Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.apz.20181016
AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING October 16, 2018 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Resolution No. 5, Series of 2018 Lift One Lodge Subdivision/ Planned Development Major Amendment to a Planned Development Continuation from the October 2, 2018 meeting VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 2, 2018 Chairperson Skippy Mesirow called the meeting to order at 4:30. Commissioners in attendance: Teraissa McGovern, Scott Marcoux, Skippy Mesirow, Jimmy Marcus, Ryan Walterscheid, Ruth Carver, Spencer McKnight, Kelly McNicholas Kury. Absent: Rally Dupps Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Ben Anderson, Planner Jennifer Phalen, Deputy Planning Director Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Kevin Dunnett, Parks Planning & Construction Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Mesirow commented that he received a note from David Bentley regarding the tabled application for 465/557 N Mill Street rezoning. In the note, Mr. Bentley expressed that coin laundry is very important to him and the community. Mr. Mesirow stated that he agrees with Mr. Bentley’s statement. Mr. Mesirow also reminded everyone present of the coming November election. He encouraged the community to vote and to encourage others to vote. He prompted Measure 2A, which is a measure to change the date of the municipal election from May to March. Mr. Mesirow is personally involved with this measure and encouraged people to vote for it. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Phalen introduced the new senior planner, Mike Kramer and stated that his previous position was with Pitkin County. She also asked the commissioners about some upcoming meeting dates that have potential conflicts. She stated that November 6th is election day would conflict with a regular P&Z meeting and asked if commissioners want to keep that meeting date or move it November 15th. The commissioners decided to move the meeting to the following week, November 13th. She also asked about the planned P&Z meeting on November 20th, which is the week of Thanksgiving. The commissioners decided to keep the meeting on the 20th. Ms. Garrow introduced herself as the Community Development Director. She announced that the City of Aspen’s Pedestrian Malls were honored as a Great American Place by the American Planning Association. She announced an event on October 6th to celebrate the honor and the 42nd anniversary of the malls. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Waltersheid moved to approve the minutes from August 21st, 2018. Mr. Marcoux seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST P1 IV. None. PUBLIC HEARINGS Lift One Lodge, and Willoughby and Lift One Parks Planned Development, Major Amendment Planner Ben Anderson introduced himself as well as his fellow staff members present: Jennifer Phalen, Deputy Director of Planning, and Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director. He introduced the applicants. Patrick Rawley of Stan Clauson Associates, representing Lift One Lodge Aspen, LLC, who is the applicant for this case. Michael Brown, principal. Scott Glass of Guerin Glass Architects, who is the architect for this project. Aaron Brown and Harris Berlinsky of the Lift One Lodge Aspen, LLC, principals. He also introduced Kevin Dunnett from the City of Aspen’s Parks Department and Kelly Murphy, President & CEO of the Aspen Historical Society. A representative from Gorsuch Haus was also present. He mentioned that the applicants held an event at the Limelight the previous evening with between 250 and 300 people in attendance. He stated that the City of Aspen is the property owner for the Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge projects and that Aspen Skiing Company and Aspen Historical Society are important partners. He stated that these partners have all come together over many months with numerous conversations about the possibility of bringing the lift down towards Dean Street and the changes to the involved properties that would have to be made to accommodate this new lift placement. He stated that this meeting is the first in an extensive review process that’s going to happen over the next couple of months. He detailed the review schedule: two meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission, tonight’s meeting and the following meeting on 10/16. The applicants will meet with APCHA on October 3rd. There will be two meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission, on 10/10 and 10/24. The Open Space and Trails Board is going to be evaluating and making recommendations about Willoughby and Lift One parks. Ultimately, this project will go to City Council, with a first Reading scheduled for October 22nd and the second reading and public hearings will be coordinated with the second reading for Gorsuch Haus, starting on November 12th and 26th, with additional meetings if necessary going into December. He also announced a site visit at noon on October 15th to walk the property with the applicant teams from Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge and encouraged the boards and the public to come. Mr. Anderson outlined the planned schedule for that evening’s meeting and future meetings. He stated that the City’s presentation would be first, then the applicant’s presentation after. He stated that the overall review schedule for the project was planned to work backwards from a 2019 municipal election. He explained that this meeting will be an introduction to the project and that he is asking the Commissioners to make a recommendation at the Planning and Zoning meeting on the 16th. He stated that the process is compressed and that the commissioners will be asked to make a recommendation with a couple of pieces that may require additional information. He explained that this project is different from the Gorsuch Haus project in that there are existing approvals that have been in place since 2011. There was an original Planned Development that was approved with Ordinance 28 of 2011, which established a vested right under a code starting in 2006. The applicants came back in 2016 and made some changes to their architecture and some internal configuration. On these occasions, City Council took these vested rights and extended them, currently until 2021. This project and application is for an amendment to these existing approvals. P2 IV. He stated that this review is for a plan development major amendment, which means that there are some substantial changes to this project to accommodate the lift and do some redesign on aspects of the project. As a major amendment, it comes under review of current land use code, although staff also takes the vested rights very seriously. This is an amendment that is responsive to the necessary changes to the planned development, Lift One Lodge properties, and the City of Aspen properties to accommodate this new lift. He stated that this is the umbrella review and that there is a whole series of sub-reviews that will eventually come up in more detail. He explained that the existing approval includes two Lodge buildings with a mix of free market residential units, time-share lodge units, commercial space, the possibility of a ski corridor, a realigned narrowed Aspen street (which has already taken place to accommodate this project), and a vacated Gilbert Street. He mentioned that the letters from neighbors that the commission received relate to the changes that proposed to the existing approvals for Gilbert Street. As part of the existing approval, the Skier’s Chalet would be brought down to Willoughby Park and converted into a ski museum, owned and operated by the Aspen Historical Society. Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse would be renovated to provide deed-restricted dorm-style housing for 60 employees, and a subgrade parking garage would be added, though this proposal makes changes to the existing approvals. Mr. Anderson also stated that the existing approvals include a maximum height for the Lift One Lodge building measured from the interpolated grade. Mr. Anderson showed a slide of the site plan for the original approval. He showed the locations of the two Lift One Lodge buildings, the Lift 1A Building, Lift One Park and the Lift One historic towers, the separate lot with the Skier’s Chalet and affordable housing, and Willoughby Park with the relocated Skier’s Chalet. The new proposal for this project includes some shifting of the original lot configuration. In the original project, the Lift One buildings are sitting on a single lot. The Steakhouse is on Lot 2 and Lift One Park is on Lot 3 and then Willoughby Park. The proposed amendment includes a widened ski corridor and relocates the lift station and lift corridor, the Skier’s Chalet and Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse, and the historic Lift One structures. The proposal also includes Aspen Ski Co skier’s services and ski patrol in the Skier’s Chalet building, sharing the space with Aspen Historical Society. Willoughby Park is redesigned in the new proposal and there is a change to the point of access to the subgrade parking garage proposed for Dean Street. The proposal also includes a cul-de-sac that creates a terminus at Gilbert Street on the Lift One Lodge property. The Steakhouse building includes a commercial space for a restaurant and bar. That space was previously approved to be on-site affordable housing. There are also changes proposed to the mass and scale of the Lift One Lodge buildings and some internal programing in terms of the relationship of the Lodge and free market residential and commercial space. Lastly, there are some proposed significant changes to Dean Street. Mr. Anderson showed a slide depicting the new proposal. He pointed out the new proposed locations of the elements in the proposal including the Lift One Lodge Buildings, the new lift structure and corridor, the Steakhouse, the Lift One bull wheel and redesign of Willoughby Park around that, the Skier’s Chalet, and the new entrance to the subgrade parking garage which comes in from Dean Street instead of South Aspen Street. Mr. Anderson stated that, to accommodate all these changes, there is a proposed lot reconfiguration. Lot 1 becomes the West building of the Lift One Lodge and the adjoining Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse. Lot P3 IV. 2 is the East Building. There would also be a single lot owned by the City of Aspen that would bring Lift One Park and Willoughby Park together and includes the ski corridor, the lift station, the ski museum, Skico facilities, and the Skier’s Chalet building. Mr. Anderson stated that the new involvement of the Dolinsek Gardens is important to the whole project functioning. He gave background on the gardens. He explained that this property has been owned for a long time by the Dolinsek family and Josephine Dolinsek still lives on the property. When she moves on from the property, it becomes trusted over to the City of Aspen. The plan is to turn this space into a city park and it’s now being incorporated into this larger site design. During the winter months, it will provide room for the ski corridor and ski operations. Mr. Anderson showed a slide depicting the integration of Willoughby Park and Dolinsek Gardens and what that would look like in both winter and summer. He stated that Kevin Dunnett, sitting in the public seating, is a good resource for answering questions on those. Mr. Anderson concluded his presentation and turned it over to the applicant. Mr. Rawley introduced himself as well as Michael Brown and Scott Glass. He stated that the public open house that Mr. Anderson had previously mentioned was well attended and that most people were supportive of the project. He gave background on the project, stating that the process started when Gorsuch Haus came in to redevelop the site and replace the lift. The Aspen Skiing Company, Gorsuch Haus, Lift One Lodge, the City of Aspen, and Aspen Historical Society worked together with SE Group to develop possible solutions for the new lift. Through listening to all the different stakeholders, they were able to come up with a map, which is the ski return path. There were ten proposed plans which were eventually brought to City Council, who made it clear that they wanted the lift to come down as low as possible. The groups took that feedback and started planning the lodges around the lift location. The current design balances the historical assets as well as future new lift. Mr. Brown stated that the Skier’s Chalet Lodge is proposed to become a ski museum run by Aspen Historical Society and that the Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse building is proposed to become a restaurant. This plan brings the historical assets to the forefront. Mr. Brown showed a slide depicting the various entry points to Lift One and the new cul-de-sac at the top of South Aspen Street. He stated that this would make for the most accessible base area of any of the mountains here. He explained that the proposal reconfigures the arrival to enter off Dean Street. Both the Engineering and Parks Departments support this change, which makes the 50 public underground parking spaces more accessible. Mr. Brown explained that Dean Street will become a West to East corridor under this proposal. Mr. Rawley showed a slide with an elevational drawing of what Dean Street would look like under this proposal. He explained that there would be a bike lane and pedestrian amenity spaces. Mr. Glass explained that the applicants are trying to bring an alpine character to the architecture and interior design of the project. Mr. Brown stated that one of the benefits of this proposal is developing the area as a second portal onto Aspen Mountain. The new lift that is being proposed is a telemix lift, which is a mix of chairs and gondolas on the same cable to allow for many different uses of the mountain. He stated that the reimagined base and new equipment will emphasize that this is a location not be missed on a World Cup P4 IV. skiing tour. He also stated that tourists who stay at lodges downtown typically take a shuttle instead of walking to Gondola Plaza and the proposed changes to this area would encourage tourists to walk to this area. He praised the work that the Parks Department has done and praised the Dolinsek family for their donation. Mr. Brown showed a slide with a historic photo of the Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse and stated that the photo has been the applicants’ inspiration throughout the project. Mr. Brown stated that the new Lodge will increase the guest rooms available in Aspen and has World Cup Ski Racing potential. He also showed the proximity of the new proposed base are to Rubey Park versus the same comparison with Gondola Plaza and stated that the walkability will help decrease congestion. He showed slides with designs of the restored Steakhouse and the ski history museum and explained that Aspen Skiing Company would have a space for ticketing