Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.06241986 - ..:["-'y,. • • . • ,-..�� v:c�':J�� .. :+f�•-�`;•�'n� � �,�"�_'. . . . �... . . ' �.::�'� +t�'�' ����,,,,(�,��')1��5'�,be adal�y1f�A+�F' ��� �" . ,�`;�;�3' "'�`'� '^" " � r x d � �� �"�" "�:1�, aF ���+��r` v r(� F f�,:�p � � � � . . Pbqi 11,� t... tir_. n:��;.2,.�,.�A�S.,ia.�° �c.-�?�.:�����'. f 'r F:� _.. Sw.:a.a ..�E+.�;:�'.�'�M -. ,:�. 1 1 `,� 1 E ,. ; A . . � . C."'.'. . f �—c'' ...�1 �'�� . . ,. ��� . t� �� ;� .::{ -:� � � .-� t�� P2TRZN CODNT7C �y. c � BOARD OF COMMISSIONSRS Y ,� 'X'ti: '� `� ;•':y;;:� SPECTAL. MEETING �4 JIINE. 1986 :,, ' ;y;>��',�j PRESENT: ROBERT BRAUDIS, ROBERT W CHILD, GEORGE MADSEN, THOMAS BLASE ' - �`� HELEN`KLANDERUD � :� Public The Board convened a special meetinq and public heaiing to .I Hearing consider the Highlands Inn, a request to amend the detailed ;,.�:;,+ Con't: submission application. Planner E'rancis Kcizmaniah submitted to � High- the record the Planning Office memo of 24 June, 1986, all referral = •-`i::•.:- -... ;�:-� lands comments, the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan as amended, and the ,'::�;• Inn Land use Code as amended to date. The applicant has submitted a Detail request to amend the detailed submission approval for the `==_�� Submssn reconstruction of the Highlands inn by revising the appcoved � `'';,°:?'-1 Amend building program and architectural c7esign, as well as relocating � I the access road. The applicant, the Mat=ix Ski Corporation of ,„1 Dallas, Texas, recently purchased the subject property, located �:� at the base of the Aspen Highlands Ski Area, and proposed various revisions to the previously approved detailed submission application ==y�( to accommodate a specific hotel franchiser and operator. Krizmanich � _i explained that the applicant would comply with the concept of the ;.) previous approval, that being the replacement of the existing Inn with a new, full service hotel. to be located in the same building =; i footprint as ociginally pcoposed. � -� The revisions proposed by the applicant genezally consisted '' of architectural and design changes. The total site area, unit count, FAR, parking, and employee housing were all identical to ;% the original approval; there was a slight reduction in total ; � building area, and a slight increase in total site coverage. The various design chanqes, genecally consisting of tevisions to ' � floor plans, were initiated to comply with standards established by Hilton Hotel, the proposed hotel franchiser, and M&G Management, .� the proposed hotel operator. The architectural changes consisted _ .;� of a ,flat roof structure with added peaks that step up the slope; •-- _ the stepped technique allowed the applicant to fully utilize the twenty-eight (28) foot height 2imitation, and resulted in a nine ±.�;.�;:rt�? (9) level project. Exterior building changes involved the use of • x_�_F;:; cemetitious concrete material of a color that would refZect the �-.�-�'"'. natural hues of the Maroon Creek Valley. :..�.. . '�''�,�`"`� ReEerral comments were generally supportive; the Aousing '�'��>'� Authority indicated that the project continued to comply with the `�"_�"� requirements of the original submission, the snvironmenta]. Health ;�r;,�;:., "rJ''::� Department addressed compliance with noise abatement, air quality ;:a::: ;T?:.=`� and other health regulations, the Planning Engineer addressed ' � ruad system impacts, parking and drainage requirements, and the s"a='-:i_;Y.� City of Aspen Water Department addressed water seivice. t'.5:'�:;� , �Y'.:.�.::��� The Planninq and Zoning Commission reviewed the application 4-.:+ Commissioner's Meeting 24 June, 1986 - 1 !`.;',.;',,� ;. _ ��� __ __ �� r��� , ,.. , + �r�- 2y�rl.q`�S'� {:+G �� y.�-i � :. ' s � . ��t�. A�,.$ 1"�� 7'1 �r x e,�;� r��tCt��fo��'_-:. :S � ,A �1' '�'..�l*� �-Y '_'C .. 4 . txb:. � t•'+ti`a .i j7-..�' S m.. '�,�����£ � i • � �''�'��x �'?1� `� k�f," ��� � r � j,j I .. . y ` .#� � u � �����'_�' +�a'+�'�t? I, " ''' ., r , �' � q.... � � ...;f:Yarbx ✓Y.;k .- � ���a�.�'.'.�,;1 �f8•. � . X+ . . .) ..- � .. ^ � � , , . . w...,;.... . n.:;'.vwAf .° . ; .< ai�' j.'.:.a� ` ",�� .. , .. ��-. .Z.,�t; �.. at its regular meeting on 6 May, and recommended approval subject to the following conditions: F;: , � '-'°: , 1, the applicant shall contribute thirty-five percent �'` -e--- (35$) of the cost of upgrading Maroon Creek Road, which � '+•r . ,. � cost is calculated to be approximately fifty-six ; thousand, six handred dol2ars ($56,600). This payment � � shall become due prior to the issuance of a final t ' Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel • ;_j 2. the Zoning and Building Departments shall verify that • ;� the groject floor area ratio totals conform to prev3ons }r'�� � approvals prior to the hearing before the Board of ! °:� County Commissioners + � . � ('� . `� 3. the applicant shall address drainage impacts onto i . adjacent properties and provide suitable mitigation ;:�1 measures as approved by the County Engineer prior to :i the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners '� 4. the applicant shall continue to provide one hundred �� percent (100$} of the employee housing as approved by '` ? the Housing Authority � • '�� 5. the applicant shall plan constzuction activities and � � � areas in a manner that will not cause disruption to the '� Maroon Bells Bus system � _ r ;�•:� 6. the applicant shall limit construction activities to �i � °• 6etween the hours of 7:00 a,m, and 7:00 p.m. Construction '' ' ;; activities on Saturdays and Sundays shall be Eurther ',�`�" limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m, and 6:00 p.m. ~ ',� ���. . �`� 7. the applicant shall comply with a1Z reguirements and F �'I regulations outlined by the Environmental Health � �i.:. �;� Department in their memo of 16 April, 1986 � •°;� 8. all representations made and conditions established during prior reviews o£ the Highlands Inn continue to � ;'�� apply except as amended herein •°'�.� � r � The Planning pffice expressed some concern with the design . j revisions; a lazge percentage of the building had been moved uphill; the stepping of the building up the slope, although �i . .� generally consistent with the height limitations, resulted in a I\ -� nine (9) story, vertical configuration that accentuated, rather �� than mitigated, the height and mass of the building. The Office � ' `'i maintained that the architectural design of the proposed building ! :i was a critical element of the review process, and suggested that ! `i the applicant design a project that was more reflective of ' � .� mountain architecture. The Planning Office noted that a number of ; �, '1 options wece available to the Board today, including denial/ j' i approval, deferral pending master planning of the Highlands base � -- area, an examination of area and bulk requiremeats to address the ��-' ' density of the base area, and a review of the method f or calculating ;.�:. '� ,� height limitations. The Office recommended that the application '� be tabled pending design chanqes to be implemented by the applicant ' �'� to address visual vulnerability concerns. , `+� Ron Garfield, an attorney cepresenting the applicant, ; � explained that the subject property was purchased by Joe Cooper in 1978, who submitted the original Highlands Inn application. � � Cooper received approval for the reconstruction of the Inn, �Y� received general and detailed submission approvals, height ' ;;� varfances, employee housing review, and a subsequent amendment to • z� the detailed submission application. The subject property, and �"° its approvals, was sold to the Matrix Ski Cocporation last year; ` �;V the Corpocation requested certain amendments to the detailed r`,� submission, and the Plannirtg Commission reviewed and approved �'.