Mountain PUD: 1) two blocks of Dean Street between the Galena Street and Monarch Street rights-of-way, i Aspen Mountain PUL January 11, 1984 Page Four and 2) Lawn Street from the Monarch Street right-of-way east to its termination within the Aspen Mountain site. The vacation of public rights-of-way is accomplished through ordinance of City Council. However, given the implications of such requests on the overall street network of the City, the Council typically requests input from the Planning and Zoning Commission to facilitate their review. As a result, the applicants requested P&Z ' s .consideration ' .of the proposed street vacations as a part of the PUD review process. The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicants' request and has concluded that the proposed vacation of the two blocks of Dean Street and the Lawn Street right-of-way east of Monarch would not adversely impact the general area from a circulation standpoint. Lawn Street is a dead-end right-of-way that is currently used almost exclusively for access to the applicants' property and is of little value to overall circulation in the area. Of the two blocks of Dean Street for which vacation is requested, one block will be maintained as a public street through the site and will continue to provide access to the south side of the Mountain Chalet. In light of the overall circulation improvements and reduction in vehicular conflicts created by the site plan, elimination of the one block of Dean Street from the area street network does not represent a significant problem. The portion of Dean Street between Monarch and Mill Streets will be vacated to the benefit of both the applicants and the Mountain Chalet. This block of Dean, although requested for vacation, will remain a public street within the proposed PUD. The Engineering Department recommends that this vacation should be conditioned on the maintenance of all utility rights as well as public use of the street itself. For those rights-of-way which are to be com- pletely eradicated, i.e . , Lawn Street and Dean Street between Mill and Galena, the Engineering Department further recommends that the City should be reimbursed by the applicants for the rights being vacated in each instance. The reimbursement could take any number of forms, but the Department recommends that the applicants be required to undertake off-site street improvements comparable in value to the value of all rights the City vacates. This could include, in addition to the improvements already suggested by the applicants, the reconstruction of the Monarch and Durant intersec- tion and the reconstruction of the full extent of Galena from Durant Avenue to Mill Street. Inasmuch as the various public rights-of-way which are to be vacated contain numberous existing utilities, the Engineering Department recommends that each utility franchised in the City, regardless of whether or not they maintain utility easements in the rights-of-way in question, sign off on the requested vacations in order to verify that the loss of these rights-of-way will not interfere with their current or future needs. The proposed resort hotel will require, in addition to the vaca- tions discussed above, substantial structural encroachments into the underground portions of Durant Avenue and Mill Street as well as an overhead encroachment on Mill . The Mill Street encroachment involves the creation of an underground connection between the parking structures as well as an overhead pedestrian bridge inter- connecting the major public areas of the proposed resort hotel. The Engineering Department recommends that an encroachment license be granted for the Mill Street structures since both encroachments serve to accommodate circulation of pedestrians and vehicles between the two adjacent sites, thus removing both people and vehicles from street level . This provides much safer and simpler circulation within the hotel complex and removes. numerous potential conflicts from the street. Engineering conditions its recommendation, how- ever, upon the provision by the developer of off-site improvements of offsetting value. d 1lspen Mountain PL January 11, 1984 Page Five The Engineering Department further recommends that the site plan be modified to eliminate any encroachment into Durant Avenue. The plan currently suggests that the underground vehicular access into the eastern parking structure will loop into the Durant right-of- way. Unless the developer can provide substantial evidence of the need for this encroachment, Engineering will recommend against it. The Commission essentially concured with the Engineering Department' s recommendations. The specific conditions which they attached to their conceptual PUD/subdivision approval are outlined in their reso- lution. Subdivision Although this issue is not addressed in the applicants' GMP/Con- ceptual PUD submission, subdivision of the Aspen Mountain PUD parcel will be required in order to accomplish the various ownership proposals contained in their application. Based on the information submitted to date, the Planning Office does not en- vision the subdivision of the parcel to be a major area of concern at thie time. A condition of conceptual PUD approval, however, should be the submission of a detailed subdivision plat indicating the specific parceling of the PUD site prior to the preliminary PUD/Subdivision approval. Ownership The City Attorney has reviewed the applicants ' ownership documents for compliance with Sections 24-8 . 5 (a) and 20-10 (b) (4) of the Municipal Code. It is the attorney' s opinion that the Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP/Conceptual PUD/Subdivision submissions have met the substantive requirements of these Code provisions . The attorney recommends, however , that an acceptable survey of the hotel site be submitted to the City clarifying property descriptions, or, in the alternative, that the Engineering Department accept the property descriptions as substantially correct prior to the award of any lodge allotment by the City Council. The Engineering Department also raised the question of the avail- ability of an up-to-date property survey and suggested that the pro- vision of a new survey be a condition of conceptual PUD/Subdivision approval. Miscellaneous The Environmental Health Department has also reviewed this project and has raised several questions of a more detailed nature, the specifics of which relate to conditions of preliminary PUD approvals. The applicants, however, are encouraged to review the Health Depart- ment' s comments and address the issues which have been raised prior to preliminary PUD submission. REZONINGS The Aspen Mountain PUD application includes a request for four re- zonings, two of which are directly related to the lodge portion of the PUD. The applicable zoning regulations require that the Planning and Zoning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider rezoning requests and report its recommendations to City Council for their consideration. The P&Z held a public hearing on November 29th, 1983 , and adjacent property owners were notified. The two lodge related requests for rezonings which were considered are examined below. L-1 to CL A rezoning to CL (Commercial Lodge) was requested for the Chase Duplex, Townplace Apartments and Hillside Lodge sites (Lots A through D, Block 91) and for the Mountain Chalet and Blue Spruce North sites (all nine lots in Block 84 to the west of Block 91) . Aspen Mountain PUL January 11, 1984 Page Six As the applicants' attached exhibits indicate, these parcels are presently separated from the commercial core by Rubey and Wagner Parks. Rezoning applications by private applicants are typically heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission only during meetings . scheduled by the Commission for this purpose in the months of April and October of each year. An applicant, however, may request either the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council to _sponsor their request for rezoning, thereby circumventing the twice yearly re- striction. The applicants, in order to allow consideration of their rezoning requests in conjunction with their lodge GMP applica- tion, requested the Planning and Zoning Commission to sponsor their application for rezoning from L-1 to CL. In reviewing a request for rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion and City Council are requested to consider the following evalua- tive criteria: 1) the compatibility of the rezoning proposal with the surrounding zone district and land uses; 2) the impacts of the re- zoning upon traffic, parking and utilities; 3) the impacts on air and water quality; 4) the community need for the rezoning; 5) the compati- bility of the proposed rezoning with the Aspen Area General Plan as amended; and 6) the extent to which the proposed rezoning will promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents and visitors to the City of Aspen. The applicants' principal argument in favor of this rezoning is that "the rather dramatic. increase in traffic along Durant Street, particularly associated with public transportation, that has occurred since L-1 zoning was originally applied to the area makes it unde- sirable to locate lodge rooms at ground level immediately adjacent to and oriented toward Durant Street. " They therefore believe that commercial uses at ground level, as allowed under CL zoning, are more appropriate. While there is unquestionably some truth in the above observation, the uses proposed by the applicants on these sites, e. g. , the main hotel lobby, guest drop-off, etc. , are clearly inconsistent with the intent of the CL zone district. To. refresh your memory, the intent of this zone is to provide for the establishment of commer- cial uses at street level but requiring that all additional stories be lodge accommodations. With the exception of the proposed lease- hold commercial restaurant space to be constructed at the corner of Monarch and Durant Streets , ground level uses of the proposed hotel are limited to essentially non-commercial , hotel related support services. , Were the applicants taking advantage of this zoning classi- fication to provide street level non-accessory commercial space ad- jacent to the transportation center at Rubey Park and to allow archi- tectural variation in the .Durant Avenue building masses , the Planning Office might be more inclined to support this rezoning., In our opinion, the applicants ' primary reason for requesting this rezoning is to enable them to take advantage of the more favorable FAR ratio available in the CL zone district. By utilizing the district ' s 2 : 1 external FAR ratio, the applicants can reduce, at least statistically, the overall FAR of the lodge portion of this PUD. As noted in the conceptual PUD discussion, the applicants are requesting a variance from the underlying FAR requirements of the applicable zone districts . Obviously, the greater FAR allowed in the CL zone district would make the proposed resort hotel appear smaller than if FAR were calculated under L-1 zoning. Inasmuch as the underlying FAR requirements of any zone district may be varied pursuant to the PUD regulations, we see no benefit in rezoning this property from L-1 to CL simply to produce a more favorable FAR figure. The Planning Office , therefore , requested' that, P&Z deny the applicants ' request for sponsorship of the rezoning and recommend denial to City Council. The Commission unanimously recommended denial. I k°•t eeieieiieiei -� e•:e:•:e:o:e:e:e:ai •eele!!ee � ion •�►�������������o �r�� � � r 0 fee�e!ewe+eee+o0eeel��iei+Qieieiei°i � . �i+iei +i+ie�►!�.eiei0eieieieieiei�.1� ►el��►.raet ♦•eeeeeeeee�.�j�� ee♦ ►•• woe► eeeeeeee. ►eN�)se. aeeeseewe � e ee� ae eeeeeewe. ►lew+,,$+mow+++w. ari'�fi,,+e+Qe+•O+e� vk�,. r'e�'�i i�►''1:� e++eeee++eeee+ewele+�w►eeteeewe�ei . :!!.+•e!i••'Sl-► �9 n.)VC,Q\ IM PER ieieieieii wee! ` ON ENRON U 131 NN R5 1 VERN ON IRS �� �i ., �•,�.tip\\ \ �` ..a �����������ti!ii�1���•�i��i iii�ii i�.•�•.�:9 4.�•:L•ii• '•b.�t::i�::°•'�!1'::•i'•.i fi'}ih,..;�.1 �\�����1'•%%ii•�%�����'�'i.'g�i0,•�•••,ihii'►iisi"•��i +r ••••••• ty..��\ \A��.�� L\\�. .�ti,•.i•h;Y•,•�1••'•••g'••,iii•h`••��••••i,•i.•i•;i••,h,ii•••��•, t,',�ti•••hO i�•'•hiii•0�♦••i O b•••i•hp4•'hii•1i••s�••i►�;O•i a•�'i.R i��i•y,r•%�.iO.; %•w;•\�4r..'1�•R°.i•�'i••i�i�i•• � • �%R`hi'�••bi•i,ii.;ii!i•i;1i:•i••%isd•'ii.iA%;•'�.:Py•i•4•;�.•h•i�i:%•••i�0�~i%•,i i.i•9�.,ii•.•,•ii•�y'h'!�.%t�,%�.�i ga MCI" , •�a h� . • -�R! i ii •..•i•••.,�.ti S.•�,i`<.�.S�• �•• ••. i••••'i,�4�•i i'i i'i•'� �����\�\` `�i,•,•, iii•i i hi• ii•i i i i.•i•i••�.•i•••i••❖i i.•.i•• ....•i i••b•. �i•••.:i ii \\\ • .J.•�i•.....•••�'.••h.•••••• • ....♦• •••...•....•tea`• •.• •',...• .we•.�waewa•.w•.tiwwe w•.•.•.0w•!i w..t.•.•...w.w.wa. .•..••••❖�'i.�•.,•,.,i••i'OA•. NXI ASPEN , • 'American WIN! ILI I I'll,WIN',S,M,%l'I I Ml INS ------------- MAINE- PbRINIMIMMIMM i Aspen Mountain PUL January 11, 1984 Page Seven R-15 to R-6 (RBO) The applicants are also requesting a rezoning to R-6 (RBO) for an approximately 7 . 5 acre site on Ute Avenue on which they propose to build a 50 unit employee housing project. Sponsorship of this request by the Planning and zoning Commission or City Council is not required as the Code allows requests for residential bonus overlay rezonings to be heard at any time during the year. This rezoning is required in order to accommodate the proposed mix of employee housing unit types called for in the employee housing proposal developed for the hotel. The City granted a similar request for rezoning to R-6 (RBO) for the same site in 1982 for an employee housing proposal filed by the Little Annie Ski Corporation. The City Ordinance granting the rezoning, however , provided for its expiration on December 31, 1983 in the event the Little Annie Ski Area were not under construction at that time. The Planning Office reviewed this request for rezoning and, while we found it generally consistent with the Residential Bonus Overlay review criteria, we requested that P&Z not take formal action on this issue at its November 29th meeting. There were a a number of details requiring clarification and/or submission of additional information on behalf of the applicants which needed to be addressed prior to formalization of the Planning Office ' recom- mendation. The applicants are currently working with P&Z to resolve various problems associated with this request and the public hearing has been tabled until February 7 , 1984 . The Commission recommenda- tions will be forwarded to Council upon completion of their review. GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTIONS The applicants of the Aspen Mountain PUD are requesting three exemp- tions from the GMP allotment procedures for the hotel portion of their proposed project. These exemptions are requested for the following development activity: 1) the reconstruction of 269 exist- ing lodge units pursuant to Section 24-11. 2 (a) of the zoning regula- tions , 2) the construction of a 50 unit employee housing project on the Benedict/ Larkin parcel pursuant to Section 24-11 . 2 (f) , and 3) the conversion of the Alpina Haus Lodge to deed restricted employee housing pursuant to Section 24-11. 2 (j ) . Each of these requests is examined below. Reconstruction The resort hotel to be constructed as a part of the Aspen Mountain PUD will essentially replace the existing Continental Inn, Aspen Inn, and Blue Spruce Lodge. The applicants, with the assistance of the Building Department, have inventoried these facilities and have submitted to the Planning Office a request for the verification of 277 existing lodge units. After review of the applicants' documenta- tion, the Planning Office and Building Department have agreed to the verification .of 269 lodge units . Eight additional units are cur- rently undergoing further review by the staff. A decision with respect to the eight units should be forthcoming prior to Council ' s award of the lodge quota. No specific P&Z or Council action is required with respect to this request for exemption. The Planning Office, however, suggests that any conceptual PUD approval with respect to the hotel portion of this project include the following conditions which are consistent with the reconstruction provisions of Section 24-11. 2 (a) of the Code. 1. The applicants should be limited to the reconstruction of only those units verified pursuant to Section 24-11. 2 (a) . 2 . The reconstruction of these lodge units must be accom- plished within five years of the date of demolition. Aspen Mountain PU January 11 , 1984 Page Eight 3 . The reconstruction of the demolished lodge units should be limited to the Aspen Mountain PUD site. Employee Housing As discussed under the request for R-6 (RBO) rezoning, the appli- cants propose to construct a 50 unit pure employee housing project on an approximately 7 . 5 acre site located northwest of the Ute Cemetary on Ute Avenue. These units will house a portion of the net new employees generated by the proposed resort hotel. The site, known as the Benedict/Larkin property, is presently zoned R-15 and will require rezoning to R-6 (RBO) to allow construction of the proposed employee housing units. Exemption from GMP allotment procedures is allowed pursuant to Section 24-11. 2 (f) subject to the special approval of the City Council based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The review of any request for exemption of employee units from the development allotment procedures requires a determination of com- munity need considering, but not limited to, the project' s complianc.e with any adopted housing plan, including the number and type of units proposed, their location, the number of bedrooms in each unit .and the size of the unit; the rental/sales mix of the development; and the proposed price categories to which the units are to be deed restricted. The Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority and the Housing Office staff have reviewed the proposed employee housing project for consistency with the above requirements and have recommended approval of the applicants' request for GMP exemption subject to the following conditions : 1. The 50 unit project is to consist of 24 one-bedroom units averaging approxiately 550 sq. ft. each and 26 two-bedroom units averaging approximately 750 sq. ft. each. Ninety hotel employees are to be housed in the project with the applicant reserving the right to house an additional 11 unspecified employees at a future date. 2 . The hotel employees are to be given first priority in renting or purchasing the 50 units.. If vacancies should occur, the applicant may rent to any qualified low or moderate income employee of the Community. 3 . The 15 units are to be deed restricted to the City' s adopted moderate income housing price guidelines . 4 . The Housing Authority reserves the right to review rents sales, prices, and other restrictions to guaranteee com- pliance with the City' s housing guidelines. The rezoning required - to permit the construction of this employee housing project is still under review by P&Z and therefore no action has been taken by the Commission with respect to this GMP exemption. Change in Use In addition to constructing the 50 unit employee housing project on the Benedict/Larkin site, the applicants also propose to deed restrict for employee housing purposes two existing structures - the 47 unit Alpina Haus Lodge, and the 14 unit Copper Horse Lodge. Together these two facilities will house the remainder of the net new employees generated by the proposed resort hotel , or a total of 90 employees. The Alpina Haus has historically operated as a non-conforming lodge in the R-MF zone district and therefore will require a change in use exemption from the GMP allocation procedures pursuant to Section 24- 11. 2 (j ) for its conversion to long-term residential use. The Copper Horse, however, is an individually historically designated structure, and, as such, is exempt from the change in use provisions of the Municipal Code. A rezoning of the Copper Horse from L-3 to O - Office, however, will be required in order to accomplish the conversion of the r Aspen Mountain PUD January 11, 1984 Page Nine lodge units to deed-restricted employee housing as multi-family resi- dential units are a prohibited use in the L-3 zone district. The applicants are expected to file a request for this rezoning as part of their preliminary PUD subdivision submission. To be eligible for a change in use exemption, the units must be con- tained in an existing structure which has a certificate of occupancy for at least two years and the applicant must demonstrate that the change in use will result in negligible growth impacts on the community. Growth impacts are defined as any activity which results in more than a negligible increase in employee housing or parking spaces; generates more than a negligible increase in traffic, water and sewer needs, fire and police protection requirements, off-site drainage and road demands; or otherwise requires the provision of more than a negligible increase in governmental services. The Planning Office has reviewed the applicants' request for the conversion of the Alpina Haus and believes it to be consistent with the requirements of the change in use exemption. The proposed change in use will offset the demand for employee housing created as a result of the construction of the resort hotel by deed restricting the existing lodge rooms at the Alpina Haus to employee housing guidelines. Similarly, traffic may actually decrease slightly, since there is generally less turnover within a long-term residential project than in a short-term lodge. Fire, police, water, sewer and governmental services needs will remain relatively the same resulting in no additional impacts on the community. Existing parking, however, is currently non-conforming and, therefore, should be retained. The Planning and Zoning Commission concured with the Planning Office ' s recommendations and is prepared to grant a change in use exemption from growth management to the Alpina Haus Lodge subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. The deed restriction of the 44 units, as proposed by the applicants and recommended by the Housing Authority, to a maximum rental price guideline of 25% of the employee ' s average annual income, or $250. 