within that facility. He showed the restoration of the bull wheel and towers, the Dolinsek Gardens, and parks. He explained that the Dolinsek family envisions the gardens as a year-round use area and a potential wedding venue. Mr. Rawley stated that the gross floor area for the project is within 2% of the previous approval, but that it’s not possible to compare the other metrics from the original approval and the new proposal because the previous approval incorporated the interpolated grade when calculating floor area. As a result, a lot of the subgrade space that would usually contribute to floor area was not counted. He also pointed out that the new proposal comes under the code maximum 112. The Lodge floor area is also under the code requirement. The free market housing floor area is slightly above that but accommodates the ski corridor. The applicants are currently re-crunching the numbers to be able to provide an apples-to- apples comparison. Mr. Rawley pointed out that the buildings were made longer in some places but have a remarkably similar footprint. Because the lift moved down the hill, the applicants needed to reconfigure some of the buildings. Lodging was added in the proposal. He stated that the numbers are using a gross metric. He stated that they added one free market unit, so the gross free market square footage is 20,000 to 17,000 plus. The net free market square footage is 19,000 to about 16,000. The average unit size has gone down. Mr. Brown stated that, in previous approvals, there were five units located in premium locations to the buildings. As part of the reimaging of this and the lift moving down, the applicants have taken some free market units out and made them commercial, and some of that included subgrade space, which is throwing off metric. The average size of the units has gone down. Mr. Rawley stated that the commercial space has been reconfigured. One change is that the Steakhouse was not a commercial space in the original approvals, and it is now a commercial space, for restaurant use, under the current plan. Previously it was in the affordable housing bucket. Mr. Brown stated that this change was a response to the site planning change. He stated that, when the lift moved down, it was not sensible to have style affordable housing adjacent to a lift. They felt that a restaurant and bar would bring more vibrancy. Dorm-style affordable housing is not allowed under today’s code. Those are the reasons the building was changed to commercial use. Mr. Rawley stated that the commercial spaces have been approved, will be accessible, and will anchor the base area. The Lodge will stand alone and the proposal does not mix uses. He also stated that the P5 IV. maximum height has never been exceeded and this proposal maintains those from the previous approvals. He stated that there will be 109 parking spaces and have reduced the size of the subgrade space, which should reduce the amount of time that the site is under construction. The proposal maintains the 50 public parking spaces. From the applicants’ experience working on lodges, they believe the amount of parking planned will be sufficient. He also stated that their Transportation Impact Analysis allows for bike racks and pedestrian amenities that reduce the need for single occupancy vehicles. The Lodge parking will be handled by valet. Mr. Rawley turned the meeting over to Mr. Glass to discuss the architectural approach. Mr. Glass stated that, in this proposal, the applicants wanted to keep the character, historical references, architectural continuity with the rest of town, and the alpine aesthetic from the original approval. He stated that the applicants really care about the street scape and the scale of the building as well as the space between the buildings and that the juxtaposition between the old lift and new lift is a reference point for the project. He stated that the proposal keeps the roofs flat to maximize capacity and reduce the overall height of the building and will help the building blend in from above. They will have green roofscapes on them. Mr. Glass showed some of the architectural vocabulary in the proposal, including Aspen trees, stone bases and the lighter wood structure and how the different kind of woods and different stone structures come together to make a rustic base look more refined and help the structures blend in to the natural landscape. Mr. Brown stated the palate of the proposal is consistent with original approvals. Mr. Glass stated that the spatial relationship between the Lodge and the Steakhouse building has not changed between the original approvals and the current proposal. He stated that the building includes a view from the street that allows pedestrians to look through the entire building to the other side. He explained how the building’s base integrates into the slope. He stated that the most frequent perspective on the buildings will give a view of the historic buildings first. He went over the plans and pointed out the improvements this new proposal made to the access point on Dean Street in terms of loading. Added amenities also include ambulance drop off, handicapped spaces, bike parking, lockers and storage that are open to the public. He showed slides with pictures of the second and third floors and the main level of the Lodge and emphasized the amount of public space included in the project. Mr. Glass stated that the dimension of the building is derived from the program on the inside and shaped to accommodate the ski corridor. Mr. Brown stated that the skier’s corridor was dictated through the SE Group process to maintain a ski corridor width of 60 feet. Mr. Glass stated that the applicants were conscious about making sure that the mechanical elements were hidden, and the green roof elements were prominent to make for a more aesthetically pleasing experience for skiers. He showed a slide with the floor plan for the Lodge. Mr. Brown explained that the plan has fractural units that key off into Lodge units. Mr. Glass stated that the key to this project is to introduce a new door to the front of the mountain and frame that with buildings that respect history and the future. P6 IV. Mr. Rawley turned the meeting over to commissioner questions. Mr. Mesirow asked the applicants to address the process that led them to the parking garage design with the sole entrance on Dean Street. Mr. Brown explained that snowmelt is extremely difficult on South Aspen Street and not desired from the community standpoint. South Aspen Street was the original location of the parking garage entrance, but when the lift location moved, the plan could no longer have the slope needed for the lift and maintain a functional parking garage. Mr. Mesirow asked where the removed affordable housing units will land. Mr. Brown stated that the original location of the affordable housing units ended up being a better location for a vibrant restaurant and bar. The applicants intend to do an affordable housing project offsite or through purchasing of credits. Ms. McGovern asked if their plan will offset the full 90.96 FTE. Mr. Brown replied that the applicants are still working though the number of FTEs that are being derived from the project. Mr. Rawley stated that the reason for the uncertainty has to do with how the area calculations are going to shake out. Mr. Brown stated that they have added one unit on site in this project, in the east building. Mr. Mesirow asked how many credits are available right now. Mr. Brown stated that there are over 100 credits in the pipeline of