� Commissioner's Meeting 24 June, 1986 - 2 ::i t_:n 4-� . :� . ' .,,��.., ,k�� . S�y a � '�i�-"s.rf'`�..r , � '�. ' ���C' �n ... q r '- s� 1 'Y ., ,... . � t' ,r� � ,"W s{r`s�1 e' r c�. 'r�r� e 7�'.'�. y� s,� �:��a�. MYV�.-�..J.i.'�'��x�!,o�.�r��� �' ` . - t-.�tr�k �r��P"'t�}�'��yr?tvCrZ ::f����.Y s'a��s�A , �-u��s���:� ���`,,�.����" � � ����� ` �� , � •. ��{ � t -�� �� �Y�f�.l'�;3��7t.: .�"# a. ��, r.. � � tin:�fi n-�W�„we. .�',.+.._ �.;, � Tr`b.�.f'�s1+1:;Fbi'E .,;��,��i�( �.�`.. ..�i.�.dL' _i _ s'�v .r�l`' .� �''t<.. ��"�- _ `ts them, Garfield noted that the height and archftecture of the proposed building were the major concerns noted by the Planning s Office. He expressed some concern that the Board would place �'--' '� itself in the role of an architectural review committee, as this ' area was generally left to the discretion of the applicant. he k' explained that the applicant met with adjacent property owners to -�;`;:y address their concerns, and he requested an amended detailed - :• i submission apptoval so that construction could be initiated. Garfield noted that, in the event the amendment was not approved, ' �._� the applicant would either redesign the project once again, an ' :'�-'�:`;;�=-� unlikely event, or construct the existing approval. Garfield was `�'`�'•" concerned with the Planning Office recommendation that the Board � `"'° table the a lication; the a p � "=i;�:s;:; pp pplicant urchased the sub'ect �;z':�' Y 9 pproved develo �:,, propert with the understandin that an a pment was • ' .`'�"' y proceed with construction at this time. � `---��;..., in place, and was read to "��'��Y� Rlanderud arrives :�� � ( ) �� Sunny Vann, a private planner representing the applicant, . � explained that he contacted the Planning Office to discuss the ;. �%.�;•"` '� procedure whereby the proposed amendment would be reviewed. The , _ -uy� amendment was precipitated by the franchising and operating firms -,, noted earlier, and the redesign was constrained by the size of ``"•" the sub'ect 7 property. The application submitted f or Board review :' today was generally identical to previous approval; the unit count, employee generation and building footprint were relatively � unchanged, the building area has been somewhat reduced, the �:t internal square footage has been redistributed, the number of , � fireplaces was reduced from eighty-fo�r (84) to one (1) , the number of kitchens has been decreased, the banquet area has been �� ,_'j somewhat increased in size, the parking facilities have not been � changed, and the commercial/retail space has been reduced and ;: :� would be limited to primarily to gnest skiers. �_ _i Michael , an architect representing the applicant, �. , -; explained that the amendment addressed the mass of the proposed _ :.�:;-� building by stepping the building up the slope so that it would ;:°;=�, conform to a three (3) or four (4) story configuration from the ;. � -_ ground. A ninnber of pyramid-shaped pavilions were proposed for ' the roof in an effort to reduce its horizontal mass, and finally, ;� the architect implemented colors that were compatible with the >i subject Valley; lighter wlors would be used at the bottom of the ` _ - structure, for instance, and darker colors would be implemented ;; at the top so as to reduce its visual impact. '� Rrizmanich explained that the Planning Office review of the amendment indicated that the proposed structure represented an ' improvement from the original submission. Although design and ` ' architectare were not generally reviewed by the Board, in this • instance they were considered appropriate for Board review a � � large project such as the Inn has not been approved during the ! :� past sevetal years. Rrizmanich displayed slides of various hotel facilities in Beaver Creek and Avon, as a means of demonstrating � mountain architecture that may be appropriate £or the Maroon ' „__,` :```:.� Creek Valley. , , ;a Planning and Zoning Commission member Suzanne Caskey explained � *>::<°-; that she opposed the amendment ducing COmmission review of the ' :;�"��I application. Caskey explained that she subsequently met with Vaun ;°;;r,;�;) and the architect in an effort to address visual concerns; this ��;;?-� meeting was approved by the County Attorney. Caskey felt that the ^�:�;::; subject property could accommodate a lodge development project ,� ,j that would be compatible with the Valley and the community; such 1 a project could only be designed, however, provided the height limitations identified in the Code were varied. Caskey felt that }f�.;:;, a classic hotel project should be implemented, similar to the �:-`;;,� hotel structures on the slide presentation in Beaver Creek; those +'.••'i facilities were constructed with peaked roofs, dormer windows and �"-"' other architectural styles that reduced the visual mass of a .;:i Y� � . .',� Commissioner's Meeting 24 June, 1986 - 3 v;;:.i ` "1 +,:.:...:I ::X' ' �+r.��' rr����:� � :a.� �,...-� . , .. ... . . . � ;i�r `� r x��'�- r«�� . . . �,r, i" +t a"7i1 � �i.�-.r�;t,,�f�c-w�.f:�;!��y _�».�;t.--=t�6[:3':- S�i.:�t�n.,€�ttmi<i:.�:.�.. �. .L*. F �"�.a�,�s`��i `�'�..�: �.is+�"-��?k'�"`r� . , building, M&G Management representative Doug Wazren, representing the applicant, explained that the architect attempted to reduce the visual mass of the building by nestling the structure into the base area and implemettting the pyramfd-shaped pavilions on the � _ _ 3 roof. Warren felt that the use of the pyramids sufficiently y mitigated the visual impact of the roof line, and that this type � - of mitigation achieved a better zesult that the hotel facilities _- in Beaver Creek. ` Rlanderud expressed some concern that the Board may attempt . � to design a project to comply with the standards of Hilton _ Hotels, She suggested that the Board review the amendment for * ,- � consistency with adopted goals and policies. ,, +:;r � z :3 Michael _ __explained that a number of visual ;._,,,,.<.<s: — - ��:�-.:;�:? variations were available to reduce the basic massing of the /.^i.,.';"_5...-'.-r.'i,:.. �..- .--:.._� structure. The revisions identified in the amendment relied upon ;�``=!�=`�=�+ an exterior randomness as well as the use of peaked roofs in r *.�`� certain specific locations. The mass could be further reduced by n,, delineating the balconies; the balconies could be constructed of • � _..� different materials and colors so that the highest balconies ��`, s`_.