00 per month, whichever is less. 2. The deed restriction of the 44 units to a maximum occupancy of 47 employess with first priority given to employees of the Aspen Mountain Lodge. 3 . The retention of all existing on-site parking spaces and the submission of various alternatives for the mitigation of potential impacts resulting from the non-conforming status of the Alpina Haus ' parking, said alternatives to be in- cluded in the applicants ' preliminary PUD/subdivision sub- mission. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Analysis of Award of Allocation DATE: January 11, 1984 Since the Aspen Mountain Lodge is the only L-1/L-2 lodge development project submitted in 1983 which met the minimum scoring threshold, it is eligible for a 35 unit allocation by you. The applicants have also verified that 269 units exist on the site which can be rebuilt without having to compete for an allocation. The applicants, there- fore, have the capability to , build 304 units_ as a result of having successfully won this year' s competition. You should also recognize that 8 other units which are found on the site may also be eligible for rebuilding. The applicant proposes to build a total of 480 lodge units by having you award the following additional units to the. project: The 32 units which remain as unallocated from prior years. The 44 units which are being changed in use from lodge to residential at the Alpina Haus and which therefore must be deducted from the residential quota and added to either the L-1/L-2 or the L-3 quota (P&Z recommends adding them to the L-1/L-2 quota) . 100 units from future years of quota (the 1984 and 1985 quotas, plus 30 of the 35 units for the year 1986) . Following below is an analysis of the pros and cons of the discre- tionary request for the additional 176 units needed to complete this project. This analysis is an updated version of a similar presenta- tion to the P&Z made in November, 1983. PRO CON 1. Full allocation would permit 1. Granting the full allocation the substandial upgrade in will result in an unusually the quality of our lodging high rate of growth in the inventory in return for the Aspen Metro Area over the expansion of that inventory short term, particularly if (Note: the reconstruction of combined with construction approximately 269 lodge of the Centennial , Hotel rooms represents about 25% Jerome and Highlands Inn of the entire inventory of projects . lodge , rooms in Aspen) . 2 . The allocation of future 2 . The development of this years of quota will virtually facility would constitute preclude any other L-1/L-2 the first addition to the applicant from obtaining a lodge inventory in Aspen substantial allocation to since the 54 unit expansion expand an existing/build a to the Woodstone in 1976 . new downtown lodge (Note that with the exception of 3. The proposed addition of the Little Nell parcel and units on this site is con- a smaller parcel near Lift sistent with the intent of 1A, virtually no vacant par- the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan cels exist in the L-1/L-2 to centralize our tourist district which are not under accommodations at the base the ownership of this appli- of Aspen Mountain. cant. Note also that the Analysis of Award Allocation Page Two 4. Full allocation provides the construction of the Hotel developer with the capability Jerome project will require of building a full service us to further use future years hotel complex, including of quota, amounting to about substantial tourist amenities 65 units. Finally, note that such as conference rooms, the 10 unit per year L-3 quota ballroom, and recreation will continue to be available facilities . regardless of this project) . 5. The development of a facility 3 . The construction of such a of this magnitude in this high large project may be a sign profile location may change to the skiing industry that the popular image of the the next growth cycle in quality of Aspen' s lodging in Aspen is underway and it is one shot. time to plan for ski area expansion. There may also 6 . By awarding a full allocation, be a cyclical impact on we permit the master planning the commercial sector, of the entire area, the where vacancies and under- accomplishment of the total employment at existing upgrade of that area, and the businesses may be replaced minimization of the length of by full occupancy and construction impacts upon maximum employment, with Aspen. commensurate impacts on the Community. 7 . There is no substantial benefit to be gained from 4 . There may be a short term making the project compete inability of certain again for an allocation in a portions of the infra- future year provided that you structure to accommodate support the development of a the growth associated with project of this scale. this project, particularly if combined with a community- 8. Since it will take two years wide economic resurgence to construct this facility, such that units with low there is an automatic phasing occupancy and commercial mechanism built into the space which is vacant are project. once again full. Facilities which we feel will be 9 . There is a precedent for especially hard hit include awarding a multi-year lodge the sewage treatment allocation, since in 1978 plant, transit center, Council awarded 76 units, airport terminal and the taken from the 1977 , 1978 , road network (both into 1979 and 1980 quotas, as well Aspen and inside Aspen) . as 4 units from 1981. 5. The increased competition in the lodging industry may result in the attrition of some of the smaller, somewhat marginal operations. In fact, should the project proceed as proposed two small facilities (the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus) will be taken out of the inventory. 6 . The addition of these new units will further concen- trate lodging in Aspen while the bulk of our skiing capacity is outside of Aspen or in Snowmass. As can be seen, there are substantial reasons both in favor of and opposed to the allocation of the additional 176 units requested. The upgrade in the quality of our most visible accommodations and the creation of a major conference facility are consistent with the Analysis of Award Allocation Page Three growth policies which the Planning Commission has been developing. The accomplishment of a master plan for lodging in this area is consistent with the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, as well as the wishes of City Council , when it last reviewed the proposed amendments to the Aspen Inn construction project. However, building this facility in a single increment is not consistent with the growth rate policy and will virtually preclude any other major downtown lodge expansions in Aspen for several years. By its very magnitude and importance, the project is likely to have spin-off impacts on .other portions of our economy and may set off a new growth cycle in Aspen. Given the very real need at this high profile location in Aspen for lodging facilities which provide quality and value, the Planning Com- mission and the Planning office both feel quite strongly that the 32 units which remain as unallocated from prior years and the 44 units made available as a result of the change in use of the Alpina Haus be allocated to the Aspen Mountain Lodge project. However, P&Z found it much more difficult to address the question of allocations from future years. Issues which were raised repeatedly by the Planning Commission included the impact of the project on the growth rate, over the short term, as measured by the impacts on community facilities, its considerable size, its cyclical impact on other lodge operations and its spin-off effects on the commercial and skiing sectors of our economy. Ultimately, a majority of the Commission felt that the growth related impacts of awarding about 3 years of future quota were manageable, when balanced with Aspen' s need for a major new lodging facility which will not only upgrade approximately 25% of our basic lodging units, but also be large enough to justify the creation of substantial conference capabilities and other tourist amenities. The Commission also recognized that their concern with the bulk of the project could be mitigated by design alternatives available to the applicants which would not affect the number of rooms it contains. The Planning Com- mission therefore recommends that you award the project a sufficient allocation to build a 480 unit hotel, subject to the applicant being able to address the Commission' s design concerns at the preliminary PUD stage of review. Lodge Buildout Potential Aspen Mountain vacant Parcels Parcel Name Site Size Current Buildout Current Units New Unit Buildout Potentiall A Mountain Edge Parcel 62,068 SF -0- -0- 922 B 601 Aspen Street 50,700 SF -0- -0- 75 C Shadow Mountain R-15 238,000 SF -0- -0- 233 Lodge PUD D Mine Dump Apartments 45,000 SF -0- 24 residential units 24 E Above- Lift lA 31 ,000 SF -0- -0- 46 F Top of Mill 50,000 SF -0- -0- 74 G Commercial Lodge 27,000 SF -0- -0- 904 Property H Along Mill Street 24,000 SF -0- -0- 36 I 700 S. Galena 21 ,600 SF -0- 16 residential units 215 1 employee unit J Little Nell R-15 114,700 SF -0- -0- 113 Lodge PUD K Little Nell 55,000 SF -0- -0- 2006 L The Lodge at Aspen 15,400 SF -0- 31 lodge units 31 4 employee units — TOTAL: 723 Notes 1 Based on standard lodge FAR of 0.67:1 tourist rental space and a room size of 450 square feet unless otherwise indicated. 2 Would require rezoning from R-15 to L-1 or L-2. 3 Based on area and bulk requirements of R-15 zone district. 4 Based on 2: 1 allowable FAR in CL zone, with 1 .5:1 assumed tourist FAR. 5 Based on rezoning of property to RBO. 6 Based on rezoning of surrounding property to SPA. Lodge Buildout Potential L-1/L-2 Existing Lodges Parcel Name Site Size Current Buildout Current Units New Unit Buildout Potential 1 Iverness 6,000 SF 7,392 SF 20 -0- 2 The Pines 6,000 SF 7,158 SF 9 -0- 3 Snowflake 19,000 SF 19,464 SF 26 2* 4 Limelight 36,000 SF 25,822 SF 60 15** 5 Deep Powder 6,000 SF 4,364 SF 9 2** 6 Aspen Manor 12,000 SF 7,913 SF 25 6** 7 Skiers' Chalet 18,590 SF 10,110 SF 18 1 * 8 Holland House 7,150 SF 8,179 SF 19 -0- 9 Hotel Jerome 47,712 SF 42,204 SF 39 67*** 10 Prospector 12,000 SF 8,528 SF 23 5** 11 Mountain Chalet 15,000 SF 22,032 SF 48 -0- 12 Blue Spruce 111 ,270 SF Not Available 81 **** 13 Aspen Inn 14 Continental Inn 31 ,612 SF 38,870 SF 177 -0- 15 Tipple Lodge 7,200 SF 4,930 SF 12 :* 16 Woodstone Inn 26,000 SF 42,145 SF 92 -0- 17 Carriage House 15,000 SF 4,989 SF 6 20*** 664 132 TOTAL: Notes * Based on demolishing and reconstructing the facility at a tourist FAR of 0.67:1 with rooms of 450 square feet. ** Based on an addition to the existing facility, with the addition occurring at a tourist FAR of 0.67:1 with -rooms of 450 square feet. *** Based on application currently under review. **** Due to current uncertainties regarding this site, the buildout potential was not calculated. ALMA i j RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM•.0 C.F.HnEr Y.f 1.B.P.A L.CO. — —' Continued Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission December 13 , 1983 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5: 08 p.m. with members Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, David White, Pat Fallin, and Paul Sheldon present. + ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE ADDITIONAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Harvey noted this was originally scheduled as a transportation discussion. Staff requested rescheduling. P & Z decided to have a study session on December 27th. White told P & Z at the last Council 'meeting, the Council threw out L-3 , CC and CL as zones permitted for time share . The Council will have a meetinc to discuss this December 27 , and White said the P & Z should be there. Vann recapped the results of the December 6th meeting at which the P & Z addressed the visual impact considerations of this project. The F'-6/RBO rezoning request was tabled until January 3 , 1984 , so that the applicant can meet with the neighbors and look at alternative solutions . The Commission discussed the change in use exemptions for the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus . Vann said he would like to clarify the planning office ' s review of the change in use issues. The applicant has taken some directives from P & Z and has made revisions to the facade. Vann said the P & Z needs to discuss the multi year allocation. The planninc office gave a presentation on the pros and cons of this year. Vann would also like to so through the list of suggested conditions. The P & Z needs to approve or deny to conceptual PUD subdivision submission; approve or deny change in use requests for the employee housing, and the award quota for the winner of the 1984 competition. Vann told P & Z Council had a brief presentation from the applicant' s at last night ' s meeting. Vann said the P & Z had intended to have a resolution at this meeting; however, they will try for December 20 . There has been an j appeal filed on behalf of Lyle Reeder, which may be heard at the December 27 Council meeting. The applicant would like some P & Z direction to the { outstanding issues . Vann said the change in use issue was not in the application, and initially the planning office only picked up on the change in use issue at the Copper Horse, which is zoned L-3 and would require this review. Subsequently, it became evident the Alpina Haus would also require a change in use to be deed restricted. The P & Z raised questions about the zoning, the legal jimplications of change in use, parking, and impact on the lodging inventory itself. The Alpina Haus, at 925 Durant, is zoned RMF, operated as a lodge or a non- conforming use in the zone district. Vann pointed out several of these units were deed restricted for another project. There are 44 units which house 47 people, 40 lodge rooms, 3 studio apartments and one dorm apartment . Rational behind change in use in the Code requires the applicant to demon- strate there are negligible or mitigatible impacts from the growth point of view in order to change the use of a project. One of the criteria is that this be an existing structure with a c/o for two years. In changing the use fro short term to long term use, the code requires the P & Z to find there are no impacts on employee housing. The demands of employees for the resort hotel will be off set by the deed restricting of these units; there will be no additional demands for employee housing as a result of the conversion. The Code also requires no additional demand for parking be generated. This is a problem here. There are 44 units in the building and there are 11 on site parking spaces. This makes it non-conform ing under the existing regulations. i I i Continued Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission December 13 , 1983 i Vann said a change to long term use could result in a greater demand for parking since local residents are more apt to have automobiles . The P & Z could give the applicant the opportunity to offer some techinique to mitigate the demand for additional parking. Another criteria in the Code is traffic , and Vann said there may be a slight reduction in traffic because of less turnover. Vann said the applicant will house less than the number of people associated with this site. The other impacts are police, fire protection, water, sewer. The planning office feels these would be relatively the same because this is not an increase in occupancy. Vann said the planning office is recommended granting the change in use exemption from growth management exemption for the Alpina Haus for deed restricted employee housing subject to; (1) use of the project be restricted to that use proposed by the applicants; (2) that the housing price guidelines be subject to housing authority approval and deed restricted accordingly, (3) that the applicant demonstrate prior to final plat or P & Z final approval I reasonable alternatives for dealing with substandard parking on the existing site. Vann said this is a non conforming use in the RMF zone and the applicant could technically occupy the project. The applicant is seeking points for the use of this housing through the growth management plan. Vann stated since it does constitute a change in use, review and approval by P & Z is essential to use it for employee housing under the lodge competition. Vann said since it is non-conforming, the Code requires that the quota be adjusted as a result of change in use. This use is going from lodge to residential , and therefore, the lodge quota should be credited in the number of units being removed from residential . Vann suggested this be credited to the L-1 I L-2 zone, which would increase the backlog of units to be eligible for award by Council upon recommendation of the P & Z . Harvey asked the Commission how they feel about the change in use, with the conditions , and how they feel about crediting the L-1 , L-2 with 44 rooms . Hunt said he has reconciled himself to the conversion of this structure. However, he is concerned with converting lodge rooms from the low end and jreplacing them with high end units. Hunt said there is some lodgic in using these units to mitigate years in advance quota; however, that exacerbates I cutting off low end units . Hunt said there does need to be some mitigation of the parking problem. Hunt said there is parking problems and road clearin 1 problems all over town. 1 White supports changing the use at the Alpina Haus; the parking has to be handled somehow. White said he would put the quota back into L-3 . White would like to take the quota from both the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus and split them between L-2 and L-3 so there would be more upgrading. Vann said the Copper Horse, if P & Z agrees to its conversion, will go into the L-3 . Sheldon said he would like to hear the statistics on the lodging profile so the P & Z can do what they are doing consciensly. Sheldon said he does not have a problem with the parking. The Alpina Haus quota should go back into L-1, L-2 . Ms. Tygre said the change in use for employee housing would be all right. Ms. Tygre said the rooms are fairly small. The applicant said they fall in j the minimum size. Ms . Tygre said the parking is not that much of a problem as it is within walking distance. If the applicants are willing to indicate some way to make it easy for the employees to get to the lodge, that would be nice. Ms. Tygre said she has concerns about the balance of the lodging industry, there will not be much new construction of low income units . Ms . Tygre said the the Alpina Haus is being taken out of the low end category it seems more logical to put the quota into L-3 . I Ms. Fallin said the conversion is fine; she would prefer the quota to go to parking is generally a problem in the city limits L-1 , L-2 . Ms . Fallin said and getting worse. The city needs to deal with the parking problem. Harvey said there is a consensus, with which he concurs, on the change in use. The parking should be a condition of preliminary PUD with solutions . Harvey said he feels strongly this quota should go into L-1 , L-2 as he feels comfortable with the L-3 quota and the P & Z is conscientious for getting ; upgrading of older lodges. Harvey said there is a problem with the multi- i i i ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM•.0 C.i.HOECK FL fl.0.A 1..CD. __-'.... 7 Continued Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission December 13 , 1983 i -3- year quota, and anything the P & Z can do to condense the time period would help. Adding these 44 units to the L-1 , L-2 quota will take more than one year off the multi-year allocations. Vann addressed the Copper Horse, which has come to the attention of the planning office that this is individually historically designated by Ordinance #57 , 1981 . As a result of this it is exempted from the change in use requirements pursuant to growth management exemptions. An historic 1 structure may change its use at will . However, the Copper Horse is currently zoned L-3 as a result of the class action rezoning; originally it was zoned O, office. While an historic structure can change use without going through the process, it can only change its use to a use permitted in the zone district. In L-3 , employee housing can only be accessory to the lodge opera- tion. Vann said there may be an argument that as part of the PUD, the housing is i accessorty to the L-1 , L-2 lodge; however, the planning office feels that the accessory provisions of the L-3 zone refer to the intent of the zone. One could assume that the employee housing is accessory to the lodge that is being preserved. Vann told P & Z in the office zone , multi family housing is allowed by right. By rezoning the Copper Horse to O, office, they could change the use to deed restricted employee housing under a GMP housing. The rezoning requires P & Z to make certain findings. Vann suggested if P & Z is favorable to this rezoning, that the applicant request a formal rezoning so that this can be published. This was previously zoned office, and the applicant is requesting to go back to the original zoning, which is consistent to the master plan and adjacent properties. Vann said the project is non conforming regarding parking; there are only four spaces. Vann recommended giving the applicant the opportunity to present some alternatives as in the Alpina Haus. Harvey asked when the parking would be addressed in this time table. Vann j said these two properties are not part of the PUD. The Alpina Haus is a one step process, and the P & Z can hold off on it until the applicant has a presentation. This could be done as part of the preliminary PUD. The Copper Horse the parking could be dealt with in the rezoning process. Harvey asked if the Copper Horse could be rezoned to 0, office, with specifics such that it not be used as offices. Vann said the applicant would suggest his conditions as an inducement of rezoning. 