current projects. He believes there are more than sufficient credits to handle both this project as well as Gorsuch Haus. Ms. McGovern asked if the affordable housing will be complete prior to the construction of this project. Mr. Brown stated that their certificate of occupancy is contingent upon it. Ms. Carver asked if there will be dedicated parking for free market units and, if so, if they’d be reserved and how many spaces that takes away. Mr. Rawley stated that there are 109 spaces total, with 50 that are dedicated to the public and that the balance will be handled by the Lodge and the free market. There will be one space per free market unit, taking six spots. Ms. McGovern asked if those will be accessed via valet parking. Mr. Brown stated that those can be accessed via self-park as well and that the 50 public parking spots are self-park. P7 IV. Mr. Mesirow asked if the public parking spots are paid or restricted. Mr. Brown replied that those spots will be maintained as two-hour parking spots, but that that still needs to be determined. Ms. Carver asked how big the space for shuttles will be on Dean Street. She expressed concern about traffic jams. Mr. Brown showed the slide with Dean Street to show the width of the street. He showed the pull offs for drop off. Mr. Brown stated that gutter to gutter is 27 feet. Ms. Carver asked how many cars long the pull offs would be. Mr. Dunnett answered that there will not be a curb, just an architectural bollard to delineate the lack of curb, which will make unloading easier for skiers. Ms. Carver asked if there is a rendering of a closeup of the South Aspen Street side. Mr. Glass showed a slide that partially captured that area. He stated that the applicants looked at the different components in the neighboring buildings and tried to match the building bases and the materials used. He stated that they are matching a stone that is used in neighboring buildings and a wooden frame that’s referencing residential scale construction. The applicants’ goal was to match the building to its surroundings and respond to the topographical conditions. Mr. Marcoux stated that he would like to see more green building, like harvesting of the rain water and snowmelt. He suggested solar on the roofs. He stated that he would like to see an annual net zero to reduce the footprint. Mr. Glass stated that solar is made difficult with the snow. He stated that the biggest opportunities are in water treatment, and low-profile and efficient building construction types as well as trying to make the buildings as lightweight as possible. He stated that the applicants are working hard to make that happen. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked about the lighting management to prevent the building from being a big glowing orb on the mountain at night. Mr. Glass replied that they did respond to previous commissioner Jasmine Tygre’s concerns that she brought up when she was on the commission. As a result, they’ve created layers to reduce the amount of glass. Ms. McNicolas Kury asked about specific structures on the rendering, if it was a curtain or a structure. Mr. Glass replied that it’s a set of screens inside the glass. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked about the distance a typical public user would have to travel to get to the lift. P8 IV. Mr. Brown asked if the starting point for her question was the garage. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for the timing from both the garage and the sidewalk. Mr. Brown stated that, from Dean Street, the steps that you access are gentler than the steps at Gondola Plaza. Mr. Glass added that it was the lowest location while preserving the gantry and the bull wheel. Mr. Mesirow asked if preserving that alignment was the sole reason it didn’t go even lower. Ms. Phalen replied that the SE Group determined that a lower location would have started cramping in on queuing, snow service, and turnarounds. Mr. Brown stated that Aspen Skiing Company needs 25 or 30 feet access for mechanical to be able to pull out from the base. He showed on a rendering where the ski return would be and where the gondola cars would load. Mr. McKnight asked where the gondola storage would be. Mr. Brown replied that the storage of the gondola cars currently happens inside the Silver Queen Gondola. Dave Corbin from Aspen Skiing Company replied that separate gondola cabin storage would happen at the top of the lift, in terms of taking cabins off at night. It is not the intention to store all the cabins at the base of the mountain. Mr. Mesirow asked about the perceived benefit of a telemix lift versus a gondola setup. Mr. Corbin answered that a telemix offers the best of all possible worlds. Skiers who don’t want to take off equipment can load directly onto the chair. Alternatively, cabins are available for people who prefer them. Cabins also provide opportunities for use year-round. Mr. McKnight asked about the speed of lift. Mr. Corbin responded that it is a little under four minutes to Ruthie’s. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked about the location of the elevator from the parking garage. Mr. Rawley pointed out the location on the slide. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked about the width of the sidewalks long the museum side and if that’s been addressed with the one-way configuration of Dean Street. Mr. Dunnett replied that the sidewalk width is approximately 12 feet at the drop-off. He stated that the sidewalk is a little more constraining in front of the Skier’s Chalet building since they need to preserve the existing staircase in its configuration. P9 IV. Ms. McNicolas Kury asked if the response was to get larger to the northern side. Mr. Dunnett replied that that was correct and pointed the area out on the slide. Ms. McGovern stated that the math on the plans is in correct and stated that she would like to see the correct dimensions on the revised plans. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there are any impacts to the neighbors to the north side of Dean Street. Mr. Anderson replied that there are a couple of neighbors here to speak to that. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there are additional renderings for the cul-de-sac area. Mr. Brown replied that the applicants can have those for the next meeting. Mr. Glass stated that they have two in the presentation, and he showed those slides. Ms. McNicholas Kury clarified that she was referring to the cul-de-sac on the east side. Mr. Rawley replied that the applicants don’t have a rendering of that. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the applicants had renderings of what the parking entrance will look like. Mr. Glass replied that they only have renderings where it’s vaguely shown. He stated that the applicants want to make it very quiet, framed by trees, stone, and the museum building. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the project will come back before the board for future approvals. Mr. Anderson replied that this project will come back to P&Z on the 16th seeking the commissioners’ recommendation. If the project goes on the ballot, the voters would be presented with a conceptual approval of this project and the Gorsuch Haus project. Both of those projects would then come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the pieces under their jurisdiction for final review. Ms. Phalen stated that that would be more fenestration, though some items might get changed along the way since the process is long. Ms. Carver asked about the amount of snowmelt for this project. Mr. Brown stated that the applicants can bring that information to the next presentation. He stated that the areas to the south of the Skier’s Chalet Stakehouse building and to the north of the western building will likely be snowmelted. He stated that he would need to talk to Aspen Skiing Company and the Parks Department about the areas nearest the telemix as well. Ms. Carver asked if the history museum is closer to the street than the building next to it. Mr. Glass replied that she is looking at the face of the balconies, which aligns with the building. P10 IV. Mr. Mesirow asked if the green roofs will be open to public access and, if so, if there be programming on them. He also asked if the green areas will be programed or if they are just gardens to be seen. Mr. Glass replied that the current plan is that they will be gardens to be seen. He stated that the eastern building will not be open to the public, as it is a residential building. He does not know about the Lodge building, yet. It does have two pools, so it has the potential. Mr. Mesirow asked if Dolensek Gardens will be developed at the same time as the rest of the project or if that will only happen once the family is vacated. Mr. Brown replied that Lift One Park and Willoughby Park would be done as part of these project. Dolensek Gardens would not happen until the family is vacated. Mr. Marcus asked where the 60-foot width number comes from regarding the ski return and if there are any concerns about bottlenecking or reduced sunlight making that spot icy. Mr. Brown replied that a narrower corridor could have been possible, but Aspen Skiing Company asked for 60 feet to preserve quality. He turned the question over to David Corbin from Aspen Skiing Company. Mr. Corbin stated that Aspen Skiing Company has been very adamant. They wanted to keep a minimum of three Snowcat widths for the return of skiing and a comfortable dimension to allow people to maneuver safely. He pointed out that that section is at a 17% slope, which puts it at a medium difficulty. It also allows enough operational room to effectively groom and maintain snow surface. He stated that Mr. Marcus’s prediction of shadowing through that area is correct, but he thinks ice will be prevented with maintenance and it will get some sun from the south. Aspen Skiing Company believes that this corridor would deliver a good guest experience. Mr. Brown praised the generosity of the Dolensek family and stated that this project could not have happened without the donation of the property. Mr. McKnight asked how traffic will be impacted by this project, especially at the intersections where Durant crosses Monarch and South Aspen. He asked if the intersections will add more stop signs. Mr. Anderson replied that the Engineering Department and the applicants’ engineer is looking into that. He stated that the advantage of the location in the proposal is that it is keeping traffic off the grades on South Aspen Street. He agreed that there will be increased traffic in the area but hopes that a lot of people will be approaching on foot. Mr. Mesirow turned the hearing over to Mr. Anderson for his portion of the presentation. Mr. Anderson asked for a five-minute break. Mr. Mesirow called for a five-minute break. He stated that the next portion would be quick and then public comment would come after that. He explained that those giving public comment would have three minutes. He stated that this meeting will conclude, not with a decision to approve the project or not, but what the commissioners need to see to make a decision at the October 16th meeting. P11 IV. Mr. Mesirow commenced the meeting again at 6:19. Mr. Anderson stated that the purpose of his presentation is to cover issues that staff would like the commissioners to consider to clearly identify some of the changes that are happening to Lift One Lodge and re-emphasize the vested approval and the amendment that is now subject to current code. He stated that City staff helped facilitate the SE Group’s study and have worked closely with the stakeholders to arrive at this point. He stated that the City is supportive of the project at this point. However, he stated that there are some things that staff would like more information about and some things that need further study. He mentioned the new proposed scale and massing, changes to interior programming, the change to employee housing going from the dorm style units to the one unit, the relocated and repurposed Steakhouse moving to Dean Street but also turning it into a commercial space. He asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to think about growth management and mentioned that there is a request for additional allotments in terms of the Lodge and the additional free market allotment. He also mentioned old mitigation versus new mitigation. He stated that the applicants are meeting with APCHA and are waiting for a recommendation from them. At the next Planning and Zoning Commission in two weeks, some of these topics will be ironed out. He pointed the commissioners to Exhibit 14, a draft cost sharing agreement that Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus have proposed. It discusses some of the original development requirements and original approval documents and rethinking some of those things as more stakeholders have come into the project. He showed some slides from the approvals from 2016 to provide comparison of some of the changes to mass and scale. There was a maximum height for both the west building and east building from the interpolated grade. He stated that staff is consistent with the applicant in finding that the proposed massing is meeting the maximum height requirement from the original approval. He mentioned that the vertical elements that are on the new proposed building that are not necessarily as prominent as on the original approval are primarily serving as vertical circulation. In the initial approval, the elevators were central and internal to the massing of the building. Because of the floor programming, those elements have moved to the exterior or the building. Staff would like to restudy those two elements to see if it would be possible to move the height of that massing into the center of the building or to break up that massing using material or form, because they are the tallest elements of the building. They are compliant with the code, with the ten-foot allowance for mechanical and elevator overruns, but are prominent features. He asked the commissioners to think about the height and the changes to scale and massing and consider if those elements of the project are things that Planning and Zoning continues to support. Mr. Rawley clarified that the elevator stacks that Mr. Anderson brought up are on the inside of the building, located from the pedestrian pathway. Mr. Anderson showed a slide with elevations to give a sense of how the building steps up from Dean Street and commented that the building was wide and has gotten narrower. He showed the historic elements in context to demonstrate the massing. He stated that the project is going from 22 full lodge units up to 34 in the new proposal. He reiterated that the new average doesn’t necessarily compare with previous approvals. However, the new average Is about 1500 square feet. That translates to incentives within the lodge district in terms of density and growth management mitigation issues. In the east building, number of free market residences is being increased from five to six with one affordable housing