� would appear smaller. The height of the pyramid-shaped pavilions -� could be varied in an effort to reduce the horizontal design. ',` Y 3 These variations would not change the basic design of the Inn, � „! rather, it would provide greater variation and serendipity. The r .4�� ;; roof was proposed as a fZat strtzctare both foz structnral and - '`! safety considerations. It was noted that pitched roofs could be ` �- on the wings of the proposed structure, as they were stepped up ::;� the slope; although this technique would increase the visuaZ bulk � ,.y� of the building, it would make the wings look longer and enhance its visual impacts. ; "~� Hraudis thea opened the hearing for pablic comment. Mfchae]. �' ;��,� Convisor, a sixteen (16) year resident of the Maroon Creek ':'�`':T::i ! Valley, was concerned that the Aspen Highlands base area had not �-"' � '�! been master planned during the past twenty (20) years; the :�;� reconstruction of the Highlands inn was approved incrementally over a period of years, an approval which should not have occurred, - -- , Convisor, who opposed the application, requested that the Board ;�;� update its master plan prior to the appzoval of any development . _ ;';� in the subject area. •�� Barbara Convisor, also a resident of the subject Valley, �! noted that the proposed building was both massive and permanent. ' Convisor opposed the application, and requested that the Board ,`'� enforce the fwenty-eight (28) foot height limitation identified � � in the Code; the amendment would result in a nine (9) stoty buildinq, a height which should not be allowed. Maroon Creek Valley resident Joanne Lyon requested that the Board update the maste= plan for the Highlands base area prior to .� the approval. of any development. Lyon nated that there were two (2) very diff erent lodge development proposals pending in the base - I area in the absence of any coordination. _ _- ,; •-- , Attorney Joe Edwards was representing ATC Associates, the `i former owner of the subject property. Edwards explained that ATC had a financial interest in the property and that the applicant :r:>;..,N, . ,� has not satisfied that interest; there was some concern that ti -.>> ownership of the property may revert to ATC in the near £uture, �"• Edwards requested that the original approval for the reconstruction � of the Inn be reinstated in the event the ownership of the F�.=',- ,` . property reverted to ATC, or that the Soacd table action on the application uatil such time as the applicant conld demonstrate �' `'>'" � that a loan commitment has been obtained. �, ; Rlanderud questioned that portion of the project that was �: exempt from FAR. Krizmanich explained that the Building Department � Commissionet's Meeting 24 June, 1986 - 4 , <.':`i r.,.:,,:•>_:•:'•:,. �:_:.: _ _ �o� --- a : , . ,�:,{ '; .�'y�} . ti:�� `°� ' � ' ..., °-. . , . �N �,�; , � ��,'��°`� t�' lr�,..ik': zr � : . �,,��_ . . �,e�y,.! y�, ,A � _ -...w...Y.:;ie`.:��_'�ass:�:.�,... ..�..,.. . .. _.. .��6�'^�.�'��' ' '���tl�M��.3�5'��rT���iG��F�,�r :. e �,.. ��. ti •-: 5 has not yet verified compliance with FAR requfrements; that � ' analysis was anticipated in the near future. He noted that the ,_,� primary changes contained in the amended detailed submission were , ,,� a reduction in buildable area, revisions to the internal square footage, and exterior design changes, � -'�=j Vann explained that the applicant utilized the same methodology € , -�--- - to calculate FAR as was imp2emented by the original applicant. AS f,";. ,;�:'' certain changes were implemented only last week, the Building � Department has not yet finalized its review. Vann suggested that = .:;�p the Board condition the approval of the application to Buildinq - S Department approval. " i • Y;,,:j Klanderud expressed some concern that the amount of open � space may have been changed, and she questioned the need f or a `��%�=�'� height variance. Planning Director Alan Richman explained that T`'-�=�� the amended detailed submission substantially complied with Code . ,�'�''`�� requirements for open space. _ . :;:,: ���� Vann exp7.ained that the prevfous appiicant obtained height � variances from the Board of Adjustment, and that the applicant has complied with those variances. The elevator towers would ,..,,,�_;� exceed the height limitation by fourteen and four kenths (14.4) � ;;s;�`i feet, and a few of the roof points would extend approximately ' %:�>-.� five (5? feet beyond the limitation. The applicant would appear � ``.`'=���� before the Board o£ Adjustment this evening to request a furthe= .< � variance of up to seven (7) feet in certain locations. - Klanderud expressed some concern that a height vatiance was �� necessary, noting that the Board reqaired the Highlands Resort applicant to comply with the height limitations. She noted that � ._i,;, the Board could deny the project on the basis of height at this , ,;;-=; time. �.. '� Richman explained that the Resort application was a PUD, in � which case the Board was authorized to address height variances, j The Inn was a subdivision application, and the applicant was � entitled to request a height variance from the Board of Adjustment c,...r;.�1 k;:;��;:.� as a result unless the Board conditioned its approval in such a _��-;°� way as to preclude such a variance. ' Madsen noted that, although the master plan for the base area should be updated, the Board was unable to do so at this ° time. He indicated support for the court yard, the reduction in �? retail space, the stepping of the buildinq up the slope, and the :� use of the pyramid-shaped pavilions, all as proposed in the - amendment. He was conaetned, however, with the mass and height of the building and suggested that one (1) or two (2) floors be � • removed from the top ot the building; he also su99ested that the j balconies be made more irregular in an effort to mitigate the ;f visual affect of the facade of the tauilding. '. � Sandy Ritter, cepresenting the applicant, explained that the . _�;�i applicant contacted the Highlands Resort applicant on a number of •; occasions to attempt an interconnect between the two (2) lodges �� proposed in the base area. The applicant desired to coordinate � development in the base area, but was unable to reach agreement �� _ - �� with the resort applicant. �,` . `� Warren explained that the Inn was designed as a hotel and ��,«r_, that the design reuisions were necessary to allow it to function '` ;`� as such. The revisions contained in the amendment were necessary - - to accommodate various technical hotel and candominium issues. �'•,';,;�; With respect to the mass of the building, he noted that the i:��.'?'1 visual affect of the balconies could be reduced with the use of `�;_�;" different colors and materials, �<c` ;:i � 'j Klanderud questioned the submission oE a 2andscaping plan, ""' � Vann explained that a detailed landscaping plan was inclueed in -;;�=-;::} ?r�, ''� the original general submission a lication• that ,.�.._,,,� pp , plan provided �' -� Commis$ioner's Meeting 24 June, 1986 - 5 ; , y , rt;,� �,,:;..' '' >.:,, . ���K . ��� � {��' 4 1:•+ � ' ' � x� P ft�3:: ta @ L r �i.. tis. s Y'a i .ri.:±:�?: ��f;,ea+`�,�.�,95,„,b�c^�y�.�'� � ,'� 4,1`'^'Y��; : � �:.. . �y � �y ''w r.r i%? r, K> , . . ..._.,�. _.. ,<. .__..���... . :.. . .. ......» eYs:}..�.��.�L'�.� `" " t.rv ..i�'�.. . ��.�". A�;. extensive landscaping along the access road, the front wing of the building, and along the foundation. The applicant would save � � as many existing trees on the property as was possible. �'�+ Richman suggested that the Board require a detailed subdivision ' , imptovement agseement to guarantee the payment of the Maroon � Creek Road improvement costs attributed to the applicant as well as the implementation of the landscaping plan. �._.,._ - ,; .