1 Alan Richman, planning office, told P & Z he went to the short term accommo- dations report to address the Board' s concern about balance in the lodging industry. Richman said he found 54 lodges containing approximately 1727 units , including 1380 lodge rooms with no kitchen, 259 lodge apartments and 88 dorm units. The condominium complexes and houses contain 1041 units, for a total short term accommodations in the Aspen Metro area of 2768 units with a total pillow count of 10 , 750 . Richman told P & Z he focused on 1727 units that the P & Z indicated concern about and obtained price information on 1684 units. The ARA rates units by economy, moderate and expensive. Economy has 291 units, which is 17 per cent; moderate 773 units at 46 per cent, and expensive. 620 units at 37 per cent. Richman said the Continental Inn is rated expensive and accounts for 28 per cent of the market. The Aspen Inn is rated moderate with 8 . 5 percent of that category. The Alpina Haus , Blue Spruce and Copper Horse of 86 units are 30 per cent of the economy units . There are only 88 dorm units, of which 21 units are included in the Aspen Mountain Lodge project; 14 at the Copper Horse and 7 at the Continental Inn, which is 25 per cent of the inventory. All dorm units are rated economy or moderate. Richman said another point is the percentage of units that are in the process of being reconstructed or up graded. Richman pointed out in the last five years , 8 projects have come through the P & Z for upgrading. Continued Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission December 13 , 1983 285 units have been upgraded in these last five year, which is 1/6 of the traditional lodge inventory. Richman said there are six projects in the Aspen Metro area in the approval process with Aspen Mountain Lodge, Highlands Inn, Holiday Inn, Hotel Jerome, Carriage House, and Endeavor Lodge and these projects propose to Upgrade 475 units . These units plus the ones that have already upgraded, there is an additional 44 per cent of the lodging inventory being upgraded. This is complying with the policy P & Z has been addressing. The additional proposed units of 430 added with the others total 1190 units which represents 65 per cent of the lodge inventory. Richman pointed out with the exception of the Continental Inn and Holiday Inn, the rest of these units fall into moderate and economy. Richman pointed out the total profile of Aspen' s lodging will probably shift toward the expensive end. Richman said there may also be a shift of existing units dropping into the lower price categories . Richman said if the proposed new units of 430 are built, it would be a 33 per cent increase in the size of the lodge inventory. Vann pointed out a goal to upgrade the quality of the lodging carries an increased price tag with it. The market place will determine whether there is an adjustment for other facilities. Ms. Tygre said rezoning the Copper Horse seems the simplest method and she would support a rezoning with conditions to make sure these remain deed restricted employee housing units. Ms. Tygre said she is concerned about the parking, transportation impact because of the location. Richman said one of the criteria in rezoning is parking, , which the applicant would have to address. Hunt said he would not support the rezoning as it takes away too high a percentage of the low end economy lodging. White said if the parking can be solved, he would support it. Sheldon said he feels taking low units out of the supply is an planning issue that needs to be discussed by the Commission. Sheldon feels the town may be faced with a market trend, that the demand for economy units is dropping. Vann said there is a parking problem, and without rebuilding the structure, no more spaces can be located on the site. Vann asked what solutions would be acceptable to the Commission. Hunt said when there are residents, there are automobiles on site . Hunt said generally lodges do not have a parking storage problem, but a traffic problem. Harvey said there could be a traffic generation problem by impacting the lodge site by employees driving to the site. White said the lodge could offer some long term parking at the site for their employees and run a shuttle. Ms. £allin moved to table the change in use exemption on the Alpina Haus until the first regularly scheduled meeting in January at which time the applicant will deal with the concerns on changing this to employee housing under the employee housing guidelines, dealing withthe concern on parking and transpor- tation problems involved in making this employee housing; seconded by Hunt. All in favor, motion carried. Vann said the remaining issues are the multi-year allocations and the concep- tual PUD. Vann said the area and bulk problems should be addressed prior to preliminary plat, and the applicant could have a work session. Harvey said assuming the transfer of the 44 units into L-1 from the Alpina Haus , there are 50 units in .the backlog and 35 units for 1983/4 , totalling 129 . Richman said to get the entire 480 units requested, the allocation would have to go out 2-1/3 years. Vann said the applicant has requested the reconstruc- tion of 277 units; the staff has verified 269 units . Six units will have to be decided between the building department and the attorneys office. Harvey said he has a problem with the number of units from the mass and impact point, and he would like a discussion of the massing before the P & Z decides about the number of units they will allocate. i 6 I 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM+0 C.F.NOECKFL B.B. Continued Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission December 13 , 1983 •-5- Larry Stricker, architect for the project, said at the last meeting, the P & Z indicated they would like some flexibility with the height regulations to alleviate the four story wall along Durant street. Stricker said the could eliminate the top story and incorporate them somewhere else. Stricker went i through drawings for the P & Z . - The lobby structure has been moved back 30 feet and put in a courtyard effect. The units can be relocated on the site. Stricker said he feels these plans reponds to the openness everyone is lookinc. for. Harvey asked the maximum height on Durant. Stricker said they have come down 10 feet to a .maximum of 42 feet. Harvey said he feels it is important that this hotel make a statement, if the view can be protected. The concerns were the view and a huge expanse of building in terms of the scale of Aspen. Alan Novak said these are only studies in response to the concerns of the P & Z . Stricker said the applicant would like an indication from the Commission they are going in the right direction, and that one of the presentations is preferred over another. Sheldon said the discussion is whether it is reasonable for the applicant to be designing the building at 480 units. Sheldon said these plans present an effort to mitigate some of the impacts. White said he likes scaling down the Durant avenue, is concerned about the height of the spire . White said he would rather see these units in the back. Hunt said the right plan lowers the mass and gives more walking visual view. Hunt said he is not totally against the spire, depending on where it is located. Hunt said the applicant is on the right track. Hunt said he does have a problem with total number of units. Ms . Fallins said she likes the j plan on the right, does have problems with the height of the spire. Ms. Fallin said she does not like the bridge . Stricker said the bridge could become a focal point for the town. Ms. Fallin questioned the number of rooms; the Hotel Jerome is going to expand. Harvey said the P & Z should be looking at the impact on the site and on the neigh- borhood. Ms. Tygre said she is favorably impressed by the applicant ' s desire to look at the Commission concerns. Ms. Tygre said the plans presented represent a reasonable attempt to look at the problem's of the Durant facade. Ms. Tygre said some of the concerns have been mitigated from a desigr standard; however, there is a lot of mass being stuffed into the site. Ms. Tygre said one of the perceptions of the tourist is how crowded is the mountain in relation to the lodging. An overcrowded mountain will have a negative effect on the tourist. Ms. Tygre said she is concerned about 900 people descending on Durant street at 10 a.m. and said what to do with all these people should be addressed. i' Harvey said the applicants know the concern about massing on Durant street anc the view. How these concerns are dealt with is a function of what works for the city and what works for the applicant. Harvey said he felt the applicant has done a good job responding to the concerns of the P & Z and their requestE Vann said the P & Z should talk about the number of units , the quota implica- tions, growth impacts, the non-bulk and mass issues. If the P & Z can reach a consensus about the number of units, the applicant will have a direction how to deal with the design. Alan Novak said the applicants have studied the growth management plan and since its inception in 1976 , there have been no lodge units built. When this lodge opens in 1986 , it will be the first lodge to open in ten years. This application is for a deteriorating, undeveloped center of town. There have only been two applicants in eight years. Novak said since there are an additional 12 units per year that can be allocated in L-1 and L-2 , they feel there is little impact on other developers in the lodge district. Novak said he feels this lodge will enhance the retail and restaurant businesses in town. i Continued Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission December 13, 1983 1 Richman pointed out that the growth management policy the P & Z has been working on reaffirms that 32 per cent growth rate is not a target it is a cap. Jerry Blann, Aspen Skiing Company, said one of their focus in the marketing program is to get more people in the shoulder season. Blann said this town needs a high quality full service hotel . Blann said it takes a high number of units to support this type of hotel . Blann said the Skiing i Company would support a multi year allocation for this project. Gary Plumley, Commercial Core and Lodging Commission, said the CCLC has been working on a lodge improvement district in this area for two years. Plumley ' said this applicant is willing to work with the CCLC on the lodge improvement district for basic things like curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lights , parking : and circulation. { Alan Shaffer said this application is beautifully put together; however, it generates mores questions than it gives answers. Shaffer said in the tabula- I tion of density along with the lodge, lock out rooms, one and two bedrooms suites, it totals 700 rooms. Doremus said based on their studies , the 480 rooms are to have an average occupancy of 713 guests . Hunt said this project would be very convenient to Little Nell and asked if there were any plans to develop lift 1A. Blann said there are plans to develop better access to 1A. Plumley said the CCLC has discussed this and it will probably be an issue in the lodge improvement district to get people from town and the lodging distric� to that lift. Plumley said the CCLC would like to find a way to better utilize lift 1A. Plumley said this project could enable some form of trans- ] portation to lift 1A. Sheldon said the impact on the airport of 211 additional units in the peak season on Saturdays would -be an additional 7 plan loads. Sheldon said he does not feel it is in keeping with the growth management plan to do all the units at once, this is exceeding the limits of the planned policy. Vann said if the Commission feels a hotel such as this is appropriate and the size is necessary to support the cost of the property, the conference facilities and the amenities , consideration of a multi year quotia is appropriate and is consistent with the Code which allows the flexibility to do this . Vann said the planning office feels the less multi year allocation that is used, the " I better for the objectives . Ms. Tygre said the Commission does have to weigh the trade offs between what is there now and a first class hotel, which is a valuable public service. The developer has made a good attempt to provide a first class facility. Ms . Tygre said she is concerned about the number of units , and about the balance of units. ' Ms . Tygre said by granting so much future quota, it would be precluding development of more moderate facilities. This may be manipulating { the market. Ms. Tygre said although not part of this particular proposal, the P & Z has to keep in mind other proposals for the rest of the site. Ms. j Tygre said she has no problem using the backlog of quota and this year' s quota, j and the conversion of the Alpina Haus units. Ms. Tygre said she would like to reduce the cumber of units down from 480 to get a more aesthetically pleasing building. Ms. Fallin said she has no problem with giving out prior years quota and with the reconstruction. Ms . Fallin said she has a problem with 480 units especial . . with what may come from other projects. Ms . Fallin said she arrived at 406 units giving reconstruction at 277 , 44 from the Alpina Haus, this year and prior quotas. I Hunt agreed he does not have problems with allocating future year' s quota since if this applicant waited until 1986 and no units had been built, there would be a backlog of units . Hunt said the P & Z said not allocating the future quota any more than what they are building._ Hunt said the lodge district is built out at this point. Hunt said he has a problem with the sheer enormity of the project on this site. Hunt said he is in favor of a first class hotel . Hunt said he would like to reduce some number of the rooms and get some of the bulk minimized. Hunt said he does have a problem with 480 units. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM•0 C.F.HOECNEL B.B.B L.CO. -- Continued Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission December 13 , 1983 _7_ White said he feels the town needs a quality hotel. The Commission needs to look at the overall impact , how many pillows there will be. White said because of the bankruptcy, the P & Z should be flexible. White said he feels the allocations should be 440 rooms. Sheldon said he would .love to see this project built; the Commission needs also to look at the airport, other potential projects and not create an imbalance. Sheldon said he would give the applicant 277 units for reconstruc- tion, 44 units from the Alpina Haus, 85 units from previous years and the 14 units from the Copper Horse for 421 units . Sheldon said the 480 units project is too big for impact coming on line all at once. Sheldon said he would like to see a first class hotel , but giving a quota of 480 units may cause trouble in the future for other projects. Harvey said he has a problme with the number of rooms because of the massing and bulk, and because of the future allocation. Harvey said he would like I to keep the allocation at two years beyond this year. Harvey said the P & Z has the ability to allocate future years allocations . Harvey, said fewer number of units will impact the area less. Harvey said a reduction by 50 rooms is -a maximum he would like to see and is comfortable with 440 rooms . The applicant can work with the massing and design to meet the problems that the community and P & Z has expressed. The P & Z should look at the important elements, the bulk, massing, impact on the area, and the product gained for the community. Novak said the applicant came up with the number of units after studying what they felt the site could accommodate, and what is a viable project, and they need 480 units for thisproject. Novak said 30 rooms will not impact a lot on this project; it is a big project. The applicant has many fixed costs that will not change, such as the parking costs, employee housing, excavation and development costs. Novak said every room taken away from this project will hurt the project. Ms . Tygre suggested scaling down the conference facilities . i Novak said the conference facility is all underground plus a conference facili for a first class hotel has to be a certain size. Hunt brought up the restaurant on the corner of Monarch and Durant, and said there is a parking problem in this area. Hunt said the only way he could j tolerate the restaurant is if there is valet parking for the restaurant. Sheldon said there is a quality !-.1:f -!.J -Fe in Aspen. The P & Z has stated in { its goals to strike a balance between economic development and the quality of life. The town is close to the capacity of water service, sewage, there is impact on schools , police, fire, etc . Sheldon said the town should keep the rate of growth in this community at a level that can be handled. Sheldon said _j a project of this size coming in line at once will alter the services in town -,a handling peak loads. Harvey said if the P & Z allocates future year' s quota, given the time schedul of this project, the growth management plan will be exactly on target. The time table of this project takes it to the end of 1985 . Hunt said a big project requires a big allocation. Hunt said this project seems to be in tune with the time . Most of the units are from prior year allocation and i from reconstruction or conversion. Hunt said he does not understand the resistance of giving future allocations if the project is necessary. Hunt said he feels the project is necessary but is not sure of the exact number. Joe Wells showed the areas designated for lodges or hotels, and the only designated sites for hotel units outside the applicant' s ownership are the Skiing Company parcel , the Lodge at Aspen, the Carriage House site and the Jerome. of those four sites, 31 units have been allocated to Lyle Reeder, 26 for the Carriage house and 66 to the Hotel Jerome, which leaves only the Skiing Company site which has not received approval for units in the entire area. Continued Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission December 13, 1983 Ms. Tygre said 480 units on this site is too much in one place at one time Ms. Tygre said she would feel comfortable with 406 units. Ms . Fallin agreed with 406 units , reconstruction and past year' s allocations . Novak said at cutting 30 or 40 rooms, the P & Z is taking the chance that the project will not be built. The project cannot carry itself at 400 rooms. Novak said cutting part of the spire would eliminate 16 units , which is the transfer from cutting down the lobby and facade on Durant avenue. Doremus pointed out this is a five acre site , and if they came in for five years for lodges with a 1 :1 FAR and no amenities , they would have the same or more people on the site . Sheldon said he is concerned about the shot term impact on this site that the town cannot handle. Harvey said he would like the P & Z to have a consensus on the number of units, and suggested 460 units. Sheldon said he would be comfortable recommending to Council one additional year' s allocation for a total of 440 units. White agreed with 440 units. Ms.. Fallin said she would go along with this. Ms . Tygre said 420 units. Harvey asked if the P & Z has discretion regarding the Copper Horse units. Vann said the Commission can make a recommendation on these units . Hunt said the Copper Horse belongs in L-3 . Hunt said he could live with 440 units unless the applicant cannot live with it financially. White moved to recommend an allocation of 450 rooms to Council ; seconded by Hunt. White said he arrived at this figure with reconstruction of 269 , past quota and one and a half years quota. Ms. Tygre, nay; White, ayQ; Sheldon, abstain, Ms. Fallin, nay; Hunt, aye; Harvey, nay. Motion NOT carried. Ms. Fallin moved to recommend approval of 464 room allocation for the Aspen Mountain Lodge; seconded by Harvey. . Hunt, aye; Ms. Tygre, nay; White, naye; Ms. Falline, aye; Sheldon, aye; Harvey, aye . Motion carried. Sheldon moved to continue the meeting to December 20 , 1983 , to discuss the conceptual PUD; seconded by Hunt. All in favor, motion carried. Commission left Chambers at 9 :00 P.M. Kathryn S . Koch, City Clerk i i i i i i I i 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves i FORM M C-F.HOECKEL B.B.a L.CO. Regular Meetinq Planning and Zonin Commission December 6 , 198 ° Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5: 05 p.m. with members Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee, David White , and Paul Sheldon present. Commissioners Hunt told the Board he has been informed by the Assistant Comments Chief of Police that signs are coming for parking on the j south side of city hall Nicholson - � lanning office, told P & Z this is located Change in Use Colette Penne, p { in the O, office zone, it is the Park Central West. The request is to change unit 101 from office to a one-bedroom residential units. This meets the criteris for exemption tc be in existence for two years. Ms. Penne said the conversio_ should not result in any increased traffic, or water, sewer, police and fire protection requirements. Ms . Penne said the office space accommodated six people. This will be a one bedroom unit occupied full time. One of the conditions is that. 15 parking space be reinstated on the site. There are 11 spaces currently, and there is room for 16 . The park dedication fee will have to be paid and ! covenants should be drafted to indicate this has gone throug' a change in use. Harve asked if the condominium association has approved this request. Al Nicholson said the change in use will not be effective until it has been approved by the condominium association. 