unit. Staff is somewhat concerned about this change since there is a new element in the code that, in lodge projects, the City limits free market residences to 1500 square feet of net livable. He reiterated that the original measurements and the measurements in this proposal are not comparable since the original methodology was very different. P12 IV. Mr. Anderson noted that the original requirement for 50 public spaces in the parking garage is being maintained. There will be 59 new spaces for Lift One Lodge project specifically. Other changes include the relocation of the entrance to the subgrade garage from South Aspen Street to Dean Street and the improvements to Dean Street that staff thinks are an improvement over the existing approval. He stated that he would like the Planning and Zoning Commission to think about the parking. He stated that the project is currently 16 spaces short of the minimum parking requirement. He stated that they are working with the applicant, and the Engineering, Transportation, and Parking Departments to look at the review criteria for a special review to better understand the relationship with parking spaces on site, their mobility improvements, and the realities of the neighborhood parking context. There is a proposal and some discussion to allow for tandem parking for the valet service or staff parking to help meet the requirement. There needs to be some work done by the applicant as well as staff on this element. Mr. Anderson showed a slide of the subgrade parking garage and stated that there would likely be some sort of metering system to control the public parking spaces. He showed where the trash and recycling are proposed to be located and stated that the Environmental Health Department would like to see further study in that area to ensure that that space works for trash and recycling and that the trucks can access that space. Mr. Anderson stated that staff wants to make sure that the interface with the subgrade space with the parking garage works for the needs of Aspen Skiing Company and the Historical Society as there has been discussion about more efficient use of that space, particularly from the Historical Society. They want to make sure that they can get large artifacts out of the garage space and into the gallery space. Mr. Anderson stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission is being asked to provide a recommendation to City Council on the site planning and the new block configuration, the mass and scale of the buildings, parking and transportation, growth management, and commercial design. He stated that, since this project was initially approved, commercial standards and guidelines for staff have changed. Lastly, the Planning and Zoning Commission will be asked to address the vested property rights. As an amendment to an existing approval, staff’s recommendation is to grant this project a new three-year vesting period from the point of approval. Mr. Anderson stated that the information that staff need the Planning and Zoning Commission to look at and make a recommendation on includes the materials and the massing of the east and west building regarding the vertical circulation elements, a visual analysis of the Wheeler view plane, the size of the free market residential units, the number of parking spaces onsite, mobility improvements in the parking context, the interface of the parking garage with the ski museum and Aspen Skiing Company facilities and the Skier’s Chalet, the subgrade garage to ensure compliance with the needs for trash and recycling removal, and the changes to Gilbert and Dean Streets, regarding access for fire protection, impacts to existing neighbors, and compliance with engineering standards. Mr. Anderson stated that Sopris Engineering has been hired by the City of Aspen, Lift One Lodge, and the Gorsuch Haus to create a unified understanding of mud and debris flow, storm water management issues, and grading design. We know that this is in the works. And then lastly, a site plan that specifically identifies the provision of onsite pedestrian amenity space for Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Mesirow asked what that means. P13 IV. Mr. Anderson responded that there is a pedestrian amenity requirement in the Commercial Design Review. This project has a lot of amenity associated with Willoughby Park, however, the City would like to understand the onsite amenity on the two Lift One Lodge parcels, the free market building, and the Lodge building. He stated that the City and the applicant also need to come to better understanding of some of the dimensions from the existing approval to the current proposed. As this project gets closer to putting an ordinance together to take to City Council and the voters, there needs to be a better understanding of the internal programming so that the commercial, free market, and lodge uses can be broken out in a more precise way. The applicants will try to have as much of that information for the Planning Zoning Commission for the meeting on October 16th, however there might be some elements of this that won’t be answered until this project is before city Council, due to design constraints. He reminded the commissioners of the schedule and encouraged everyone to come to the site visit on October 15th. Mr. Mesirow asked if it’s appropriate for the commissioners to reconsider elements of the original approval in their review. Mr. Anderson stated that there is some flexibility to review those elements of the original review. Mr. Mesirow asked how the free market building and unit size should affect the commissioners vote. Mr. Anderson answered that the units are staying close to the same size as in the original approvals. He stated that there has been community conversation around other projects regarding the proportion of free market activity to lodge activity, and staff want to be respectful of that and sensitive to the vested rights approval that includes units that are roughly the same size as what is being proposed. Mr. Mesirow asked if it is correct that there is anything in the review criteria other than max allowable that can influence the commissioners’ votes. Mr. Anderson replied that that is correct. He stated that the commissioners can consider the vested approval and the land use code now says about this topic, with its new updates. Mr. Walterscheid stated that he feels that two meetings are not enough to digest all the information being put before the commissioners and the overall timeline for this project of six to eight meetings with boards and commissions is too short. He stated that he likes this project, but that he feels the commissioners are not being given enough facts and detail about it. He stated that this project should not be condensed just because the City is a part of this project. He stated that Mr. Anderson gave them about fifteen Items to take a critical look at with only a few minutes left in this meeting and one other. He questioned whether this project is a major amendment or a whole new application and asked why it is not being looked at in that way. He stated that he understands that this project qualifies for the same height limit that is in the original PD. He asked about the interpolated grade and what the project was held to the first time and how those things differed from one another. He stated that, while the project still meets the height, the mass and scale is very different than the first time. He reiterated that he is generally in favor of everything that the applicants have done, but that he thinks the timeline is too rushed. Mr. Mesirow stated that the commission won’t vote on this project until they feel satisfied in their knowledge base. P14 IV. Mr. Walterscheid stated that he understands that and understands that it’s ultimately City Council’s decision. He stated that, if this were a typical commercial design project, the commission would see multiple phases of conceptual and final. He stated that he understands the need to get it before the voters and questioned the timeline of getting this to a vote on the spring ballot. He stated that it’s a better project than what was brought before the commissioners the first time and is grateful that the applicants are working with the City and other stakeholders. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Anderson to respond to Mr. Waltersheid’s comments. Mr. Anderson stated that there has been a concerted effort from the stakeholders to work together to make the Dean Street location of the lift happen and have had a lot of meetings as a result. He stated that there is a lot of momentum right now and the applicants and City would like the schedule to happen as it’s laid out, but if the commissioners don’t feel they can give a recommendation after the meeting on 10/16, the commissioners can have more time as long as they are willing to show up at additional meetings. Ms. Phalen stated that this project is technically a major amendment and is supposed to match up with the new code. She stated that the group had lots of meetings over the summer trying to ensure stakeholders’ needs are met. She also stated that we also need to balance and consider that there is an entitled project and if one of the players pulled out then the whole thing could potentially fall apart. Ultimately this project will be put before the voters for a decision. She stated that it is a compressed timeline, but that they are trying to get as much information to the commissioners as possible as they continue to hash out details. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the voters would approve this as a conceptual approval and if the project would come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for final approval. Ms. Phalen replied yes. Mr. Walterscheid asked Ms. Phalen to outline that process. Ms. Phalen stated that conceptual approval locks in the mass, siding, height, floor area, and uses. Some details can be changed between conceptual and final in addition to materials and fenestration. She stated that, even if the voters approve this project for final review, there will be a lot of work to be done on development agreements. There are a lot of things that would need to be handled before this project can get to permit. Mr. Walterscheid stated that there is a lot of information that needs to be refined. He stated that It initially seems like quite a lot to swallow in that amount of time. Mr. Mesirow asked the commissioners had anything else to ask. Seeing none, he stated that he would like to give the applicants the complete list of things that they should explore to gain a recommendation and hold opinions about things outside of the direct inquiry from staff for the next meeting. He also stated that only points with consensus from the commission will be things for the applicants to look at. Ms. McNicholas Kury commented that she does take a little issue with restricting the information that the commissioners ask for because, even though not all the commissioners are intrigued by something doesn’t mean that information couldn’t lead to a different vote. P15 IV. Mr. Mesirow stated that he is trying to avoid an unnecessarily long list of things that the applicants need to study that have nothing to do with the resulting vote. Ms. McNicholas Kury replied that the items important to her are important to her vote. She stated that she is not looking to the rest of the commissioners to ask for information that will help her make her decision. Mr. Mesirow explained the procedures for public comment and that it will be limited to three minutes per person. PUBLIC COMMENT Galen Bright introduced himself as a resident and the HOA president at South Point Condominiums. He stated that his HOA would like more research done about the garage entrance related to the number of users and services using one entrance and exit. The valet will also cause extra traffic with the proposed entrance, which would not cause a problem in the original approvals. He also asked why snowmelt is off the table. He stated that this area needs to be pedestrian friendly like Gondola Plaza and stated that traffic for skier drop-off will back up into Durant Street. He stated that the wider the street gets, the more grade change must be corrected and a retaining wall would turn the condominiums’ ground level units into garden level units, which is a big concern for owners on the first floor. He also commented that he did not understand the direction for the bike path and that it will require more grading. Marissa Lasky introduced herself as a resident at the South Point Condominiums. She commented that the condominiums have a 17 % grade change and that the project will give their second floor a garden- level feel. She stated that she and her neighbors agreed to it being set back, which would also make that area a user-friendly plaza like Gondola Plaza, which would also balance the town. She stated that the grade already causes people to fall. The sidewalk also eliminates the current location for their dumpster. She stated that an effort to make this plaza pedestrian friendly is very important to her and her neighbors. She stated that the people in the building are long term or full-time residents and would like to see it be a home. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to extend meeting to 7:15. Mr. McKnight seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Casey Martin introduced himself as a lawyer from Balcomb and Green representing Aspen Mountain Townhomes. The townhomes are a 3 unit building with entrances that open onto Gilbert Street. He stated that their concern is the location of the east building. The relocation of Lot 2 pushes the building downhill and obstructs what used to be a right of way of Gilbert Street. The cu- de-sac at the east building contemplates two-way traffic, which is already very difficult there. He stated that more traffic will also mean more danger to the children who live in the neighborhood. He stated that the clients are not opposed to the project, they are only asking the commissioners to delay and get more information. He stated that they would like to see relocation of the east building or shrinking the size to preserve the view plane. If vehicular access to the building remains, it should be restricted to emergency vehicles only. Mr. Brown asked Mr. Martin for the names of the owners from the townhomes who he represents. P16 IV. Mr. Martin replied that he represents the homeowner’s association. Mr. Brown replied that the applicants have not talked to these homeowners and would like names of who to approach. Mr. Martin responded that the applicants can approach Balcomb and Green as their council. Genevieve Hose introduced herself as a representative of the homeowners of the Caribou Condo Association. She stated that they have a written agreement with the developers of this project that was introduced in 2011 and supported the prior project. Their concerns are primarily related to skier’s access where the east building is, maintaining the height, and maintaining the scale of the project. She