� i Ch31d noted that the Board reviewed the original Inn project ;:<, over an extensive period of time, and that it was generally � - ::.:,� satisfied with that project. Ae noted that the Board was obligated -,;� :; to ensure that the amendment was satisfactory to both the traveling � public as well as the community, and requested an opportunity to � ' - ;.,;; review the model af the amendment on the site. The mass of the ;'r':,:;:=:�-- proposed building was considered the most critical component of - the application. .__.�4•��:�.a , �'`�`�, Braudis noted that the Aspen Highlands base area was in need �� - 7 ' of some level of development. He suggested that the Soard defer °'�:� action on the application, however; the applicationwould constitute '' ,`; the first large hotel project to be approved in the County in a � �� number of years, and the Soard should ensuze that a quality �,�:,� project was implemented. A.� � ATC Associates representative Joe Cooper explained that he was supportive of the application. He did not oppose the Planning ' ;�� Of£ice recommendation to table the application, however, as it was felt that such would provide the applicant with sufficient , =;.� time to obtain financing for the project. � � �`� Garfield explained that there were a number of financial ���! constraints associated with tabling, as well as construction _, - ;;�;:� season constraints. He noted that the applicant has already made ��] a large financial investment in the project, on the basis of a � previously approved project. The revisions contained in the amendment were considered beneficial, and there was some concern .,,,:� that the applicant may be required to redesign the project in an i:�=:;�.°,, effort to address visual concerns. Garfield stated that the � applicant would commit to cooperate and participate in an on- _ �� going review process, whereby the applicant, the Planning Office • _�;j and the architect would continue to tedesign the project, provided - the application was approved today. Approval was necessary so , ,.j that the applicant could obtain the necessary financing for the ,-:_:i proj ect. _ . � �`;� Rlanderud noted that she approved the original one hundred ,�: and twenty-five (125) unit submission. The reconstruction of the : '°fl . Inn has been inczementalized over a period of years, howevez, `�� including approval for a Code amendment, approval f or additional _� units, and others. Klanderud explained that she later opposed the � ':'+ project upon a realization that the subject property conld not ; : support the extent of the development that was finally proposed. The amendment submitted for Board review today was consideced '. "'� another incremental approval, and she indicated that she would � ` -:ri oppoae the project at this time, xlanderud did not feel that the - Board was in the position to function as an architectural review �. � committee, and it was not felt that stafE was either; rather, the '' ""a burden was on the applicant to demonstrake an appropriate use of � ' ��`� a parcel of land, a use which was consistent with the size of the � � ;=_;;;-� parcel, as well as impact mitigation, including visual impacts. ''��� She felt that the size and confiquration of the subject property ,,;.� _��•t was most appropriate for a one hundred and twenty-five (125) unit ';;�,•'�j lodge development as originally proposed. Klanderud requested an , i opportunity to conduct a site inspection with the model prior to r�t��',1 �• Board action. `r';:`si �Yr`; >`r;...i Madsen explainec7 khat he favored the general concept contained � in the amendment; the project should be refined, however, to �����' address its bulk and height. l i���;. t;'•;�"� Commissioner's Meeting 24 June, 1986 - 6 �..., � ,... ..i 1•:::'..-�. - � . .. ..'/:'::�� ' � . . +lVw' � ' . � ' �a��P ''W ���; Te:.�`,'�trP `�..'.'�,�y+" .. 1�.. ... ... - .. . .. . . . . .. . .... . _. ..... ...�.. 1.i � . . . `'��.�. 4:p +', � - �r� 4 ����� Vann explained that the applicant could not reduce the �� ; number of lodge units from one hundred and eighty (180) to one ( hundred and twenty-five (125}. He was concerned that the application � may be tabled as it was not known what issues should be addressed , by the applicant. It was noted that the applicant has expended 1 ,..s, approximately two million dollaYS ($2,000,000) on the p=oject to --_� date. � """"'�� �`� Rlanderud explained that it was inappropriate for the Board E : ' to assess a land use proposal on the basis of architectural � k: review. She explained that the applicant was tequired to submit a S :` �'-.•- design that was compatible w3th the scenic quality and visual ' , vulnerability policies contained in the Code. 5he suggested that � ,'`•�. . the application be tabled to provide the applicant with an !':�:�,�`: oppottunity to address those policies. ` ° r`-�„ ! �'�� Sraudis asked £or additional comments, and there were none. • �� ' '`y Klanderud then moved to table the application and to continue ���� the hearinq to 15 July, 1986; the motion was intended to provide i , ", .�„�, the Board with_ an opportunity to conduct a site inspection and �� ;;��''�;� provide the applicant with an opportunity initiate desiqn changes �• �;c,�P:. _.�,�� consistent with Code policies. Child seconded and the motion � �^�"'�= passed unanimously. : � �.�`� , ,;,,;:: � : Lt'`�` —^---^---- ���,:� Aa,4{r� Theze being no further business, the meeting was adjoutned. i , �9,� � , }q ��w������� . . . . , �. � + • . �v . � � � . � , . . .��w a'��;� . . � . .. . � . { .� . ^ a� i ���' � ' ..r _ �� � { �.� ` �'� ► �. �, , ,,,:� ; � , E���� ; ti.� �T� . . - . � . . � . .. +,� . � . . . i j . . . � �w�,.. , � � . . � . 4 � j��. ' :'�:�. . ., , �� t� ; � � , � e �� �:� � a�b r __ ��M1� � <3�? t .�. i� ��� ; . F��y � �� �!�° ��` Commissione='s Meeting 2A June, 1986 - 7 ;3i� i%x� � r�4� �h> y w y�,� si�`��x��,i �T�4� I,r 1986 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBITS June 24 Amendment to A Memorandum Dated June 24, 1986,from Francis Krizmanich, Highlands Inn Detailed Planner,to Board of County Commissioners Submission A roval B Memorandum Dated May 13, 1986,from Mark Fuller, Environmental Coordinator,to Francis Krizmanich,Planner �� � f � � � ��n � ��,��� � . �� (€ €.,�E,,,� q�,,,,..��°", ����� ,,, � �€,�.d.....�_ . ... .. - ��E , �._,-.�- ,...,..E .�.. ::. <�ff < � 23 „ p��Jt1 _ M.��� �Lr�► �” _ �wf.��'i G�i� n�•�[ . � � , , .. ,. _ c.r � ��''Fs y u�N,l- •r�'a. !�"" : . ;�,,.M. ,�.,�t �.r�..� / �7 . MEMURAN W M `"'•'�Ls s`'�'JS( �r • ....(,[�..-r.".1..-f�..,— antn{, IvI!`r�td�3'�'�" ��. ' ( � t��/ '... //- / '3 tA /' ' ' ' ...._..../.�.�! ... . (�t 0.