1 Hunt moved to approve change in use of the Park Central West i building from office use to residential use for unit 101 wit' the conditions in the planning office memorandum of December 6 , 1983; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motio: carried. Resolution - Growth Manage- Alan Richman, planning office, presented a resolution and ment Policy Planrecommended P & Z approve it and recommend to Council this Update intent to adopt this . If Council approves it, it will come back to P & Z for adoption Richman told P & Z the language is essentially the same as in October. There have j been some minor changes that came out of the growth manage- ment policy forum. Richman said one of the things he heard ! in the forum was that P & Z should be doing something as i a residential environment. `x Sheldon said he feels this is a thorough condensation of a lot of information. Hunt pointed out there is a shortage ' of transportation related information in this. Richman said these are growth goals and objectives. Richman said the transportation planning will be part of P & Z ' s . discussion early 1984 and it is being worked on by staff. Anderson moved to adopt Resolution 83-13 stating P & Z ' s intent to adopt it and forwarding same to Council requesting them to endorse and comment on the goals , objectives and policies and refer comments back to P & Z; seconded by Ms . Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. Aspen Mountain Sunny Vann, planning director, reminded P & Z they had Lodge - started to discuss the additional review requirements for Additional this project; the public hearings on the two rezoning Review requests, review requirements on the PUD subdivision Requirements request, exemptions from GMP for employee housing. The only item disposed of at the last meeting was to turn down f 4 Planning and Zoning Commission December 6 , 1983 REgular Meeting g ' i rezoning request from L-1 to CL. The planning office requested additional information the the land located on Ute avenue the application is requesting in the to be rezoned from R-15 to R-6RBO. There are thisobe tabledns Nothing planning office, and the applicant has requested applicant is requires the P & Z to consider the rezoning at this time. The eligible for GMP allocations . Anderson said at the last meeting there was some public input about located that many units on Ute avenue. This problem will take a great deal of work. j Harvey re-opened the public hearing on the rezoning from R-15 to R-6/RBO on Ute Avenue. 1. Wright Hugus, attorney for Lyle Reeder, said he has no objections to tabling assuming there is a good faith effort to meet with the neighbors or determine an alternate site. is 2. Norma Dolle, resident in the area, said she is con theesite.beMsusDollesaskec a small piece of property. Ute Cemetery P if Silverking phase IV will be developed, and are there other places for employee housing. Ms. Dolle questioned the absolute need for employee hous- ing in an area which is already overcrowded. 3 . Bob Hughes, representing adjacent property owners, who object to the application in the current form but will not object to tabling as long as they can work with the applicants. Harvey continued the public hearing. Harvey asked if the applicant has plans to meet with the neighborhood to hear their concerns and to respond. Doremus said no plans have been made, 6 but they will. Anderson moved to table the rezoning from R-15 to R-6/RBO for 7. 5 acres site on Ute avenue to the first regular meeting in January with the condition that the city re-publish notice and that the applicant has agreed to bear the cost, and that if the applicant comes back in for further consideration of this rezoning request, that they have meet with the neighborhood repre- sentatives to hear their concerns; seconded by Ms. Fallin. Hunt said the applicant is not getting the benefit of the P & Z ' s concerns . One of the reasons this site was approved for employee housing for Little Annie was that the applicant was going to improve Ute avenue.. Historically Ute avenue has stayed as a pristine street without much load on it. Vann said the applicant' s have inquired about meeting with P & Z in a work session to discuss the Board' s concerns before the next hearing. This application needs to be moved forward to deal with the code requirements to a give out the quota allocation prior to the end of the year. All in favor, motion carried. Vann said the remaining issues for the lodge portion of this request do not a require public hearing. Some of the issues are final action by P & Z and some by Council. P & Z has not addressed the issues of architectural- J desing and impacts. Outstanding issues are request for exemption of the employee housing project on Ute; the rezoning has been tabled, so this should be discussed after the rezoning action. Other GMP exemptions being requested cover two existing structures to be deed restricted for employee housing. These conversions will require change in use determination. The other issue the P & Z must decide is that of multi-year allocations. At the last meeting the staff presented the pros and cons of this issue. The final item is to review the conditions the planning office- has suggested and direct staff to prepare a resolution so that this item can be forwarded to City Council . i 1 i j 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!9 C.E.HOECNEL B.8.&L.CO. Regular Meetinq Planning and Zonin Commission December 6 , 1983 I -3 Vann addressed the change in use for employee housing, the solution to the { lodge portion of the GMP is a three phased approach. As part of the GMP application, the applicant proposed to house 60 - 63 per cent of the net increase in employees generated by the lodge. The proposal is to do it at the Alpina Haus , which is zoned *RMF with 44 units to be deed restricted e:nployee housing, and the Copper Hor - se, which is L-3 and has 14 units. These two parcels would house half the employees generated. The remaining the Benedict site, if rezoned and would have employees would be housed on 50 units. The applicant is trying to house a variety of employees in varying different configurations. The conversion of the Copper Horse from L-3 to deed restricted housing would invoke the change in use provision, which requires P & Z to find the appli- cant has mitigated or there are negligible impacts in terms of growth in the community. Vann said the planning office feels the conversion to deed restricted housing is consistent with change in use, the would be reducing existing occupancy by 10 people . Harvey asked about the parking. Vann said the parking is sub-standard or non-conforming. The planning office would suggested a condition be that the parking not be reduced below what exists and that the applicant explore ways to supplement parking on-site. Vann said since the last meeting with the P & Z , the staff has additional information on the Alpina Haus. The Alpina Haus is zoned RMF and some of its units were deed restricted already for other approvals as employee units for the Woodstone. Vann said there is some question as to whether the Alpina Haus is operated short term accommodations or long term. If the Alpina Haus is going from short term to deed restricted units, it would be subject to the change in use provisions. If the P & Z finds it is a long term multi family use, then the existing units may not be required for change in use. Harvey asked the current status of the Alpina Haus. Alan Richman said in the short term accommodations report of 1982 , they reported themselves as a ledge. Vann said if this is converted to employee housing, it is a community benefit because housing is being met without increasing buildings. There is an impact on parking. Joe Wells told P & Z there are 10 - 15 spaces on site, which the applicant would commit to maintain. Sheldon said he would like to see .numbers of how many low priced lodge beds there are in the lodging inventory and what percentage are less that $25 per night, and how many or what percentage are being removed by the request for change in use. Sheldon said this be taken into consideration because ? the change in use is changing the profile of the lodaina community be removing low income beds and replacing them with high income beds. Ms . ;' Fallin asked if the Copper Horse were weekly or seasonal rental. Sheldon said they are nightly during the season, weekly, monthly in other parts of the year. Anderson said he feels the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus historically have served a segment that is important to Aspen and are not appropriate for conversion to employee housing. Anderson said he would like the applicant to come up with an alternative to house employees for this proposal . Pardee disagreed and pointed out the P & Z has tried to disperse employee housing throughout the community. This proposal is a chance to do that, and Pardee is in favor of this . The impact of this changE, is use is parking, and there will be fewer people at this site. Harvey asked to find out what percent of the low income market these two conversions would be. Anderson said he does not want to see a cut off in the low end to supplement the high end of the market. Sheldon guessed the Copper Horse might represent a:� much as 25 per cent of the dorms beds in Aspen. Ms. Tygre pointed out in the existing lodge rooms of Blue Spruce , k Regular. Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission December 6 , 1983 Continental , and Aspen Inn, there was a variable pricing structure and some of the rooms were not so great. Ms. Tyg.re said the loss of cheap hotel rooms has to be factored in. one of the issues is value perceived and received for what a person is spending. There should be rooms available for the person who does not have a lot of money. Vann said the Alpina Haus is zoned RMF and they could chose to rent to , employees long term without a deed restriction. The applicant is requesting a deed restriction. Vann said the criteria for change in use findings, the applicant must -demonstrate that the change in use will result in negligibly growth impacts on the community. one of these is an activity that will result in an increase in employee housing, these are becoming employee housing. Another is increase in parking, traffic, water, sewer, drainage etc. The impact on lodging is not specifically addressed as a criteria in the change in use exemption. Harvey suggested giving the applicant specific informational needs and direction from P & Z. Harvey listed current pricing on the lodge rooms at these two places, what percentage that represents of comparable priced pillows in the lodging corL-nuriity. Anderson said these two facilities fulfill a worthwhile function in Aspen for tourists. Anderson said he would like to see some other facilities in the estate used for employee housing; there should be some other options. Pardee said P & Z made a strong stand on employee housing. The community warts it. The P & Z has encouraged it to be dispersed throughout the community. The applicant is proposing to take some exising lodge units and 7p _ has `;.o to e a convert them to en!ployee housing. Pardee -said the P & Z step in order to get employee housing that is a benefit to the community. Pardee said no one can make a perfect project. Lee Miler said the lodging community has had the finger pointed at. it because of the lack of quality. Here is the opportunity to take two lower end lodges and get .the benefit of employee housing. A person who pays a package deal to come here does not know exact13T what they are paying per nip ht. Miller encouraged to Colrffi �ssion to convert these 3.odr es to employee housing. Carol Fuller said she resent-s taking something from the hist-oric i.nve story and turn-n? it into employee housing. fs, Fuller said the u'mplo_R'ees Should be housed at the lodue Project. This is changing the character of Aspen. Maureen. McCloskey said it not just a question of losing these two lodges. There is a gradual erosion of low cost rooms for people to come stay in T �� with, applicants tr na to iie 1p Aspen. .,ira Curtis said he has worked ��ith the app y with employee housing. Clart i s observed this is a catch 222 5.�-tlat:ion. The GC1^'sT;Lr1tV iit:S stresSe3 i:i: � -eed for employee housing and for employers ;ie housing,. Everyone is looking For the perfect sol uf-i��rt, as to provide t lone as it is not in their bac.yard. Marge Riley questioned what kind of employees will be using these units, will they be happy with a sharing arrangement. Vann said if the units are deed restrict ic:d., - -they would be subject to the income and occupancy guide- lines of the 1�ot?sing authority. Vann said the A±pirxa. F�aus is z+ rod R1SF and raulti fawily :.i:;es ar. e al cn ed by right. The planning. office is suagest- ing deed restricting them in order to meet the employee housing commitment of the GMP. The planning office is recommending going through the change in uge procedure. because there are quota implications . Harvey said for the Alpina Haus as a lodge, the P & Z. cannot insist that a non-conforming use be continued. Vann said he would have to check whether a deed restriction on the Alpina Haus would require a change in use . Richman said the use proposed for the Copper Horse is not allowed in the zone district and would probably involve a rezoning. This is a master plan issue. Vann suggested the staff check into the change in use will be required by deed restriction, and if the applicant can meet the employees units. The staff will look at the parking issues for these project; will look at the impacts on the low end of the lodging market associated with a change in use of these facilities, the implications from zoning if the Copper Horse needs rezoning. r 1 )11{ I i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM vl C.F.HOECNEL B.B.B L.CO. "- I Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission December 6 , 1983 j -5- i { Architectural Design and Visual Impacts. Vann said the PUD request is for 1 the entire site. The P & Z is considering the lodge portion of that PUD. The planning office raised several concerns in scoring of the GMP with respect to design and impact of the project. The P & Z scores reflected that concern. Vann said the concern is the mass of the building along Durant street in the vicinity of Rubey park, the intersection of Durant and Mill streets, the conference center entrance , and the intersection of Monarch ! and Durant streets. Vann said since the scoring, the applicant has spent time working on these elevations and has come up with some things to address that concern. Vann noted the PUD regulations allow a variance of the area and bulk requirements with the exception of uses and density. The applicant is request a variance from the height regulations, which are 28 feet and from the applicable FAR for the zoning. Vann said there are about six zone district in the entire PUD site. The staff did rough calculations and approximately 360 , 000 square feet could be constructed under the underlying zoning on the entire PUD site, which is a composite external FAR of . 88 :1 . Vann told the Board the upper portion of the site is zoned R-15, and the external FARs are calculated on lot size, and it depends on how they are subdivided. Under the rezoning of Top of Mill to L-1 , which has been requested but not heard, and assuming Council would also deny the rezoning request on the hotel from L-1 to CL, the maximum FAR would be 425,000 to 430 , 000 square feet, for an FAR of 1 . 05 :1 . Vann said a significant portion of 103 ,000 square feet is zoned conversation, which cannot be used for FAR purposes. The total build out for the site proposed by the applicant, including the residential , is 510 , 000 to 520 ,000 square feet for an FAR of 1. 25 :1, which is 40 per cent greater than what would be allowed under the underlying zoning. The entire site is 510 , 000 square feet if that portion zoned conservation is counted. Vann opined the real issue should be the visual appearance, height,. compatability with adjacent structures, how it will work in in terms of the surrounding land uses. Larry Stricker, architect for the project, presented the model and told the Commission he has tried to keep the height and mass down and still provide the number of rooms to keep the project viable . Stricker pointed out the height of the building has been mitigated in the wings by breaking the building into smaller segments. They have taken the Durant street elevations and the rooms facing Wagner park and dropped them a floor to Great an additional break in the roof, which has reduced the impact on Durant street. Stricker described the treatment of the exterior . Stricker said the model shows the overall massing of the building; the drawings show how the building will be broken up by the detailing of the facade. Harvey asked the maximum height of the building on Durant street. Stricker said the peak of the roof is 52 feet. They have been looking at a structural. system to reduce the floor to floor height. In the original submittal the height was over 60 feet . Stricker demonstrated that the site line is considerably less than the Mountain Chalet, which is right on Durant street. Vann said the issue is that the Durant street elevation, which is the main conference entrance, will extend all the way from Galena to Mill street. The architect has broken up the visual perception; however, one will be looking at a nine lot long structure . Vann is concerned about the compati- bility with adjacent buildings in terms of scale. Doremus pointed out there are already three building that exceed the height of the hotel . The Code suggests addressing the surrounding neighborhood for height rather than what the Code says for height . Doremus said these buildings do not look bad because they are going up a hill , the background keeps getting higher. Vann agreed that a variance from the height may be Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission December 6 , 1983 appropriate. The wings of this project going up Monarch, Mill and Galena do work. Doremus said the building is set back 50 feet from Durant so that the perception of the view blocked is lower. Vann said a concern is ilding , regardless of whether it blocks the the perceived bulk of the bu view of the mountain. Stricker showed the side street elevations, which have been softened by bringing some two story roof elements in. Alan Novak went through some of the design changes. Novak said the applicants do not believe they are substantially blocking views of the mountain. Novak said in a PUD the applicant works with the staff to get a project. One cannot design a hotel instantly, there has to be design development to come up with a quality design and addressing concerns. Vann pointed out the detailed architectural review occurs to preliminary PUD stage . However, it is appropriate the architect be notified of P & Z ' s concerns so they do not proceed with the design if the Board has problems. Vann suggested there are visual bulk concerns with certain elements of this building and the applicant should address that as part of the subsequent review of this project. Mike Strang said things are happening in this community, there is a revitali- zation of pride. The community is talking about a large good hotel in Aspen, renovation of theWheeler , building a performing arts center. Strang urged the community to approach this with a positive approach. Don Crawford said the model is nice but one cannot get the impact from a model. Crawford said he would not like the 28 height limitation to be violated. Crawford said he was shocked to find that the developer is condo- miniumizing the hotel , which will create a real estate depression. Crawford said no more units are needed on the market. That will take the hotel out of the world class category. Crawford said the amenities are needed to attract conventions and questioned if the town wants conventioneers wandering around town. Marge Riley said she is concerned about the pollution that will be caused by the development of this size, and how the traffic will be handled with 475 cars more daily in the summer. Norma Dolle read a letter to the P & Z from Carl and Katie Bergman who are opposed to this project. Fritz Benedict suggested moving in large trees to help disguise the effect. Benedict said the developer is dedicated to doing a good project for Aspen. Benedict said he felt the design is an unusual solution to try and lower the building. Benedict said this hotel will help maintain Aspen' s position in a competitive resort world. Ralph Melville, owner of the Mountain Chalet, said his building is only 30 feet wide; this building is 270 feet wide. This is a lot of project to have to look at from downtown. This hotel changes the character of downtown. Melville said this is too much and too high for one building. Stricker said it is not possible to take in the entire building in one ' s vision. Mark Freidberg said there is difficulty in accepting change . Freidberg said unless this town is prepared to put up a first class hotel to accommodate that portion that is not coming to Aspen that will help Aspen with their activies, Aspen will not overcome their problem. Freidberg said the applicants have done a good job trying to resolve the mass and the number of rooms to make this project viable. This town should be ready to go forward. Tom Griffiths , Bank of Aspen, said he feels this project will have a significant positive impact on the entire town, and is in favor of the project. Harry Teague said he is not too excited about this project in terms of design and massing; however, it seem the project might be able to have it seem less bulky if the Commission is flexible in response to height. Teague said the architect, in trying to keep the height down, is forcing the bulky mass. Teague suggested letting portions of the building be higher, and portions lower. This is a possible solution - to the massing. This is one of the largest buildings in town, and it is appropriate that it be taller than other buildings, like the Wheeler, Hotel Jerome and Catholic Church. Alan Shaffer said he is concerned with the overall use of the mountain; it hs to be handled very carefully. Shaffer agreed Aspen has to have a first class lodging in town. Shaffer said he disagrees with certain elements of i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORK•A C.F.KOFCKFL S.B.S L.CO. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission December 6 , 1983 - -7- 1 ! this and its significant impacts . Shaffer said these impacts have to be addressed. Shaffer said the Commission is talking about design and massing. The Commission ought to look at Woodrun Place at Snowmass to get a balance 1 and equilibrium. Woodrun Place is a facility of condominium units of 55 units. The Commission ought to then look at the models and renderings and i reflect on the possibilities. This proposal is for 520 units on 112 acres . This project has visual impact, impact on transportation and other city services. The open space should be changed some . Shaffer said town has got to have the hotel, but footprint, bulk and size have to be mitigated. Alan Novak said the applicants have not decided on the method of financing but are considered condo-kel (?) financing, which is a security offering. Perry Harvey read a letter from the First National Bank supporting the project and saying every effort should be made to provide Aspen with a quality facility. Pardee said he agreed with Teague' s suggestion about flexibility with height to lessen the bulk. Pardee said he is concerned about the Durant street facade, also. Pardee said he is willing to allow higher height limitations in different areas , as long as the views are protected. Pardee said his concerns are view planes and bulk. Pardee said the number of units are secondary compared to the view plane and visual impact. Pardee said he is not convinced about the bridge and feels it is just as easy to have a tunnel . Pardee said the applicant owes the P & Z explanations as to the trade offs for the street vacations . Pardee said with some architectural freedom, this building can have an exciting front. Ms. Tygre said a lot of concerns about the project center around the Durant street facade, and therefore, agreed with flexibility of height. Ms . Tygre said she would be willing to varying the heights in order that gets somethinc_ that looks better. The applicant should have the opportunity to play with the numbers in terms of height. -Ms. Tygre said she did not want to address the number of rooms at this time. Ms. Fallin said she felt the site, at present, is a disgrace and it has to be improved. She is concerned about the mass and bulk. Ms. Fallins said if the Commission is willing to work with the applicant on the height variation-. she would like to see the bulk reduced. - Ms. _ Fallin said she is concerned about the number of rooms, but would like more information before making a decision. This interacts with what happens with the Jerome and the L-3 zone and what will happen at .ne Institute. Sheldon said he likes the spirit of the application. The applicants have worked hard to come up with a design to work for them and for the community. Sheldon said he likes the pools and they contribute to the aesthetics of the site. The aesthetics are pleasing from the interior. Sheldon said he likes the Monarch facade with the varied heights, designs and exterior facades. Sheldon said he does have problems with the application; it is too many rooms. Sheldon said he does not feel the hotel has to be 480 rooms to make it a world class hotel . Sheldon said the P & Z did not address the issue of the convention facility in the GMP. Sheldon said he does not like the bridge, especially as a bar or lounge, this is public space and it is not appropriate to be used as a private facility. Sheldon said the public trade offs have to be discussed. Sheldon said the facade should be broken up. The issue is one of quota and mass, impact on growth management policies Sheldon said fe feels, architecturally, this is an innovative, workable design. White said that Aspen needs a quality hotel , and this group is trying. White said aesthetically he likes it, he likes the amenities. The mass on Durant street bothers him. White agreed with varying the height to change the mass on Durant street. White said on the room issue, he does not know as he is not a hote expert. The bridge does not bother him that much. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission December 6 , 1983 on of the traffic on Durant street White said he does not see any mitigati and wants some solutions. Anderson said this is going to be one of the most important structures in this town. Anderson said he feels �hneedhtoldominateatheltownrbutsneedseto. Anderson said the structure does n o state what it is. Anderson objected to the tunnel effects up mill street. Anderson said he does not feel the project incompatible onDuat with sreetneedsetoubeound- * ' ing buildings. Anderson said the ele4 re-arranged. Anderson said he does not mind the bridge. ; Hunt agreed with previous statements about the apparent bulk. Hunt agreed tr about varying roof heights. Hunt said the new andeMonarch streetshe right hasack.sign Hunt said regarding the restaurant on grave reservations about that. The only way he could deal with it is if the he hotel has valet parking and all the cars go in the garage. Otherwise, cannot deal with the restaurant. Hunt does not want a premier hotel that is c ondominiumized. The number of rooms, Hunt cannot address because it has to do with the financial aspect of the project. Harvey said the P & Z is dealing with the perception of the size of the 1 r and the massing. Harvey agreed with previous statements on the project osed to the bridge . Harvey said height variation. Harvey said he is not opp he would like to see more architectural drawings on the brddge to get a better feel for it. Vann said the P & Z could deal with the sthedlcanlc ntinueh this lmeeting allocations and the conditions of approval ,. Y the P & Z wants to see until the next week. Harvey said at this meeting, deal with the multi information about the number of rooms, Y year allocation. Anderson moved to continue the meeting to Tuesday, December 13 , at 5 :00 P.m. ; ; seconded by White. Meeting concluded at 7 : 55 p.m. -21Kathryn S och, City Clerk f I I i i { i { r1 q� i U!, l( 2 C. 1983 taSPt PLANNING OFF" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves I FORM 4 C F.HOECKEL B.B.d L.CO. _.. Regul ,• ei;; o.-Winning and Zoning Commission November 29 , 1983 i i Vice Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order with members David White, Jasmine Tygre, Lee Pardee, Paul Sheldon and Rogert Hunt present. L-1/L-2 LODGE GMP COMPETITION - Aspen Mountain Lodge Additional Review ' Requirements r a ISunny Vann, planning director, said this meeting it to review other requiremen't. in the application and to make a decision on the quota, if possible. Vann presented a scoring summary. The GMP process for the Aspen Mountain Lodge is only the first step for this project. All the steps will be reviewed by P & Z and/or by Council . Vann said other reviews are conceptual PUD/ subdivision review, two rezonings, exemption from GMP for employee housing, two change in use exemptions, two street vacations, a possible view plane review and a possible amendment to a previous application on this site. The Commission scheduled a site visit for 4 p.m. Tuesday, December 6th. Vann said the site is a composite of parcels and presented a chart showing these. The applicant proposes to build a 480 unit hotel on the northern portion of the site, 30 to 35 residential units on the southern portion, and a 12 unit project at the 700 South Galena. This applicant has competed for the lodge portion of the project. The residential competition will take place in January. The applicants want a restaurant association with the hotel which will have to go through the commercial competition in the spring. The P & Z is looking at conceptual PUD for the lodge portion of the overall site. To be eligible for PUD, the applicant has to demonstrate reasonableness of the proposal , conformity to design requirements, lack of adverse impacts on the community, and consistency with the planning regulation. These regulation; were designed to encourage flexibility; these regulations enable the P & Z to vary the area and bulk requirements except for density and uses. Vann said the hotel and residential uses can be accommodated without rezoning. Vann said where the applicant is taking advantage of PUD regulations is in the overall external FAR and the heighth regulations. L-2 zone has a 28 foot height restriction. Vann told P & Z the planning office feels that this project is consistent with the intents, purposes and design parameters of the PUD process. Vann said, generally, successful competition in GMP indicates the majority of impacts or mitigated or an applicant would not score high enough in the categories to win the competition. The planning office feels, in this project, j under the conceptual PUD process there are a number of concerns that should be addressed. The major area of concern has to do with Architectural design/visual impact of this project. This concern is echoed in the planning office scores and also those of P & Z . The planning office thinks the project is innovative and the applicant has tried to reduce the bulk associated with a project of this size. A substantial portion of the project is subgrade, all parking is subgrade. Vann said in several of the elevations, the scale of the project is inconsis- tent with adjacent uses with a substantial impact from a visual point of view. Vann said a major concern is the facades of the building that are visual from town as a whole. The applicant asked this be addressed later to see if the architect will arrive. Vann said the applicant scored highly in traffic, parking and circulation; however, the planning office is concerned about the implications of the impact on parking and traffic associated with a project this size. Vann said he . would like specific proposals the applicant intends to implement to mitigate parking and circulation before preliminary PUD. Another area of concern is the requested street vacations and a number of encroachments into public rights. of way. The applicant is requesting the vacation of Dean street between Galena and Monarch and Lawn street from Monarch to the interior of the site. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 29 , 1983 1 The applicant is requesting an encroachment on Mill street for the pedestrian i bridge, and encroachments for the parking garage . Jay Hammond, engineering department, pointed -out the vacations on the map. Lawn street is a dead end, two full blocks of Dean street. Hammond said the engineering department views Lawn street as relatively unimportant for circulation; it dead ends within the site. Lawn street services properties all owned by the applicant. The { westerly block of Dean, the circulation impacts would be minimal if vacated because .it would remain a street through the site. Hammond recommended if the street is vacated, public use be maintained. Hunt questioned if this plan would allow semi-trucks access. Hammond said both bridges should be of a height to allow . semis to pass under. Hammond said the other block of Dean would be eradicated by the site plan and would be lost to circulation. Hammond said in the cases where the rights-of- way are lost, he is suggesting it should be made clear that the city can have contact with those utilities in the rights-of-way. These utilities should either not be impacted and that any routing needs that may be impacted are i accommodated by the site plan in another fashion. Hammond said the site plan will improve circulation significantly. There are currently a number of conflicts in that area; this site plan will reduce these conflicts to only four points, as opposed to existing 12 points of conflict. Hammond said the engineering department view the trade offs as positively. Hammond said in any vacation the city is giving up certain rights. The site j plan should be evaluated so that the off site improvements proposed by the applicant would compensate the city for the rights-of-way through the project. Hammond said the encroachments include a bridge, the underground structure that will connect the two underground parking structures , loop access to the underground parking, and a grease trap extending into the sidewalk. On Mill street there is a pedestrian structure that will connect the two main hotel structures. Hammond supports this request as it will allow guests to access either side without getting to the street level . In the case of the under- j ground encroachment, it will allow the site plan to work more efficiently. Sheldon asked if the overpass would only be pedestrian access. Vann said therc will be a lounge there. Hammond said another encroachment is a loop structure for parking on Durant, and' the grease trap on Monarch. The engineering depart- ment support the Mill street request but does not support either Durant or Monarch encroachments at this time . Hammond has asked the applicant for more details for these two. Hammond said he felt the grease trap should be laccommodated on site. John Doremus said the loop onto Durant is because the site is constrained due { to the number of parking spaces requires. There will be two levels of parking Doremus proposed to have a revocable license for this encroachment should the city need it in the future. Doremus said the grease trap may not be important and they will try and find another solution. Doremus said the applicant is willing to discuss the rights the city wants on Dean, it should be a shared I use. Doremus said as far as payment in-kind for the rights-of-way, he would like to be able to prove the applicant is going beyond normal expectations as far as improvements for the whole neighborhood. Hammond said what he is i asking is that it be clear the developer is doing alot of off site impr ovement. which will be of value to the neighborhood and the city. Hunt said on west Dean street the Mountain Chalet has visitor parking there , and what rights will the Mountain Chalet have . Hammond said in the vacation, the entire street would be vacated to the applicant with the exception of the frontage of the Mountain Chalet. If the city vacates this street, the Mountain Chalet would have to pick up the other half. Pardee said he is uncomfortable with the licensing approach. The P & Z should either allow the encroachment or not. Pardee said he feels very strongly against the bridge across Mill street. Pardee said he feels the city needs the project but is should be kept as invisible as possible and fit into the other structures as possible. i i i 1 a 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.I.HOECNEL B.B.!L.CO. Continued Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 29 , 1983 -3- White suggested if the city vacates the street, there should be an exchange for an overpass pedestrian walkway to Rubey park. This area of the city is very dangerous for pedestrian. This could be underground rather than an overpass just some way of transporting pedestrians to Wagner and Rubey park. Pardee said if the applicant is going to improve the intersections , maybe they would heat the intersections and sidewalks to make it safer. White said he feels strongly something should be done for people crossing Durant street. White } said he also would like the arrival of buses at this site addressed by the architect. : I. Ms. Tygre said she is not thrilled with the overpasses, this adds to the visua_ jimpact. Ms. Tygre suggested the bridge be lowered to still allow vehicular access but lessen the visual impact. Ms . Tygre said she like the idea of heated sidewalks because Durant street is very icy and the facade of the hotel will exacerbate the problem. Hunt agreed the Mill street bridge should be kept to a minimum height. Hunt would like to see some access to Rubey park for pedestrians . Hunt said he would rather see an underpass to Rubey park than surface or an overpass . The applicant told P & Z the traffic consultant did not feel an overpass over Durant street was practical or productive. The applicant said they will go back to the traffic consultant for suggestions and ideas . Vann said the P & Z could add their concerns to the review over circulation or Rubey park, the issue of reimbursement and what the applicant is proposing to do off site, and have the applicant come back with additional information at the preliminary 1 plat stage. Pardee said the vacations could be acceptable if there are 1 sufficient reimbursements in-kind to the neighboring community, the traffic jflow, access to Rubey park. Vann said this project is a subdivision to separate the lodge portion of the PUD from the residential portion. This is not referenced in the conceptual PUD and the plat should be submitted at preliminary PUD. Vann said an area of concern is the ownership of the property. The city attorney said after reviewing this, ownership is sufficient to allow competition under GMP as well as PUD review. There needs to be a survey of the area as a condition of 1 conceptual PUD. Ms . Tygre brought up the Woodstone application and that I several units at the Alpina Haus were deed restricted for employee housing for the Woodstone. With the change in ownership, these units seem to have disappeared. Ms. Tygre said when the ownership is straigtened out, she would like these units to stay on the books as deed restrictied units. City I Attorney Taddune said his policy is that any deed restrictions that benefit the city be placed first priority over any encumbrances. Taddune said the -� problem is that deed restrictions are placed on record after prior liens . Taddune suggested that any deed restrictions with this project be established first in priority. Taddune said his opinion is that these deed restrictions were put in after the mortgages on the property, that the foreclosure has voided those restrictions. Taddune said this might not affect this project, but the Woodstone is being noticed this might jeopardize their approval . Vann said these units will not be lost from the inventory; however, the Woodstone will have to provide some units .. Taddune said the solution may be money in lieu. Ms. Tygre said generally over the years units have been deed restricted and then disappear. Taddune agreed he is upset that approvals are granted based on providing employee units; the approvals are granted, but the j city does not get employee units . Hunt agreed and stated he voted against the Woodstone approval because of the provision of employee units at the Alpina Haus and parking at the Continental. Taddune said the parking situatic I is the same . Pardee asked what the letter of consent is- consenting to Vann said this is a request from the city attorney' s office as part of the ownership documents . Continued Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 29 , 1983 Taddune said his concerns have been satisfied. Vann told P & Z the health j department, in its referral , has noted specific concerns dealing with the operations proposed. The are not appropriate to conditions for conceptual been j approval. These have p . I Anderson said because of the effect of the Can bankruptcy on the general economy of Aspen, he would like a requirement to use local contractors as much as practical and possible. Taddune said that may be the inclination of an applicant, but to impose that as a condition would be irregular. Anderson said there is a precedent for doing this legislatively. Taddune said there is precedent for this in public projects. Pardee said he feels this is not part of the P & Z venue. The contractors here will bid like the rest of 7 people in business. Doremus told P & Z they are of the same mind themselves , and want to use locals wherever possible. where this is Sheldon said the are germaine is in in-kind concessions to the city of Aspen in exchange for the street rights-of-way. + Pardee said this is the biggest project ever for Aspen, and this will take up allocations for future years. No one can be sure the project will be built, I there are a number of contingencies, etc . Pardee said he felt any future allocations should be contingent upon absolute starting of the project and keeping to schedule. Pardee said he is uncomfortable about giving future allocations to this project and having it sit around like all the others. Vann said the architect cannot make it, and suggested taking up the design issues next week and continue through the issues in the memorandum. Vann said the applicant is requesting four rezonings, only two of which are germaine to the lodge portion of the project. One rezoning is on the hotel site, which is the L-1 strip just south of Durant street which takes in the Blue Spruce, Chase duplex, Mountain Chalet, parking lot. The applicant is requesting it be rezoned to C-L. The second rezoning relates to the employee housing which is off site. The planning office requests this be postponed pending further information. Vann said CL is a zone district which allows commercial useage at street level and lodge uses above. This is a transition zone between the commercial core and pure lodge uses. Vann said private rezoning requests are heard in April i and October. The code allows P & Z or Council, upon request, may sponsor a rezoning request. The rationale for this request at this time is that it may I be heard at the same time as the PUD. The applicant' s argument is the { increased traffic on Durant street makes it no longer practical for construc- tion of lodge uses at ground level , and CL zoning is more appropriate. Vann said the planning office feels there is some truth in the statement. The l architectural design does not provide the types of uses allowed under CL zoning and is inconsistent with the intent of the CL zone district. The street uses as proposed as accessory hotel operations, not street level commercial uses. I Vann said the planning office feels the primary reason for this request is to take advantage of the greater FAR in the CL zone. The L-1, L-2 FAR is 1: 1 , the FAR in CL is 2 :1 . However, an application under PUD allows the variance of the FAR requirements of the underlying zone district if the project meets the criteria for PUD development. If this is zoned CL, the variance being requested is less than that in L-1 district. Vann said the planning office feels a rezoning should not be gone through just to make the numbers look better but if the project makes sense as a project. Vann said he feels there I is no benefit, even to the applicant, other than a statistical one, or to the city by rezoning this property. i { Vann said the Mountain Chalet is a co-applicant in the rezoning of their i property to CL. This would provide an opportunity, under CL, for the recon- struction of the Mountain Chalet. This would allow a 32 foot height restriction in the CL, rather than 28 feet. Vann said it is not necessary to facilitate the uses proposed by the applicant. Vann told P & Z the one non- accessory use in the proposal is a restaurant where the Blue Spruce is locatec Vann said an accessory commercial space may be constructed in conjunction witr a lodge GMP application. This restaurant will require a commercial GMP allocation because there is no credit in the existing property. This is a conditional use in the L-1 zone district. Vann said the CL is not required in order to allow the construction of this restaurant. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM U C.E.HOECKEL B.B.R L.CO. Continued Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 29 , 1983 -5- The planning office recommends P & Z deny the request to sponsor the rezoning and recommend to Council if they consider sponsorship, they also deny the request for rezoning. Doremus said there were some things the applicant did not know about the code when they proposed this rezoning. Doremus said he had not realized a restau- rant could be a use by special review in the L-1 zone. Doremus said the applicant was not sure that a restaurant was the only commercial they wanted for that space. Doremus said if the park were not across the street, it would be zoned CC and this site would be a could CL transition zone. Doremus said rooms on the first floor at this site are totally unappropriate . 1 Pardee said if this is not rezoned, the only thing the applicant would lose is the flexibility of the 8 , 000 square foot parcel . Pardee asked what the jother conditional uses are. Vann ' said satellite dishes, time sharing and restaurant. Vann agreed if the park was not across the street it is possible this might have been zoned CC or CL, but the park is there and it is an amenity. The L-1 and L-2 zones extend to the west and to the north and is j a logical transition to the development patterns that have occurred. Vann said the staff is concerned about extending CL up to Monarch, and the ability to maintain an argument against further CL zoning. i Hunt said from a land use point of .view, he feels it inappropriate to allow buildings with store fronts facing on a park. Hunt said he is not disposed towards rezoning. Joe Wells told P & Z the applicant is filing this week the PUD for the balance of the site, the residential GMP application. Wells said there has been a change in the residential program. Vann said the planning office is deferring comments until they have seen the new material. White said he is concerned if this goes to CL zoning, it has doubled the price of the Mountain Chalet. There will be pressure from other lodges to do the same thing. The P & Z recommended against CL zoning for the Buckhorn. { White said the Commission should make variances for this project through other means other than rezoning. ' 1 Anderson opened the public hearing for rezoning from L-1 to CL. I I Don Crawford, citizen, is opposed to the rezoning and creating more commercia- - zones. The existing establishment need support not more competition. Vann j gave a letter from Crawford for the record. Carol Fuller, resident, said she resented this being treated by some individuals as a public project. The amenities are meant for the hotel ' s guests. Ms. Fuller said she could not believe that this concrete corridor with this density up two main streets blocking the view of Aspen mountain can be considered. Ms. Fuller said there _Ji is nothing charming about this project. Vann gave a letter from Ms . Fuller i for the record. j Alan Shaffer asked if P & Z could approve a rezoning qualified by the appli- cant to restrict his FAR. Vann said it is difficult to condition rezonings. 1 In this application, P & Z could rezone the site and achieve the same result through the PUD restrictions. The P & Z could rezone to give flexibility for the use but reduce the bulk through PUD. Vann said he did not feel rezoning should be used to permit uses at this site when the implications for the Mountain Chalet are so signficant. Taddune said if the applicant i offers restrictions to induce the city to rezone, the restrictions become more legally enforceable. Richman said the concerns of the planning office go beyond the FAR; disbursement of commercial zones throughout the community is not desirable. Vann said the staff finds it difficult to support this request within the rezoning requirements . I Marge Riley, representing the committee to preserve- open space, stated the committee does not object to the hotel but does object to the extra commercial space proposed and the rezoning. The committee feels that , Continued Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 29 , 1983 present zoning is sufficient. The committee would like to know how much commercial space would provided under existing zoning and how much would exist with the zoning change. The committee would like to know how many hotel rooms would be allowed under the existing zoning and how many with the change in zoning. Vann said this will be addressed at the next meeting under design discussions. With respect to the commercial question, the entire ground floor from Monarch to Galena could be commercial space. The construc- tion of that space would be submit to GMP review. The rezoning would not allow the construction of that space but would facilitate it. Barbara Sharp told P & Z she agrees with every word Ms. Fuller said and totall, i opposes the zoning. Jeff Costly said if the planning office has reviewed the rezoning request and has denied it because there is no viable benefit to the city, the P & Z should follow this recommendation. Mary Peyton said if the only way the developer can have a- commercial success is to build a 50 foot high way a block long, the Commission should question whether insuring a developers commercial success is more important than maintaining the scale and atmosphere. Anderson closed the public hearing. ! -Sheldon moved to deny the applicant' s request for sponsorship of a rezoning from L-1 to CL for the Chase duplex apartments, Hillside lodge, and Blue Spruce and Mountain Chalet and that a resolution be drawn to send to City Council outlined the reasons for this denial; seconded by Hunt. All in favor motion carried. Vann said there° is a second request for public hearing and rezoning, which is the applicant' s request for 50 employee housing units on Ute avenue. There i are some technical issues that need to be clarified. Vann asked the P & Z continue this hearing until they have the information. The rezoning is necessary to accommodate the mix of employee housing proposed for a 71-, acre site located where the Little Annie area is . The city Council has previously j approved a similar rezoning for this site, which will lapse on December 31st in the event Little Annie is not under construction. This should be continued to another meeting and discussed in detail . i 3 Anderson opened the public hearing. i Fred Pierce, attorney representing the Gant Condominiums, said he felt there are some issues to be resolved and is glad this is continued. The Gant is '{{ located close to these proposed 50 units for 101 employees . The Gant is a 1 luxury condominium and would like to maintain the integrity of the surround- ing area. The Council did approve a rezoning for Little Annie, which expires j in December. This was on-site employee housing for Little Annie on their property. This applicant is not putting the burden of employee housing on their site but off-site. Pierce said he felt the applicant should bear the burden of employee housing on-site. The Gant condominium association opposes h more information about the proposal perhaps the rezoning at this time, wit some concerns could be alleviated. I Don Crawford said a lot of people use Ute avenue for jogging and bicycling anc he would not like to see this rezoned and become heavily congested with J 11 employee housing. Pierce said the Little Annie approval required them to .a widen Ute avenue for the additional traffic . Carol Fuller asked if the 400 ? cars in this proposal included cars for the employee housing. Doremus said the car count did not include employee cars . One of the requirements of employees is not to drive to work. Vann said the work for the GMP app icatio2 addressed the traffic in the vicinity of the hotel for guests and also for employees. Joe Wells said the lodge district is designated for intense tourist use; using that area for employee housing seems to be in contradictio; with the land use plan. There are stringent employee housing requirements in r the city Code, and there are limited sites offerring potential for employee housing. Hunt moved to table action on the rezoning of R-15 to R-6 (RBO) and continue the public hearing to December 6 , 1983 ; seconded by Ms . Tygre. All in favor motion carried. I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM U C.F.MOECKEL S.0.S L.CO. Continued Meeting Planning and- Zoning Commission November 29, 1983 l -7- Vann said the next area is exemptions from the Code in GMP. There is a chang! in use for the conversion of some existing units. Vann said the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus, planned for employee units, will require change in use. 9 This should be deferred to December 6th. Vann said the applicant is requesting 480 units in this lodge. These are not all units. The Code provides for the ability to tear down existing units and reconstruct them outside GMP, as there is no net impact on the growth rate associated with reconstruction. The applicants have conducted an inventory on existing lodge, commercial and residential structures on their property, verified it with the building department. The applicant submitted a request for 277 lodge units; the staff concluded they could verify 269 units. The difference is some units that appear to illegally constructed or demolished without a permit. The 269 units come from the Blue Spruce, Continental and Aspen Inn plus 36 units currently under construction at the Aspen Inn. Taddune said the 36 units are involved in litigation and are part of an on-going review. Vann told P & Z the applicant is requesting 211 units under the GMP process . The successful competing in the GMP process allows the applicant 35 units under the 1984 quota. The applicant is requesting a backlog of lodge units , not counting the 36 at the Aspen Inn, which is an additional 50 units . The applicant is also requesting 3�2- years of future quota to construct this project. Alan Richman said there are 50 units remaining from previous years, 35 units for 1984 , and a request for 126 units from future years. The applicant is requesting six years of quota plus one unit. Richman said on the pro side, the clearest reason for wanting to give the entire allocation is that it is 1 a substantial upgrade to the community lodging inventory. Richman said reconstruction of 269 units is an upgrade of 25 per cent of units in the inventory. Richman said this would be the first addition to the lodge inventory, and there is some justification to doing something substantial 1 for lodging in Aspen. Richman said the proposal is consistent with the 1973 Aspen land use plan, i showing lodging accommodations at the base of Aspen mountain. Another pro is by allowing the project, it would allow the developer to build the whole project with amenities for tourists. Richman pointed out by allowing this project at the base of the mountain, right across from the transit center, this will help change Aspen' s image. If P & Z gives the full allocation, it { will minimize the construction impacts as opposed to phasing it. Richman _f said the P & Z must consider how they feel about a project of this magnitude and to question what benefit there would be in making the project compete in future years. Richman said it will take a two year construction period for this project and by the time the project is finished, another year of allocation would have taken place. Richman said there are numberous cons to such a large allocation. The most clearest con is the incompatibility with the basic growth rate and policy of the community. There would be a large growth rate in the city over the short term. Richman said there are other projects in review, Centennial , Hotel Jerome, and Highlands Inn. If they all go, there would be substantial growth rate. Another con of this allocation is that it 1 would preclude any other L-1 , L-2 project from increasing their lodge or building a new building. Richman said even if the P & Z allocates the entire request, in each of the next three year 12 units would be available { Hotel Jerome ' s 65 units will also come out of on top of the quota. The { future years quotas . i i Continued Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 29 , 1983 i Richman said the L-3 quota of 10 units per year would continue as a separate quota. It the Copper Horse is taken out of L-3 and made employee housing, that would bump up -the L-3 quota. Richman said another con is if this project would be a sign to theprivate section that a new boom is on the way. j Richman said if this does touch off some cyclical growth, the P & Z may i experience some inability of the infrastructure to handle the growth rate. For instance, the transit center is undersized for the community now. Another con, this project might result in some attrition in smaller operation:: in town due to competitiveness. The addition of 200 units at the base of { the mountain will -Further concentrate lodging in Aspen with the skiing capacity located out of town. i Richman said P & Z has been .working on growth policies, and this policy suggests if P & Zsees. a proect that meets a substantial community priority and does something necessary for the community, the policy suggests that 1 P & Z can use the quota flexibily, in terms of multi-year allocations, or 1 adjusting the quota. If P & Z feels this project meets an important community priority, it is reasonable to consider a multi-year allocation. Richman said the planning office feels the argument in terms of past years allocation '., is very persuasive; however, there are problems with a 3, years future allocations with the bookkeeping and with the short term impact. Richman said P & Z should consider how important it is to them to get the tourist amenities the project is proposing. If P & Z can accept scaling down of the amenities, perhaps the project is too large. { Vann pointed out it is important to consider that this applicant is upgrading 25 per cent of the existing lodge inventory, which may not happen if they do not get the multi year allocation. The present owners of these lodges may chose not to upgrade the lodges. This is a community priority in the growth management policies. This project would provide a caliber of lodging which does not exist in this community. Ms. Tygre said the existing 269 units to be reconstructed, this years quota of 35 and past years quota would be 354 . Ms. Tygre asked the applicant if the project would be viable with 354 units and phasing the rest over years . l Vann said he felt the number of units is probably driven by the cost of acquiring the parcel. Doremus told P & Z in the planning of this project, they used numbers that were feasible. The applicant took the numbers to consultants, who studied these and said the numbers were feasible. There are other projects to help support the hotel, like the residential projects . It was carefully worked out, not only to be acceptable, but to be a winner and to be feasible. Doremus said as a long time resident, he has resolved this project will be a benefit to the community. There is a need for this j type of facility in this town. Alan Novak told the Commission, the applicants imposed limitation upon them- selves and took into account th— acceptcd views of Aspen. The applicants a were concerned to have a facility with aitienities to make it viable for year round conference business and provide quality that is lacking on that site. It is a plus to take the existing facilities and upgrade them. Novak said they had discussed phasing the project, because Aspen likes to stick to the growth management plan. Novak said this project cannot be built in sections . j The design attempted to make competitive facilities , and to take in the level `j of amenities to make the project competitive, they have to be put in all at once. They have excavated the project down two stories, there is variation in height of two to four stories. The applicants have tried to do everything within the rules and regulations and within the framework of the community. Sheldon raised another point with the increased competition in the lodging community and the attrition of smaller units, the Copper Horse would be taking off 50 units off the bottom of the lodging community. The project i would be adding 211 units to the top. There would be a decrease of budget units available. Sheldon said the airplane traffic arriving on Saturdays for this project should be addressed. Pardee said he is hesitant . grant future allocations for this project unless they proceed as planned. { Ms. Tygre moved to adjourn at 7. 45 p.m. ; seconded by Hunt. All in favor, motion carried. I - Kathryn S Koch, City Clerk ALAO I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 7a C.F.MOECKEL B.B.8 C.CO. Regular Meeting Planning and Zonin Commission November 22 , 1983 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order with members Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee, David White, Roger Hunt and Paul Sheldon present. Commissioners Roger Hunt said the Commission should speak to the police Comments department about their parking south of City Hall. Hunt said he would be willing to talk to them. Paul Sheldon said there is a new transit agency, and they are effecting the transportation in Aspen. Sheldon asked if the agency would come to P & Z or Council for comments . Sheldon pointed out the route on Hyman Avenue was removed with no consultation from the city. Sunny Vann said this can be addressed in the transportation planning. The transit agency is trying to get going with no major change in existing service. Harvey asked the Commission how they would like to handle the scoring of the projects. Pardee said he would like the planning office, applicant, public hearing, and the planning office can be totalling the scores while the Board hears the next presentation. Sunny Vann told the P & Z that in addition to the scoring, one of the projects is requesting a multi-year allocation. Vann said after both projects have been scored, the Board will hear a presentation to the appropriateness of a multi-year allocation. Harvey said he would like the scores handed in and tabulated by staff. Harvey said he is employed as a consultant for the Hotel Jerome, and that could be construed as a conflict of interest in judging these applications . Harvey read a letter from the owner of the Hotel Jerome into the record. In the letter Gilmore stated he feels there is no conflict as he is support ive of new lodge development if of quality, sensitive in ' scale, etc . Harvey read a letter from himself into the record disclosing his position as a consultant working with Gilmore on the upgrading of the Hotel Jerome. Harvey stated his dedication to the Jerome project derives from the con- viction that Aspen needs to upgrade its lodging inventory. Harvey said new lodging is in keeping with the work on the Jerome and his belief about Aspen' s lodges. Harvey said he feels no conflict on his work on the Jerome and his position on P & Z . Wright Hugus, attorney for Lyle Reeder, said he had no objection to Harvey hearing these applications . Art Daily, attorney for Commerce Savings Association, said he sees no conflict. Assistant City Attorney Gary Esary said the proses ure outlined in the letter is consistent with conflict of interest questions. Anderson stated he is one of the credit- ' ors in the bankruptcy. Anderson said he does not feel biases in this. Hunt said he is in the same position and feels the same as Anderson. Hugus -asked if either members had any specific creditor problems with this real estate. Hunt and Anderson answered no. Hugus said then he felt there was no conflict of interest in this application. Daily stated the Aspen Mountain Lodge does not feel these members have a conflict. Sheldon, the alternate member, said he is the manager of the St. Moritz lodge. Sheldon said the potential conflict is 1 that additional lodge rooms in a limited market could effect him. On the other hand, eleimination of the Copper Horse i Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 22, 1.983 I and Alpina Haus from short term accommodations is significant-- to the St. Moritz as they could benefit from the elimination of dorm rooms. Sheldon said he - participates in the P & Z as an individual but would listen to objections. Sheldon said this would only become 'relevant if he were to vote. Pardee said he feels this situation may be a problem. Pardee said if the vote is close, it is wiser to have someone step down. A manager of a competing hotel has a conflict to some degree. Esary read from Ordinance #50, 1979 (1) (h) the definition of substantial interest; "substantial means and includes a situation where, considering all of the circumstances , a reasonably prudent person would expect a marked tendency to make a decision other than an objective decision" . Harvey said he would not be at the next meeting, and Sheldon will be in a voting position. Daily said he feels Sheldon does not have a conflict. Hugus said they have no problem. Hunt moved to not remove Sheldon from the Commission for the reason that the applicants and other Commission members have no objections; seconded by Fallin. All in favor, with the exception of Pardee. Motion carried. 