Aspen Club and Spa

by Brent Gardner-Smith, Aspen Daily News Staff Writer

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

The city of Aspen will have some weighty factors to sift through with the proposed Aspen Club residential expansion project.

The owners of the Aspen Club and Spa, located east of downtown Aspen, are proposing to build 19 condominiums through a building expansion and on what is now the club’s tennis courts.

In a concept called Aspen Club Living, owners of the units would buy two weeks each year to come for a healthy retreat, taking advantage of Aspen’s amenities and expanded wellness programs at the club.

The proceeds from the sales of the 304 timeshare interests, which if sold at $2,000 per square foot would top $94 million in sales, would finance a renovation of existing club facilities, including a new outdoor pool and new locker rooms. The timeshare owners would not have access to their units in the shoulder seasons, when the club would offer weeklong wellness retreats to the general public.

The project would also include 12 affordable housing units that would house about 27 employees. All this is proposed to be built to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards, and would include an array of solar panels and a ground-source heat-pump system.

In a two-hour meeting with Aspen’s Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, a wide range of issues were touched upon, but no vote was taken. The P&Z must recommend approval or denial to Aspen City Council.

Town staff supports the concept of a wellness-themed timeshare development, but has issues with its design, architecture and mass, and how it relates to the nearby Roaring Fork River. The design of the residential buildings, particularly one long building that will house seven of the 19 units, cuts off the view from the entrance of the club to the nearby riparian area, city planner Jessica Garrow told the commissioners. The planning office would like to see the structure more broken up, Garrow said, and finds the architecture itself uninspiring.

“I don’t think the architecture represents the mission that has been stated,” Garrow said.

An architect from Poss Architecture and Planning, which designed the units, said perhaps the planning office had not been able to “pull out of the drawings” the project’s unique features. The architect cautioned that pulling the mass of the building apart would create dark, U-shaped dead spaces between the buildings.

Some of the club’s 200 employees showed up to praise their workplace, saying the club’s expansion would further professional opportunities for its personal trainers, massage therapists and physical therapists. The club was presented as an organization that does right by its community through its existing wellness programs and the dozens of local nonprofits it supports.

“This is exactly what you would want to see for the next level for the club,” said Mindy Nagle, a local physician who said the club is a major source of referrals to her office.

“We could all grow in a direction that we wouldn’t normally be able to do,” said Morgan Walsh, a massage therapist at the club.

The most clear opposition came from a lawyer representing neighbors, who said it’s “just another real estate development” with questionable benefits to the community.

Rick Nieley pointed out that for Aspen Club owner Michael Fox to get approval to build a timeshare lodge, he must be approved under a provision of the land-use code known as a specially planned area, or SPA. According to the code language, an SPA is reserved for areas where because of the “unique historic, natural, physical or locational characteristics of the site” the public interest would be better served if different zoning was granted.

Nieley argued that the Aspen Club Living project meets none of these criteria.

Happiness with the way club is run is not reason enough to approve essentially a hotel surrounded by residential zoning, Nieley said, adding that Fox would have to demonstrate the new growth would add something more to the community than continuing existing services.

Time constraints prevented Fox from being able to respond to Neiley’s statement. But prior to Tuesday’s meeting, Fox denied that Aspen Club Living is another real estate development; rather, it’s a unique opportunity to create a sustainable, holistic amenity that will secure the Aspen Club’s future for generations.

“If it’s done right, the Aspen Club could be an icon throughout the world,” Fox said.

The traffic debate

Opponents of the project say that club-generated traffic on Ute Avenue is already bad enough, and that this project would make it worse. But Fox said steps can be taken to reduce traffic currently generated by the club’s 1,900 members (up from 400 just five years ago).

Club representatives presented traffic estimates that concluded the residential expansion would increase traffic volume on Ute Avenue by 15 percent. Fox said that can be mitigated by instituting paid parking for members and guests, doubling or tripling the level of its shuttle service to and from the club, and providing a fleet of electric cars for guests and affordable-housing residents to use.

Sunny Vann, the club’s planning consultant, said that the real issue is traffic capacity on Ute Avenue, which he said isn’t close to being full. Opposition to more traffic isn’t sufficient reason to deny the project when the road has more capacity, Vann said.

But the city, and neighbors to the project, are demanding more specifics on what measures the club would take to reduce traffic and how much traffic, specifically, the club thinks its mitigation measures will take off the road.

“I don’t think anyone has focused on what really will work,” said Gary Rappaport, a part-time homeowner on Ute Avenue.

Other members of the community expressed fear that if the club is not allowed redevelopment, its owners would sell to someone who would raze the community institution to build second homes.

Aspenite Steve Marolt, who acknowledged that his reputation of late has been against development, said the city must consider the alternative if the timeshare project isn’t built.

The city “wouldn’t have to give the world” to Fox to make the project work, but Fox could easily sell to another owner who wouldn’t think twice about tearing down the club and replacing it with 5,000-square-foot trophy homes, Marolt said. He termed Fox’s proposal the best alternative.

curtis@aspendailynews.com