♦..f1/�U'�"' -. . � ��� T0: ard of County Commissioners � FROM: Francis Y.rizmanich, Planning Office ��� r RE: Amendment to the Highlands inn Detailed Subnission Approval - Public Hearing Parcel ID# 2735-143-QO-006 DATE: June 24, 1986 REQUEST: This application is a request tio amend the Detailed Submission approval for the reconstruction of the Highlands Inn. The applicant intends to revise the approved building program anc3 architectural design and relocate the project ' s access to accommodate the Aspen Highlands Ski Corporation's current base area master plan. APPLICANT: Matrix Ski Corporation of Dallas, Texas LOCATION: The base of the Highlands Ski Area PRQTECT HISTORY: On July ?.3 , I984, the Board of County Commis- sioners granted Special F.eview and Amended DetaiZed Submission approval to the Nighlands Inn Renewal. This approval was granted to allaw the applicant to demalish and reconstruct the Highlands Inn, to include 173 condominium tourist or hotel units and five employee dormitory units. Approval was also granted to exempt certain subgrade, subordinate areas from FAR cal.culations. A complete history of the Highlands Inn approvals is attached as Exhibit "A". The Board has asked that the Planning Office comment on our determination that this application is appropriate for revie�� as an amendment to the prior detailed submission approval to the project. Following are our comments in this regard. The Land Use Code did not contemplate the need for substantial amendments to a detailed submission. Therefore, no specific procedure for review of such applications exists. Further, the � Code did not contempla�e the oossibility that substantial changes would be made between the general and detailed staqes of review ! and yet the application could continue to conform to the condi- � �ions of its approval, and no procedure exists to address such � situations either. Since the Highlands Inn Renewal falls into � both of these procedural areas, we have had to develop approaches to both matters. ' � 1 ' i i i ( � _. i ,r ;: i � . , I.; . : , i; - . �� - . . . . „ �� ' :. ;, i,: ' • , ' . J�!; . � , �, . : . � • !' .a.J .,� • �, . �;, • �' . � � . .� � .� . . i ' . � � ' . . , � ' .. , . � � '� ' . � . . . .! . r '; ' . , , ; . . . . � . � . ; • , • . . ;;; , � i J• , . :I • . . • . • ' • '�� � � , • � .. � . � . � . • . . � . . . i , ' . .. � .` , •� , ' , ++ ' t � • • , , ,N+w o� �u•� - APt'"ocI � � • � � . . .. _c r ,� u�:� ' �,�� �r�� �„� . _ b � �.r�,r .. l'll:rl'iVR�W M 4��G C�J/ ,(�,�,�+ • ... �j.-�—}.�L—Sjj �a^(V- N�'�.co,f i�a'N—." `�. � : �' ty� -. : ..... .h.�--�..... .. ,k.a. ..,Fw- EX IBIT �. TO: r� of County Commissioners � FROM: Erancis Krizmanich, Planning Office �� . RE: Amendment to the Highlands Inn Detailed Subnission Apprwal - Public Hearing Parcel ID# 2735-143-00-006 DATE: June 24, 1986 REQUEST: This appl ication is a requP.st to amend the Detailed Submission approval for the reconstLUCtion of the Highlands inn. The applicant intends to revise the approved building program anc3 architectural design and relocate the project ' s access to accommodate the Aspen Highlands Ski Corporation's current base area master plan. APPLICANT: Matrix Ski Corporation of Dallas, Texas LOCATION: The base of the Highlands Ski Area PRQTECT HISTORY: On July 1.3 , I984, the Board of County Commis- sioners granted Special P.eview and Amended Detailed Submission approval to the Highlands Inn Renewal. This approval was granted to allaw the applicant to demolish and reconstruct the Highlands Inn, to include 173 condominium tourist or hotel units and five employee dormitory units. Approval was also granted to er.empt certain subgrade, subordinate areas from FAR calculations. A complete history of the Highlands Inn approvals is attached as Exhibit "A". ' The Board has asked that the Planning Office comment on our determination that this application is appropriate for review as an amendment to the prior detailed submission approval to the � project. Following are our comments in this regard. The Land Use Code did not contemplate the need for substantial amendments to a detailed submission. There�ore, no specific procedure for revieo� of such applications exists. Further, the � Code did not contemplate the possibility that substantial changes would be made between the general and detailed stages of review and yet the application could continue to conform to the condi- tions of its approval, and no procedure exists to address such situations either. Since the Highlands inn Renewal falls into ` both of these procedural areas, we have had to develop approaches � to both matters. 1 i � � i ; '� I The approach which the County has taken to these matters in the nast has been as follows : o The original detailed submission which changed the project from a facility of about 125 units to one of above 180 units was reviewed at a publ ic hearing, thereby repeating the hearing at the general submission stage. This change was the major one during the many years this project has been under consideration by the County. o Subsequent detailed subr.►ission amendments have also been held as public hearings,. In our opinion, the "concept " for thi� project has alway� been that of tearing down the existing buildinq and replacing it with a new, full service hotel in the approximate footprint in which it is now proposed. Since the concept has been and continues tu remain the same as originally approved at the general and detailed submission stages, there is no justification for sending this project back to an earlier stage of the process . The process which we have set up, while certainly allowing for incremental changes to the project to build up into a signifi- cantly different project than oric�inally conceived, allo�s the Board to addcess the substantive issues associated with this application, and should therefore be the one which we follow. As a final. matter to consider, the Board should not feel bound by the criteria used in the GMP regardir.g "substantial amendments. " This criteria is appropriate to projects which compete for the right tfl build and are therefore judged in a comparative evalua- tion process. This project is er.empt from the GMP due to its having preceded the lodge component of the system and should therefore not be held to the same criteria as projects which do compete. j PRQ7ECT COMPARISON: The following table provides a summary of the approved project versus the changes requested in this amended appl ication. f � ; , ; i i � i i i I 2 � � i � i , ,c�►,� rr BAS IC PRQT ECP PARAMETERS Highlands Inn Parameter Approved Praject A m e n d e d Proj ect l . Total Site Area (sq . 291 ,989/6.70 Same ft./acres) Area Zoned AR-1 269 .380/6.64 Same Area Zone AF-1 2,6p9/0.06 Same 2. Maximum Allowahie Unit 18Q Same Count @ 1,600 s. f. site area/unit� 3. Total Unit Count 178 5a„�e Lodge Uni.ts 17 3 Sam e �tnpl oy ee Uni ts 5 Same 4 . Maximum Aliowable FAR C 104,176 Same 0.36: ]. (s. f.) 1 5. Total Building Area (s.f.) 224,620 224 ,054 �rea Assignable to FAR 102,431 ].03 ,279 Area Exempt from FAR 122�189 120,775 6 . Building Program Areas (s.f.) 2 [Jnits 109,430 106 ,�80 Food/Beverage 5 ,452 a ,050 Kitchen 1,8'70 2,569 F3anquet/F�eeting 3 �093 7 ,330 Lobby 1 ,225 2,993 Administration/Office 1,208 2,799 Support Facilities 6,411 6 ,298 Vehicular Facilities 42,386 35,964 �9echanical/Electrical 4 ,638 3 ,840 Commercial/fleal th & 7�94� 5,965 Recreation Ci rcul ati on/Cov ered 40 ,9 6 4 41 ,766 Courts & Decks � , 7 . Miscellaneous Program ? Com po ne nt s j ! � f � �—� — Condominium Units 103 80/l73 (min./max.) Pillaas3 466 532 Kitchens (full/mini) 68/33 15/65 t�'oodburning Devices 84 ]. Food ancl B everage 3 83 37 5 Seati ng T3anquet & Pieeting 190 400 Seating 8. Mi nimum Req ui red Open 213,600 Same � Space C 1,200 s. f./unit (s.f.) 9 . Total Site Coverage (s. f../$) Building Footpri'nt 40,216/0.14 49,936/0.17 Roads 13,936/0.05 12,892/0.04 Open Space 237 ,837/0.81 229,161/ .79 10. Minimum Parking Require- 126 Same ment� Lo�ge Units @ 0.7 121 Same S�a ce s/ilni t �mplayee Units � 1.0 5 Same Space/unit 11. Total Parkinq Provided 132 133 Surface Spaces I9 --- Subgrade Spaces 113 133 12. 4nplayee Housing Total Emplayees 60 58 Generated Total Empl ay ees 56 Same Housed On-site Total E�nployees 4 2 E�oused Off-site � Maximum alla�able unit count and FAR computed on basis of land zoned AR-1. 