1984 L-1/L-2 Lodge GMP Sunny Vann, planning director, stated there are two projects Competition before P & Z for consideration for a 1984 GMP lodge alloca- tion; The Lodge at Aspen, submitted by Lyle Reeder, and the Aspen Mountain Lodge, submitted by American Century Corpora- tion, Commerce Savings Association and Alan Novak. The process for this meeting will be an overview of each of the projects. Vann told P & Z that Reeder submitted and success- fully competed for a GMP allocation two years ago for a similar project on the same site. Alan Richman will give information on the implications of that prior GMP application. Vann said these projects are reviewed by individuals in the planning office. The recommendations are then reviewed by the entire planning office staff. The composite recommenda- tion is forwarded to P & Z as planning office scores under the various procedures . The P & Z does not have to concur with the planning office recommendation. Vann reiterated the staff will go through their recommendation, will then allow each application to make a presentation, P & Z can then ask questions, the public hearing will be opened, the P & Z will then score the project. Vann said the Aspen Mountain Lodge is requesting a multi-year allocation, and the planning office does have a presentation on the pros and cons, if the project is successful. Harvey said this is a competition for 1984 , and asked how many units are available for allocation. Vann said this is a competition in 1983 for construction in 1984 and there are 35 units available. Harvey asked what the holdover of units is. Vann said approximately 50 units. Harvey asked if the Aspen Mountain Lodge were successful , and they convert units in the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus from lodge to residential , will that affect the multi-year allocation. Vann said the Copper Horse will be a change in use and will have a separate review as it is going from L-3 lodge to residential . The Alpina Haus is R/MF and will go to deed restricted employee housing and no change in use will be required. Vann said the quota will be affected and there will be an adjustment. The Copper Horse units will be credited to L-3 quota, and the residential quota will be debited. t i i i I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKEL R.B.&L.CO. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 22 , 1983 -3- The Lodge at Alan Richman said the P & Z scored this project a few years Aspen ago, in a similar but somewhat different configuration. This is a proposal to build an entirely new facility on the corner of Ute and Original next to the Aspen Alps . The proposal is for 46 tourist rooms and six employee units. The units are about 216 square feet each. The lot size is ' slightly of 15 , 000 square feet; it is a small , constrained site. Richman said previously, the applicant won an alloca- tion to build 31 tourist units and four employee housing units. Richman said the planning office feels this project has a net effect on the quota of 15 units. The applicant would relinquish the previously awarded 31 units, if he is awarded the 46 units requested in this submission. Richman said there are some desirable and some undesirable features in the project. Richman said important aspects are underground parking, 1 per bedroom; the lodge is quite close to the ski area. Richman said the applicant has proposed some on-site amenities for guests, dining and health faciliti� although the staff has some problems with some of the quality of those. The applicant is proposing to house about 80 per cent of the lodge employees. Richman said the proposed rooms of 216 square feet are extremely small. The previous rooms were 320 square feet. There is a question if these are the type of units that are desirable in the Aspen lodging market. Richman told P & Z there is a substantial degree of paving on the site. Richman said there is a landscaping plan. There i no outdoor -recreational or open space amenities of any magnitude on this site. Richman said in the water system, there was a commitment by the applicant to sharing the cost of a looped water system. Richman said the applicant is willing to provide the cost for the loop involving this particular project; therefore, the applicant is improving the level of service for this project only. Richman said it is unlikely the quality of service to the area would be improved by this proposal and the city does not have any funds to share in this project. The planning office scored this area a one (1) . { Richman said in storm drainage and fire protection there are substantial upgrades . There is a proposal to extend the storm sewer up Aspen mountain road, which would improve a neighborhood drainage situation; therefore this got the maximum rating of two (2) . In fire protection, the applicant proposes the installation of a hydrant, which would improve fire protection services. Richman said the road proposal is simply a proposal to black , Aspen mountain road, which is only cosmetic, not service related. Harvey noted the applicant proposed the fire hydrant in the northwest corner and the fire department prefers it at the northeast corner. Richman said the P & Z may find. that the hydrant located in the northwest corner would primarily benefit the site and not the general area. Ric:iman said the staff scaled the height of the building and found the peak of the roof too high allowed in the L-1 zone Q district; therefore, there is a major flaw in design. Richm� said the applicant may be able to technically clarify the position regarding the height. The information provided to Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 22 , 1983 staff indicated a design flat:. Richman said this would not be considered a design flaw it the roof were brought within the heighth limitations. Richman said within the conceptual nature of an applicant' s presentation for growth management approval, the staff would not typically reject an application exceeding the code by a few feet. The applicant would have an opportunity to clarify the situation. Richman pointed out in site design there are three curb cuts proposed; two on Ute avenue and one on Aspen mountain road. The engineering department does not feel three curb cuts on a site of this size was necessary and not a desirable site design. Richman said the staff feels this is a major design flaw in terms of site design. Richman said the proposal has an ambitious parking scheme with two levels of underground parking. The engineering department is questioning the turning radius, it may not be adequate. Richman said there was no information provided on the trash facility,it' s location and the extent of it. Richman told P & Z for the guest amenities, these are rated with the size of the lodge, size of the facilities and quality of facilities. The planning office finds the common meeting facilities somewhat inadequate; there are only meeting areas in the lounge and lobby. The lounge area will also be a dining area as well as a sitting area. There is no area for conference facility. There are lodges in Aspen of this scale with common meetings�'� he planning office finds this to be a design flaw with not even a small area of the lodge dedicated to meeting areas. Richman told P & Z the lodge does provide restaurant facilities for guests , which is fairly standard. The problem with the recreational facilities - the saunas and exercise room - is their location, in the parking area below grade. Richman said the staff does not feel the quality of those facilities meets the standard of Aspen. Harvey said in amenities a score' of one (1) indicates services which are deficient in terms of quantity or spaciousness. Harvey asked if the planning office had standards of square footage per person for menities . Vann said the staff does not have a quantitat measure . The staff looks at the number of rooms provid nd address whether the applicant has included the space the sole purpose of gaining points or whether they hav, ied to come up with an area, through design, which tries t . ._)rovide an amenity for the guest. Richman pointed out the L-1, L-2 district requires 25 per cent of the lodge to be non-unit space, not rentable, not employee housing. This facility has 27 per cent, which meets the requirement. r Esary said there is a standard, total non-unit space should be 25 per cent. This project has 27 per cent. The P & Z can look at this application and come up with a ratio which can be determined of rooms to square footage. Richman said another comparison the planning office used was evaluation of similarly sized facilities in the community and the amenity package provided. Richman said he had visited many of the lodges in the 40 to 50 room size and moast of them have meeting rooms and outdoor recreational facilities . Richman said the application indicates it will house all 15 employees of the project on and off site . The on-site proposal is for 12 employees in 6 rooms. The off-site housing proposal contained no information as to specifics of location. Richman said no progress has been made in firming up a specific proposal . Pardee said the P & Z cannot expect an applicant to go buy 3 condominium unit in the expectation he will get an allocation. I b RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.MOECNEL R.R.d L.CO. a s�b Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 22 , 1983 -5- . Vann noted the housing office must review the specifics of a proposal to determine if it complies with the guidelines. Harvey said there are two applications before the P & Z . One application estimates its employee requirement for one for every two rooms; the other, one for every three rooms. Harvey• asked if this estimate for this project of 15 employees is the staff' s estimate , or the applicant' s . Richman said this is the applicant' s figure, which was reviewed by the housing office. Harvey asked if it were fair for P & Z to consider two applications with different requirements for employees . Richman said the housing office has standards it uses for number of employees per hundred beds. The standard the housing office feels comfortable with is for every 100 beds , between 13 and 23 employees will be generated based on the level of service the lodge is trying to provide to its guests . Richman said the difference in the two applications is probabl level of service. Richman said the P & Z would not want to have all lodges with the same level of service as there is a variation of market. Harvey asked if the number of employees takes into considera- tion the widely varying occupancy rates during the year. Richman answered this is dealing with peak, fulltime equiva- lency. Richman pointed out the P & Z had difficulty with this application in 1981 with the number of employees proposed. The applicant said he would house 100 per cent of his employee but it did not appear he had identified 100 per cent of his employees . The new lodge quota system was written to reflect the concerns of P & Z , with detail listing of employees required to serve the lodge. Richman said the housing office finds 15 employees to be adequate. Vann said it is suggested the applicant contact the housing office to discuss reason- ableness of employees needed and discuss any problems . Usual! the staff and applicant wind up with a mutually agreed upon number . Lyle Reeder presented a model of the project and passed out comments in written form. Reeder said he would like to comment, generally, about the P & Z competition, and to address the specific deficiencies that planning did in scoring this project. Reeder said the Lodge at Aspen is a 52 room project, 46 lodge rooms and 6 employee rooms. This project will cater to ski clubs and budget-minded skiers. Reeder said he feels that the proposed demolitition of the Continentd and Aspen inn, to be replaced with a first class world hotel will create a deficiency in the low and medium price range. The Lodge at Aspen with smaller rooms can offer more reason- able price accommodation than a hotel offering large rooms , energy consuming swimming pools and elaborate health facilities which some guests may never use. Reeder said he has some i objections to the Aspen Mountain Lodge project. The first regards Ordinance #35, 1983. Harvey said this is not pertinent to the review of the Lodge at Aspen. Harvey said he would like Reeder to clarify any points. Reeder presented a summary of the planning office scoring, showing where rated below the maximum, the multiplier and the total number of points he has not received. Reeder, in his memorandum, then addresses each category of review. Reeder said the city' s water department director has indicated a neighborhood deficiency, and the Lodge as Aspen ' s proposal to share the cost of the looped water main would bring about D a Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 22 , 1983 I I o correction of the neighborhood water system inadequacies. . Reeder stated the water consumed by this project will be , metered and paid for resulting in increased revenues to the .Z city. Reeder stated he feels a two (2) rating would be appropriate . Reeder said the applicant will pay sewer tap fees and the i sewer assessments. Harvey asked the applicant if he was sticking to the commitment to share the cost of the water improvement. Harvey pointed out of Markalunas says there r' are no city funds available to construct any portion of the water system, there is a problem. Reeder told P & Z this comes from two years ago when Markalunas indicated the city was willing to pay a share. Reeder said he feels sharing the cost is adequate and other people will benefit from the loop, and the city should share the cost of providing for the loop. Harvey asked if Reeder was going to do anything to improve the service beyond the scope of his project, or just take care of his specific needs . Reeder said the water line is in the street; he could run to the water line and not even contribute to the loop. Harvey said it appears to him that the Lodge would be adequately serviced by providing the loop but not just be adding into the water line. Richman read from the referrals , "If the applicant is willing to provide the referenced improvements (the loop) at its own expense without any concrete assurances the city would participate, we would certainly endorse the application as an improvement to the water distribution system" . Reeder said the costs would be paid for all sewer construction and the sewer facilities seem to be adequate and a two (2) rating is appropriate. Reeder said he feels the Aspen mountain road is more important than indicated in the planning office report. It is access to the Ajax condominiums and a house, and continues over Aspen mountain and is used in the summertime. Reeder said he feels a score of two (2) would be more appropriate. Reeder said the proposed lodge will be built within the legal constraints of the 33 foot height limitation. Reeder pointed out PUD procedures are not available to the Lodge at Aspen, restrictions are imposed which limit architectural design potention. Reeder said compatibility with existing neighbor- hood developments is to be considered in evaluating archi- tectural design. Also size of rooms is not a factor. Reeder said he believes the design fits in well and should have a higher rating than that given by the planning office . Reeder said the site design was prepared observing the setback requirements of the city. Reeder said he is willing to reduce the curb cuts from three to two. Reeder said it appears that concentration of tourist rooms at the base of the mountain will have desired results such as reducing automobile use by lodge guests. Harvey asked which curb cut the engineering department wanted removed. Richman said one on Ute most adjacent to the Alps. Sheldon asked where the entrance would be. Reeder said on Ute avenue. Pardee said a technical clarification is acceptable, but to change from 3 to 2 curb cuts is in response to rating. People come in with a presen- tation not knowing what the competition is and are rated accordingly. Pardee said the P & Z cannot accept the fact the curb cuts will go from three to two. Richman agreed changing the site design does put this process into some question. Reeder said the trash removal was not gotten into the original presentation because normally it is no big deal. The trash i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ' FORM 1G C.F.ROUM A.P.9 L.GO. Regular Meeting planning and Zoning Commission November 22 , 1983 -7- facility will be located near the southeast corner of the property. Hunt pointed out that area is grated down for the parking. Reeder said there would be a retaining wall . en Hunt asked how it would be accessed. Reeder said by p mountain road. Hunt asked how the people from the building would get to the facility. Reeder pointed out the sidewalk area. Reeder said for snow control , the lodge twill have hengineered snow stops installed to retain tape system installed on the edge of the roof to control ice build up; heat systems will be installed in the sidewalks and driveyway and on site dry wells will handle any runoffs . A snow plow will be kept on site for clearing snow, and contract snow removal will be used for emergencies in heavy snow fall. Reeder said parking for the project is provided of one space per lodge and employee bedroom, which is a requirement of the L-1 and L-2 area and bulk requirements. Reeder said the turning radius for cars in the parking area was laid out according to the city' s parking standard. Harvey said in the application an auto elevator into the parking garage was mentioned and asked if that was because the site constraints are such that a ramp cannot be constructed. Reeder said in doing engineering work, if a ramp is not adequate, they will go to an elevator. Hunt asked about the snow and ice control on the ramp. Reeder said there will be heat in the concrete with drains at the bottom. Reeder said the height of the building will be reduced slight] to stay within the area said the Lodge at Aspen enhance the visual appearance from the street. Reeder said in the amenities section, the commission shall consider each application with respect to the quality and spaciousness of its proposed services for guests as compared to the size of the proposed lodging , project. Reeder said it appears that a smaller lodge will be limited in its ability to provide amenities . Reeder said he feelsthat a common area of 1120 square feet of lounge and lobby is sufficient for a 46 room lodge. Reeder pointed out the restrictive nature of ts, conference facilities in a the area and bulk requiremen small lodge are unrealistic. i Reeder said in the L-1 zone, restaurant for public use is prohibited except as a conditional use . This lodge is located within walking distance of the commercial core . Harvey asked if the applicant intends to serve food to the guests. Reeder said there is a kitchen, they will serve breakfast, after ski snacks, etc. Reeder said being located so close to town, he does not want to be in competition with restaurants in town. This is more of a convenience item. Harvey noted that the applicant seems to have changed the marketing from the original application where it is going to be a small , elegant lodge catering to an affluent market. Reeder agreed after considering the original application, in the sense they have small_ rooms , they will change the approach. I ' Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 22 , 1983 a Reeder said as far as the recreational facilities, this is a small lodge site . There are two athletic clubs within walking distance. The indoor hot tub at the garden level will look out at a landscaped area, and will be much more energy efficient. Vann pointed out in upgrading the L-1 , L-2 scoring the issue of providing amenities was debated at length, and P & Z felt they should be provided in size and relationship to the specific project. Sheldon asked if Reeder proposed to be a moderately priced ` lodge. Reeder said yes . Reeder said the Lodge at Aspen proposes to house 100 per cent of its employees. Three employees will be housed off site . The Lodge at Aspen will either enter into long term leases or purchase three