2 Square footages include both assignable and exempt areas. 3 Does not include emplvyee pillvws. � , 4 Set by �rior Special Review approval. � � I I � � I l�lA70R ISSOES AND CONCERNS I. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS A. Aspen Water Department - In a memo dated April 16 , 1986, Jim Markalunas submitted the following comments: "Assuming that the appl icant has agreed to the Glen Eagle - Glen Gary Interconnect, replacing the fonr (4) ir_ch water main which terminates at a fire hydrant, and will apply for the necessary permits, including payment of tap fees, the City of Aspen �aater Department can provide water serv ice to th e pr oj ect . B. Roaring Fork Transit Agency - In a memo dated April 25 , 1986, $ruce Abel submitted the following comments: 1 . The commitment by the hotel operator to provide transportation services for Highlands Inn guests is quite appropriate. 2. It wiZl be important that the Highlands Inn project be appropriatelv integrated with the Aspe� Highlands Ski Campany project to ensure appropri- ate pedestcian access and flow to the transit plaza proposed by P.HSC. 3. RFTA v�ou1 � 1 ike to see assuraRCes that the Highlands p�rking lot will be available for the t9aroon Bells service during the construction of the new hotel. C. Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority - The Housing Authority recommends approval of this amendr,�ent to the project. The approval includes the change from sixty (60) emplayees to fifty-eight (58) (56 on-site and 2 off- site) i•�ith a cash-in-lieu payment for middle income calculated at the time of issuance of the building permit. The one variance from the dormitory code which . allows 12 employees per kitchen is approved for 14 emplo��ees per kitchen. The deed-restriction originally approved shall be filed with the County Clerk and Recorder at the time of issuance of the building permit f or the on-site units. 4. Environmental Realth Department - In a memo dated April 16, 1986, Tom Dunlop submitted the follawing comments: a. Constructior► Air Pollution - Contact by the � project sponsor shall be made with the Colorado i Health Deparkment to determine if an emission 5 i � permit and/or a f�gitive dust control plan is required f or both the demolition and construction phase of the proj ect. b. Fugitive (wind blown) Dust - The applicant will be required to prevent wind blown dust from 1 eav i ng th e pr ope r ty . c. Prior to any demolitioh of existing buildings, the applicant sha21 certify thcough a qualified source that there is no asbestos. present in those buildings. If asbestos is present in the build- ings , the appl icant shall retain qual if ied asbestos removal personnel to remove the material. d. Underground Parking - Adequate air handling facilities shall be designed into_ the complex to eliminate any buildup of air contaminants inside the underground parking structures. e. Sol id Fuel Bucning Devices - The appl icant has committed to install only natural gas fireplaces in eighty (80) lodge units. AZso, the submittal states that thete will be only one cor.ventional fireplace to be lecated in the hotel lobby. This commitment is in conformance with policies of this department . f. Serage Disposal - Service to this project of a publ ic sew age col l ect i on sy st em as pr ov ide d by th e Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District is in conf ormance w ith pol ici es of th e Env i ronmenta2 Health Department. g. Water Supply - Service to this project by the distribution lines as provided by the City of Aspen Water Department is in conformance with poZ icz es of th e Env i ronmental Heal th Depa rtment. h. Noise Abatement - The appl icant w il l be req ui red to comply with the State of Colorado Noise Abatement Law , Title 25 Article ].2 during the demolition, construction and occupancy phases of the project. A project of this magnitude can be expected to generate persistent sound levels that may be annoy ing to the neighborhood. Time of day, durati.ort of specific activities and using the most technically quiet equipatient are a few mitigating measures that may be used. It is recommended that work on the project site not start before 7: 00 A.M. and cease no later than 7:00 P.M. 6 _ �. .�„ _ _--- -- - _ . -- The submittal details plans for night time entertainment to be included in the project. Construction techniques shall be employed which will not allvw sound generated from this facility ta exceed the noise abatement law maximum allaw- able decibel levels. i. No evidence of mine dumps or mine tailings being present on the praject site are indicated in the submittal . All suspected mine waste materials shall be sampled and evaluated by a qualified laboratory. The sample analysis sha11 be provided to the Environment2l Health Department for evaluation. j. All food servi.ce establishmeats shall comply with the Rules And Regulations Governi,pg T,� Sanitation Of t�ood,J, erv 'ce Estab2 ishment s In '�he State _� C�lotado. Compliance with the Piticin County Restaurant Grill Regulation will be required. k. Swimming Pools/Spas - 9wimming pools and spas to be constructed shall comply wi th the State of Col orado Srimmin�Pool Regulatioes and Standards. (see complete Environmental Health Departr.►ent conments attached) E. County Planaing Engineer - In a memo dated April 30, 1986, Tom Hewlan8 submitted the follaaing comments: a. Impacts on Road System - nuring the revic-�a of the Aspen Highlands Resort, this of£ice determined that the combined traffic impacts of both the Aspen Highlands Resort proposal and the approved . H ighl ands I nn dev el opment w oul d cause total traffic counts on �laroon Creek P,oad (County Koad �I3) to exceed design capacities. At the time of �he Aspen highlands Resort submission, an esti- mated figuce of $160,000 was listed by this office as the amount of money required to upgrade Maroon Creek �oad and therefore mitigate traffic impacts. It was determined by the Aspen/Yitkin Planninc� Office in the Highlands Resort review that 65 percent of the estimated road improvement costs should be paid by the Aspen Highlands Resort. Because of the trafEic zmpacts generated by both projects, the Highlands Inn should be responsible for 35 percent of the road improverient costs based on the proportion of total hotel rooms added to the base of Aspen Highlands by the Highlands Inn proposal . Following the above proportions, the 7 Highlands Inn should be responsible for 35 percent of the total upgrade costs for Maroon Creek Road, equivalent to 556 ,600. b. Parking - The Highlands Inn F�as granted a variance to the parking requirement of one space per bedroor� in their 1983 Detailed Submission. This variance set the parking requir�nent at .7 spaces per bedroom. The analysis of parking demand is � well presentec] in the detailed submission and no probl ems are seen with the plan as long as the Aspen f:ightands Resort has approved. c. Drainage - The applicant ' s drainage study deter- mines potential on-site drainage, detention requirements, erosion controls anci water quality assurances that appear adequate f or the site. Although the detention ponds will hcld the 200 year event, discharge from these ponds is directed overlan� onto adjacent properties. The p�tential impacts of this discharge onto adjacer•t properties shoul d be addresse d by the appl icant. ci. Road Design - The Detailed Submission amencitnent should be required to conform to the 1985 Pitkin County Road Standards n S cifications, where applicable. II. STAFF COMMENTS: The i�iatrix Ski Corporation is reqaesting Amended Detailed Submission for the Highlands Inn based on the need to refine the design of the approved hotel. The applicant lists three major reasons which necessitate the redesign of the highlands Inn: 1. The site limitations imposed by AHSC' s revisions to their mountain master plan; 2. The specific program recruirements of Hilton Inns, the proposed hotel franchiser; and 3. The operating experience and preferences of M&G Management, The Planning Office supports amendr�ents to the Highlands Inn approval if these amendments will indeed permit a hotel to be cvnstructed at the Highlands base area. We believe that it is appropriate to process this application as an amend- ment , rather than a new submission for the following reasons: 1. The project is generally consistent with its basic development parai;ieters; as shown in the profi.Ie table; 8 and 2. This was not a GMP appl ication si.nce it was submitted prior to the imposition of the Loc�ge quota, and so it has a di£ferent test to meet for amendments than does the project ivhich competes for an allotment. The Planning �ffice is cancerned. however, that each new amendment to the approved projeat has incrementally 3.n- creased the siz� of the hotel in one manner or another. The project has evolved from the original proposal of 126 tourist and 15 emplayee units contained withi.n slightly less than 80 ,000 square �eet at general subn�ission to this latest amendment which proposes 173 Iodge units and 5 employee nnits contained within 224 ,000 s. f. The najor increase iri the project in this submissi�n is in terms of the increase in building footptint from jia�t a��er 40 ,000 s. f. {almost one acre) to nearly 50,000 s.f. and the perceivea movement of much of the mass of the hotel up the hill, increasing its viszbility and scenic impact. The develepment plan never- theless includes over 15 ,000 s. f. more than is required to meet its open space needs. With the recent approval of the Highlanus Resort General Submission it has become apparent that the combined projects represent a significant impact to Maroon Creek Road. The general submission approval granted to the Highlands Resort is a signif icant change in the conditions affecting this area and must be taken into account by this applicant. The Planning Office agrees with Tom t�ewland, that the Eiighlands Inn should be responsi bl e f�r 35 per ce nt of the r oa d ; improvement costs associated with the upgrading of �taroon Creek Road. 11t the P&Z meeting, the applicant agreed to pay i the reqaested 556 ,600� �rovided that it be gaid at such time as the County is actually read�► to initiate the road constr uction proj ect . J �7ith regard to the revised design of the Highlands Inn, the ; applicant has indicated that the total floor area of the proj ect has actually decreased by 600 squate feet. The applicant f urther contends that square f ootages and fl oor plans have been changed to provide for a "buildable" hotel that fits within i:he framework of the Hilton Hotel's design parameters. The Planning Office has no problem wi�h allowinq design changes that create a buildable project, however , the 7.oning and Buil�ing Departments are still in ' the process of analyzing the applicant's floor area ratio calculations to determine if the present design conforms to previous approvals. Therefore, approval of this application � should be contingent upon these departments verifying the � applicant's conformance with previously approved flooc area ; ratios. i 9 � i i The Highlands Inn hotel has been designed to be compatible with the proposed Highlands Resort. The present access to the hotel is a circuitous drive which follows the perimeter of the site. This application proposes to change the access so that it is compatible with the entrance drive as proposed in the Highlands Resort General Submission. The new access is functional and will work well with the proposed Highlands Resort access plans. In fact, the overall orientation of the Inn and its access plan appear to be a vast improvement over the prior site plan. In regard to the proposed architecture for the new Highlands Inn, the Planning Office notes that past approvals which granted increased unit count,s have necessarily 1ed to a much larger building than originally proposed. tahile admittedly, the County has not gotten intimately involved with the architectural design of projects, the Planning Off�ce feels ' compelled to comment on the proposed architecture ior this new version of the Eighland� Inn. ihe new hotel is proposed as a flat roofed structure v�ith added "peaks" that steps 4p the hillside to take fu22 advantage of the County 28 foot height limit . By interpretation of what constitutes "historic grade" on the property and by use of the steppe� technique, there are actually nine levels proposed in this 28 foot f��igh bnilding. The exterior proposed f or the building is to be a cemetitious concrete naterial of a color whi�h the applicant has portrayed "will =eflect the natural hues of the exposed earth and rocks of the adjacent valley. " There are several problems with the design of the structure as it is currently pcopose� including: 1. A larger percentage of the building appears to have moved uphill from prior submissions . The Aspen Highlands Resort General Submission recognized the inappropriateness of developing on the hillside by proposing to trade away AR-1 zoned land on the slope for an equal amount of land naw zoned AF-1 on the flat pottion of the site. By placing the hotel on land similar to that portion of the site which the 1lspen fliahlands Skiing Company has proposed to trade away, this proposal is inconsistent with its proposed nei ghbor and w ith good overaZl ba se area pl anni ng. 2. The project is taking full advantaue of the �act that the County Code measures height from historic grade, . rather than from existing grade or fror.� finished grade (the grade once the project is complete) . By re- establishing with the Zoning Official what was historic grade prior to the cut into the hillside for the 10 existing Highlands Inn, the applicant is able to gain several stories of height in the area where most of the project ' s mass is proposed to be located. While this interpretation of height has been a part of all of the Highlands Inn submissions, the new aesign, along with the nodel displayec; by the applicant, have made it Quite apparent that the Code has been inter- preted in a way which was not anticipated when tY,is provision was drafted. By measuring from historic grade , we have encouraged the applicant to cut as deeply into the hillside as possible, since this portion of the structure will be belaa historic grade. Further, we have no incentives in the Code for varyinq the dimensions of the building, given our inter- pretation of height, and so we end up with a box-like design with flat roofs, which is at, and even above 28 feet in places, even when measuced� from historic grade. It seems apparent to us that a re-e•r.amination of the � County height limitation is imperative at this point ,. including consideration of ineasuring from existing grade or finished grade rather than historic grade and looking at techniques such as average rather than absolute roof height to encourage roof elevations which vary f.rom one location to the next. Hcvrever , this review �vill not help us in addressing the Highlands Inn application, which has �been prepared using existing codes and must be judged accordingly. 