condo- miniums . Reeder feels this will provide a better lifestyle for employees, particularly if they have families . Harvey asked if this project passes threshold, is the applicant prepared to enter into an agreement with the city regarding this housing. Reeder said he is , and will have the units stay within the housing guidelines. Reeder told P & Z the employee unit at garden level will be built to meet building code requirements for habitation. A door to the outside of the building will be provided, and minimum window requirements will be designed into the unit. Reeder said he feels this project qualifies for 15 points for employee housing. i Reeder said this applicant represents the first attempt since GMP adoption to construct an entirely new lodge. The submission addresses the upgrading of a key corner location with proximity to the base of Aspen mountain and the proposed Little Annie ski area. Reeder said the design of this lodge represents an attempt to develop an intimate scale lodge, in keeping with a megastructure approach. Reeder said the project can be built within any deficiencies in water, sewer, storm drainag,e fire protection, sidewalks, etc. The location is within walking distance to the commercial core and public transportation. Reeder said the design of the proposed lodge will not interfere with the pedestrian traffic sight line of Aspen mountain. These address bonus points considerations . Harvey opened the public hearing. Jerry Hewey, manager of Aspen Alps, presented a letter to the Commission. Hewey presented pictures of Ute avenue and the general area and said it is quite difficult to park in the area during the ski season. Hewey said the roads in the area are very narrow and is concerned about safety. Hewey said this is a nice, small lodge. He has been in the lodge business 39 years and the economics of running a small lodge are very difficult, particularly a new development. Hewey said if the lodge is going to have three limosines running 16 hours a day, it will take 7 employees just to run the limosines . Hewey said he did not three limosines were needed anyway. Alan Shaffer, realtor, said he does not think that a fairness doctrine with respect to hotels is in this scoring . Shaffer said there could be a lodge. without any amenities to guests and still be a nice place. Shaffer said he feels amenities is an improper and subjective scoring area. Wright Hugus, attorney for the applicant, presented a letter for the record containing technical and legal comments and objections to the entire GMP procedure in general and the Mountain Lodge in particular. Hugus said some of his legal objections are directed toward scoring and the point system; therefore, he would like his letter considered prior to the i c i f { o RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM so C.F.HOFCKFL e.B.6 L.CO. h, Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 22 , 1983 9 Lodge at Aspen. Hugus said he would be guided by the P & Z ` pleasure . Harvey said this a not a comparative process where the projects are analyzed together; they are rated by the ' criteria in the scoring categories . Hugus said his objections are to irregularities and basic procedure in connection with the lodge GMP proceedings. Hugus first objection is that the Aspen Mountain Lodge is being considered as both a PUD and a lodge competition and has certain advantages . The second objection is that amenitie- scored 9 in Reeder' s application and 21 in the Mountain Lodge. Hugus said it is difficult to equate the amenities for 480 rooms versus 46 . The third objection is eliminating 269 rooms means the Mountain Lodge only needs 211 units from the GMP. Hugus said it seems to him that the Commission should only consider 211 units ; Hugus said a project the size of the Mountain Lodge is diffi- cult to conceive in this small town. It seems to be a compari- son between projects. The fifth objection requires that an applicant for a GMP lodge competition has certainestanding, either owner, contract purchaser, option to buy, g odge is an assignment for said the applicant for the Mountain L the rights of the owner to file an application. Hugus said he did not feel this is proper. The sixth point is the request that the Mountain Lodge receive units for the next five years , which would insure using up the future. It is difficult to predict what Aspen will need. Point seven, in September 1983 , the City Council received a proposal to change the law pertaining to city owned property in applications . Hugus said the law at that point required ar applicant who was including city owned property to have the i consent in the application of the city, and required the scoring process to be done with the city owned property and without the city owned property. Hugus said this was tabled until an October meeting, and passed changing the law so that if an applicant had city owned property included, the city did not have to approve in the application. Hugus said the Mountain Lodge has city owned property within it, and the application had to be in the planning office October 3 . At the time the application was received, the city had not approved it. Esary said it is clear in the GMP process that scoring in fror of P & Z is not a reliance event. Esary pointed out that an i award of an allotment in front of Council is not a reliance event. Esary recommended that scoring proceed. The P & Z has accepted Hugus ' s letter. Harvey closed the public hearing regarding the Lodge at Aspen j Hunt questioned the energy conservation and asked how many hours of sunlight in the winter the project receives to use solar collectors. Sheldon estimated 4 to 5 hours . Harvey jsaid in the pre-application, back up on number of employees , i back up on solar research should be gotten so the P & Z can evaluate these. Richman agreed; however, the planning office did not do a pre-application because this project had been presented before. I i t 6 Planning and Zoning Commission November 22 , 1983 Regular Meeting g 1 v Vann said the P & Z will hear the planning office recommenda- tion on a multi-year quota , if appropriate, this evening. The P & Z is scheduled to hear the additional review require- ments on the Aspen Mountain Lodge next week. The recommenda- tion that will go forward to Council is the scoring on the GMP application, recommendation on multi-year quota, and a recommendation on PUD conceptual and associated review requirements. Aspen - acre Mountain Lodg" Sunny Vann told P & Z this consists of 111, street located located between Galena street Durant avenue, with a piece of land located on Mill street at the base of Aspen mountain. Vann said the PUD is a multi- phased project. The applicant is competing at this time for a lodge portion of the project. There is a separate residen- tial at the top of Mill , there is a residential at the old 700 South Galena site, adjacent to the hotel site. Some of these will require a GMP allocation, which will not be submitted until December. The Board is considering only the appropriateness of the lodge GMP application and consistency with GMP scoring criteria. Vann said the site is currently zoned L-1 , CL, R-15/PUD-L, and conservation. The actual hotel is located on L-1 and C-L which allow construction of a lodge . The application is requesting several rezonings to take advantage of area and bulk requirements permitted in those zone districts . These will be considered at the conceptual PUD review. The request for rezoning is not germaine to the GMP scoring categories . Vann told P & Z the lodge portion consists of 480 unit resort hotel; this involves reconstruction of 269 existing units located at Continental Inn, Aspen Inn and Blue Spruce lodge. The application is requestion exemption from GMP for the reconstruction of those existing units. This request will be heard at the next meeting. The additional reviews are rezonings, exemption from GMP for employee housing, request for reconstruction of existing unitF change in use exemption for conversion to deed restricted employee housing, street vacations, a possible view plane review. Recommendation to Council for any allocation will be contigent upon Council ' s approval of additional reviews . Vann said he would like to discuss architectural design and visual impacts of this project. Vann said the site plan is very well done; however, the planning office is concerned about the bulk of this project on Durant street facade. The lodge wings on Mill , Monarch and Galena are basically consis- tent with the surrounding uses in the lodge district. The height varies, and they have taken advantage of architectural techniques to reduce the bulk. The facades on Durant and Dean streets are substantial in terms of height and bulk. In the PUD process , the applicant will be requesting a variation from the FAR and from the height restrictions of the underlying zone districts . The intent of PUD regulations are to provide that flexibility. As far as the GMP scoring categories, the architectural desig: which considers impact on the adjacent neighborhood, in the visual impact, there are a major design flaws. These issues can be addressed as part of the conceptual PUD submission. 1 The applicant would have an opportunity to deal with site specific architectural concerns. i 1 1 a 7 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 9 G.F.110 FCK EL B.B.d L.CO. -- Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 22 , 1983 -11- 1 The planning office feels the variances from the height regulations , which would be required for these facades, are inconsistent with the surrounding development and would block views of Aspen mountain. Harvey said he is concerned and unclear about the number of units requested, number of units to be reconstructed, the Alpina Haus being lost to employee housing, calculation of net employees . Vann said the applicant is requesting recon- struction of the Aspen Inn, Blue Spruce, and Continental. The Code requires the applicant submit for staff consideratic inventory of the units to be demolished for verification. The staff reviewed the request for reconstruction of 277 unit: and physical survey and documentation, the number was reduced to 269 units. The discrepancy involves the legality of some of the units the applicant was claiming for reconstruction. Vann said the Code, in addressing employee housing , it requir, the applicants provision of the net increase in the number of employees, those units that are being added. The employees for the units being reconstructed is not discussed. Harvey asked if the applicant puts employee housing on the Benedict land, what does that do to Little Annie ski area. Vann said the employee housing for this project is provided off-site, and the applicant proposes to house 60 per cent of the net increase of employees. Some units will be provided by conversion of existing structures . Fifty units will be provided on the Benedict site, these units were considered as part of the Little Annie proposal and are located on the same portion of the site . Should Little Annie ever build, they would be looking for other employee housing. John Doremus, representing the applicant, presented drawings and photographs and told P & Z they have been presenting thes,,. to the public for three weeks to acquaint them with what is being proposed. Doremus pointed out the employee housing in three locations. Doremu °pointed out the hotel site and the buildings overlaid -on it. The hotel site is over 5 acres . Doremus pointed out all the land the applicant has acquired, showed where the residential projects are proposed. Doremus said large projects do have impacts but they can also provide "goodies" that small projects cannot. There are trade offs. This project is able to provide considerable amount of open space, trails, underground parking. Doremus said the applicant would like to see the implementation of the lodge improvement district. The applicant is upgrading the utilities and underground the utilities . Joe Wells addressed the relationship of this proposal to the scale of the neighborhood. Many buildings are 35 to 40 feet and two are over 60 feet. Wells showed a drawing of elevatioi perspective. Wells said architecturally, they had tried to minimize the bulk of the building, as it is a large building. The facade is varied in height, ranging from two to four stories. The building has been set back from Durant street for the entrance and to prevent excessive shading of Durant. Doremus said he would like to review the GMP scoring points as they feel they deserve some bonus points. They are adding a 12 inch water main, which will upgrade the distribu- Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 22, 1983 tion network in the area. This will also increase fire flows in the area. This provides a third 12 inch V for the city. The project will add 3 or 4 fire hydrants . The i applicant requests bonus points in water. The applicant requested upgrading from 1 to 2 in sewer points as they are going to put in a new line and eliminate two on Durant that have caused maintenance problems. This will improve the capacity of the main and allow more treatment. Joe Wells said in storm drainage, the applicant deserves not only an upgrade to 2 but bonus points. Wells said in additio: to handling the 100 year run off and the 5 year historical run off , which is an upgrading because the run off is presently being dumped into the street, the city needs to retain 2 . 5 acre feet of water. The applicant is offering to construct that facility in the upper portion of the PUD. The control of it will reduce the flow to no more than 13 cfs at a given time. Wells said he feels they are helping the city solve a significant problem. Pardee asked why the planning office scored this area 1 point . Vann said the representation was that it was not construed this upgraded the city' s collection and discharge system. Vann said he will look at the drainage study. Wells said in fire protection, they are offering additional hydrants to service this and adjacent projects. The building will be fully sprinklered; there will be a computer smoke alarm system, with stand by power and back up. This will be state of the art in fire protection. The applicant requests bonus points in this category. Larry Stricker, architect, addressed quality of design and visual impact. Stricker pointed out they will excavate and submerse the buildings to mitigate the heighth of the build- ing. Stricker said this is an innovative design, it is not standard on grade building. Stricker showed visual lines from Durant. Stricker pointed out the building is set back 50 feet from the curb at Durant. Stricker showed the view from the Mill street mall , how the building fits in and other surrounding buildings . Harvey asked the height at the main entrance. Stricker said the mean height is 42 feet and peak height is 47 feet. The applicant is still in the process of mitigating wherever possible, diminishing the height. Harvey asked for a discussion of square footage, floor area ratio and that below grade area. Wells said the rooms below grade as a result of excavation are counted in the floor area ratio. The rest of the space below grade which is non-habitable is exempt. Vann said the handling of the wings , stepping them back and fitting them in with surrounding buildings works quite well. However standing to the east, the building creates a canyon effect and blocks the view of the upper mountain. There will be a 50 foot wall where there is a vacant parking lot now. The planning office raises the problem of the facade along Durant street. Vann said he feels through further design refinement, the design flaw can be fixed and lessen the impacts. Harvey recommended the Commission take a site visit before the next meeting. The applicant told P & Z they are prepar- ing an elaborate model that should be ready for the next meeting. Vann said the assistant city engineer, Jay Hammond has looked at the drainage study in this application. Vann said the improvements in the application for storm drainage would be eligible for scoring. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 4 C.F.H�ECKFL n.e. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 22 , 1983 -13- Wells said the applicant feels they should be considered for bonus points under site design. Wells said all surface parking has been eliminated. Utilities will be undergrounde The trees on Durant will be preserved or relocated. The applicant will construct a major trail link in the trails master plan; provide ski access. The proposal includes a major open space commitment. Hunt asked what happens to the nine parking spaces at this site for the Woodstone lodge . Vann said the problem is whether Cantrup had the right to deed restrict parking space. to the city, what the effects those agreements have as a result of the bankruptcy proceedings . Wells said if it is found to be the legal responsibility of the applicant, they will fulfill it. Pardee asked if the applicant has addressed the question of management. Alan Novak said they have been looking careful at hotel operators , with the criteria for the best reputatic Novak said Aspen is such an attractive place , there has not been a shortage of hotel managers who have expressed an interest in running this hotel . Wells brought up energy conservation, the planning office scored the maximum points. The room orientation was chosen to . take advantage of passive solar gain. There are limita- tions to active systems in the area. Insulation exceeds the minimum requirements. The subgrade space will minimize the energy requirements. The HVAC system will be computerized so when rooms are vacated, there will be an adjustment in the system. They would like bonus points . Doremus said if any project should get full bonus points for amenities for guests, it should be this project. The three areas, dining , conference, and recreation facilities deserve bonus points . Harvey opened the public hearing. Spencer Schiffer said in years past, it was the intention of the P & Z (of which he was chairman) to encourage the development and reconstruction for lodges in this precise location. Schiffer said he feels this applicant is deserving of the P & Z ' s approval and allocation. Schiffer said a facility like this is needed in town. Carolyn Doty, committee to preserve open space, said the committee recognizes the need for a quality hotel . They congratulate them on good design, landscaping, trail propos- al , much needed conference facility, undergrounding utilitie and the courtyards. However, they are concerned over some issues; the commercial plan inside the hotel, as Aspen is presently over built. The project will double the density in the neighborhood, which will have negative impacts. The building will cause visual impact in the view plane of Aspen mountain, cut out sunshine for surrounding buildings, and take away open space. The open space figure of 32 per cent is misleading because some of this is above the 8040 greenline and is not intended to be built upon. The project is too high for the area. 480 units is over building for tr present need of Aspen. They oppose the employee units beinc Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission November 22 , 1983 for this project when Silverking phase IV is being built at the same time. They oppose the bridge and restaurant over Mill street as it will further block the view of Aspen mountain. Ms . Doty read some recommendations to P & Z . One is that a comprehensive plan be submitted for all parcels owned by this group. The committee recommends that the applicant be allowed to replace the existing rooms and 36 units allocated to the Aspen Inn under existing zoning and a normal GMP process. Aspen has maintained its quality because of quaintness, beauty and open space. They feel a 480 room hotel at the base of the mountain and blocking views is not preserving the quality of Aspen. Fred Pierce asked for the planning office recommendations on employee housing, especially in the Little Annie area. Vann said the area at Little Annie will require an exemption from growth management; the conversion of the Copper Horse will require a change is use. These will be considered on November 29 . Vann said the review is not complete at this time and will be available for the next meeting. Vann said a lot of these concerns will be addressed through the PUD process. Mike Otte said he has seen a lot of applications, none of them perfect. However, this application has more positive points and few negative points. Lyle Reeder said the Aspen Mountain Lodge height exceeds the height of the North of Nell building by 16 feet. Reeder asked if a person could come all the way down the ski trail to the Durant bus stop. Wells said the ski trail ends at Mill street. Harvey continued the public hearing. Esdry advised the Commission that if anything said in the public hearing would have changed the scores on the first application, they should change the scores before the scores are announced. i P & Z scored the application. Richman announced the Aspen Mountain Lodge received 59 . 6 , and the Lodge at Aspen received 49 . 5. The Lodge at Aspen did not make the 51 point thresh- hold and is not eligible for an allocation. Vann said tomorrow copies of the score sheets will be available . The recommendation will be forwarded to Council. The Lodge at Aspen did not meet the threshold but has an opportunity to appeal. P & Z will meet next week to discuss the rest of the requirements for Aspen Mountain Lodge. Anderson moved to forward the results of the scores to Council with the caveat the Commission is now forwarding any recommendations pending further review; seconded by Ms . Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. Anderson moved to adjourn at 8 : 45 p.m. ; seconded by Ms . Fallir All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn Koch, City Clerk