3. Looking at the prior approved design, it is clear that , the current proposal does not employ the "stepping" technique to the same beneficial effect as before. The current proposal is much more uniform in its treatment of facades and creates a vertical impression that accents rather than mitigates against its height and mass. The "institutional" impression from having room after room on the same levels, without visual relief or breakup was a major complaint of- two members of the Planning Commission and is a concern shared by the Planning Office. The Planning Office opinion is that architectural design is a critical element in the renewal of the Highlands base area. The split vote of the Planning Commission when they reviewed this project and the public comments at that meetiny concerning architectural design have reinforced the Planning Office opinion that design should be a critical element of the review process. In response to concerns regarding design, the applicants have re-worked the hotel exterior. to make it more reflective 11 of mountain "architecture." The applicant will present the revised model at the Board hearing as well as pictures of the model as it was presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Office opinion is that the present design is an improvement over both the approved design and the design that was last presented to the Planning Commission. In particular , the present color scheme appears more appropri- ate f or the Maroon Creek Valley as it reflects the natural colors found in the area. The current roof forms have been moc3ified to slope and do help to create an appearance of "mountain" architectvre, hawever , they do not seem to be v�ell integrated into the building so that the finished appearance feels somewhat contrived. To explain the term "mountain" architecture the following design styles are recommended by the Planning sta€f: o At a distance, the hotel will be seen from the mountain sides and P!aroon Creek Road. At the distant view, the hotel should be composed of simple understated forms with an overall consist�ncy of color and Materials. Due to vegetation and site lines created by topography, the roofs will become the dominant feature of the hotel . Roof s should be simple hip and gable forms. The fl at roofs proposed w ill tend to make the site look like a large parking lot from above and will accentuate the nassiveness of the building through flat surfaces that have no "depth . " o riaterials and colors should be relatively subdued with non-refl.ective surfaces. The applicants have provided a better color scheme with this newest version of the hotel. They have also eliminated the glass covered entryway in favor of a roofed entryway. The Planning Office sup�orts these design changes. o Subtle chanqes with walls, walkways, �•�indows and entrances should be used to create interest through changing frontages and points of focus. Window and door openings should be placed in more casual, random patterns to avoid rigid symmetry and repetition. The Planning Office recommends that the Board reject this design in favor of a desiqn concept more reflective of "mountain architecture" that would in our opinion be more appropriate for this site . (Please note that only two members of the Planning Commission rejected the architec- tural concept for the hotel , and that it therefore received a 3-2 vote in support of the amendment as proposed.) This desiqn concept is reflected in the Highlands Resort General Submission which proposes buildings with sloped roofs and softer exterior treatments. Revisinq the architecture of the Highlands Inn would lead to a more compatible visual 12 relationship between the two projects. S[TMMARY AND REQOMMENDATION: The applicant is proposing to amend the Highlands Inn Detailed Submission to create a buildable proj ect. The Planning Off ice supports this appl ication on the basis that previous approvals have been granted so that the proj ect could indeed be built. However, we bel ieve that design changes must be made which will address the mountain character of our resort. The options available to the Board at this juncture are: 1. Der�y the proposed amendment and have the appl icant return to the prior approved submission. 2. Table the proposed amendment and have the applicant make design changes to soften its appearance (Planning Office recommendation) . 3 . Approve the project as recommended by the Plannina Commis- sion. The above options presume that the Board continues to support the concept of the Highlands Inn Renewal. If this is not the case, the other options available to the �oard are: 4. Initiate a master planning process for the Highlands Base Area to determine the need for zoning boundary changes. 5. Examine the area and bulk rEquirements in the AR-1 zone to. potentially reduce the density alla�ed at the Highlands Base Area. 6. Review the method of calculatino height in all zone dis- tricts in the County. The Pl anning Comnission recommends approval subj ect to the f oll ow ing condi tions: 1 . The appl icant shall contribute 35 percent of the cost of upgrading riaroon Creek Road, which cost is calculated to be approximately $5b ,600. This payment shall become due prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the - hotel. 2. The Zoning and Building Departments shall verify that the project floor area ratio totals conform to previous ap- provals prior to the hearing before the [3oard of County Commissioners. 3. The applicant shall address drainage impacts onto adjacent properties and provide suitable mitigation measures as 13 i approved by the County Engineer prior to the hearing bef ore the Board of County Commissioners. 4. The appl icant shall continue to provide 100 Percer.t of the emplayee housing as approved by the Housing Authority. 5. � The applicant shall plan construction activities and areas in a manner that cvill not cause disruption tc the ttaroon Eells Bus system. ° 6. The appl icant shall limit construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7: 00 P.r?. Construction activi- ties on Saturdays and Sundays shall be further limited to the hours between 8:00 A.�t. and 6: 00 P.rl. � 7. The appl icant shall comply with all requirements ar.d regulations �utlined by the Environmental Health Departr�ent in their memo of April 16 , 1986 . 8 . All representations made and conditions establ ished during prior reviews of the Highlands Inn continue to apply except � as amendec� herein. ' FK.1 i i 14 � ; , i . � i EXHIBfT � � . � p�tkin county 506 east main street aspen, coforado 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: FRANCIS KRIZMANICH lc/�/' FROM: MARK FULL�R !�-±' V RS: ASPEN HIGHLANDS LIFT UPGRADES DATE: 5/13/S6 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It appears that these lift replacements will not create signific- ant environmental impacts due to their being installed on previously-disturbed aligaments. Considering also the construct- ion schedule, the standardized practices of lift construction and reclamation of disturbed lands on ski areas and the remote locations of the lifts to be replaced, I da not anticipate any adverse environmental impact from this proposed project.