stated that they are still reviewing material that was provided to them, but that some of the information there seems to conflict with what they have heard at the meeting. Jim Cardamone introduced himself as an Aspen resident since the ‘80’s. He wanted to provide strong support of this project in general and wants to bring World Cup Ski Racing back into town. He also wants to see the west side of the mountain developed. Molly Faulk introduced herself as the manager at the Lift One Condominiums and representative of the board of directors. She stated on their behalf that that they support the project and hope to have a board member at the October 16th meeting for more comments. Jim DeFrancy introduced himself as being from Gorsuch Haus. He stated that he appreciates everyone’s comments and would like to remind everyone that there are many complexities that went into designing this project and Lift One Lodge had to make the most significant changes. He asked staff to keep in mind that the issues that they brought up are going to have to be addressed by all stakeholders and that they are already mindful about all issues raised by staff and will be addressed. Mr. Corbin stated that Aspen Skiing Company is technically a co-applicant on the Gorsuch Haus project, since they own that land, but that they are not on this project, which means that he can speak as a member of the public. He stated that Aspen Skiing Company supports this project in terms of its land use and what it’s doing for this part of town. He also thanked the Lift One Lodge development team for their flexibility and willingness to re-design their project. Ms. Lasky spoke again to address parking and stated that current conditions are terrible and the loss of on street parking will only make things worse. Mr. Mesirow closed public comment and invited commissioners to share points of further study for the applicants. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that she would like to see more renderings from the cul-de-sac view, a view of the parking entrance from Dean street, more information about the view plane, and more information about why it is so difficult to come up with the apples-to-apples comparison on growth management. She stated that she is feeling that she may not have fully comprehended what the commission approved in the original approvals. Mr. Mesirow asked what view planes she wanted to see more about. P17 IV. Ms. McNicholas Kury responded the Wheeler and Main Street. Mr. Anderson responded that this property is in two view plans: Main Street and the Wheeler. Staff analysis shows that this project does not infringe on the Main Street view plane, but the Wheeler view plane is something that staff need to evaluate. Ms. McGovern motioned to extend the meeting to 7:30. Ms. Carver seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Marcus stated that he would like to see additional information around the ski corridor, showing that it’s a positive experience for the skiers returning to that area and an understanding of where the towers will be. Mr. McKnight stated that he is very impressed with how this has come together. He agreed with Mr. Waltersheid’s concerns about things moving too quickly. He would like to see the additional information that Mr. Anderson promised for the next meeting as well as some of the public comments from meetings with neighbors. He does like where this project is going, but his vote will depend on the information that he gets at the next meeting on 10/16. He also commented that the parking and traffic are big issues for him and would like to see more information on that topic or solutions. Mr. Mesirow stated that he would like to see more information about the parking garage entrance as he thinks that it provides a significant barrier to pedestrian access. He would like to see a re-exploration of an entrance on South Aspen Street or an exploration of an entrance that’s closer to corner near the bull wheel. He stated that he does not like the free market building and stated that the units are too big and too expensive and will be empty most of the year. He would like to see them be much smaller. He also commented that he would like to see more exploration around the public amenity and how it interacts with that space. Ms. McNicholas Kury left the meeting at 7:16 pm. Mr. Mesirow stated that he will not be supportive of a project that does not fully mitigate for affordable housing. He also stated that he agrees with staff comments about changing the vertical elements and stated that he would like to see that he would like to see the massing activated with programing such as public art. Ms. Carver thanked the applicants for sticking with this project and emphasized the importance of doing this project right. She stated she would like to see more of a welcoming plaza on the Dean Street side. She stated that she would like to see a bigger parking garage. She agreed with Mr. Mesirow that the free market units should be smaller. She stated that she would like to see the sidewalks heated between Durant and Dean Street since it’s so hilly. She stated that the building to the west lacks variety and would like to see interest added. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Carver if there is anything she would like her fellow commissioners to champion for her at the next meeting, as she will not be attending. Ms. Carver stated that it’s a great project and does not want to see it rushed. P18 IV. Ms. McGovern stated that she agrees with a lot of what the other commissioners stated. She is concerned about the neighbors in the Southpoint Condominiums. She wants to ensure that the changes to Dean Street don’t negatively impact their building. She is also concerned about the Dean Street entrance since it is narrow and not welcoming. She would like to see study about how to make the corner of Aspen and Dean more welcoming. She also stated concerns about the two buildings on Gilbert Street and the cul-de-sac being too narrow for two-way traffic. Ms. Phalen stated that staff need to look at safe turnarounds. Ms. McGovern agreed with previous commissioner comments about free market units. Mr. Marcoux stated that he likes the four-minute lift ride to Ruthie’s. He asked if they might be underestimating the amount of traffic going through the telemix lift instead of the gondola. He expressed concerns about parking and overflow into the neighborhoods and ice garden. He is concerned about the housing and interested in APCHA’s input. He expressed concerns about the lack of renewable energy involved in the project. Mr. Walterscheid commented that he is very supportive about project and does not want his concerns about the project to reflect negatively on his support. He requested to see side-by-side comparison with this building and the original approvals. He also requested more information about parking and the impacts the restaurants have on that. He stated that he would like to hold this project to the same standards that they would hold any other project to. Mr. Mesirow commented to staff and applicants that he would like the October 16th meeting to be catered to the concerns and requests of the commissioners. He also stated that there is the possibility of calling special meetings if commissioners don’t have what they need to come to a decision at the next meeting. Ms. Phalen stated that Mr. Mesirow needs to continue the hearing to October 16th. Ms. McGovern motioned to continue the hearing to October 16th. Mr. McKnight seconded. All in favor, motion carried. ADJOURN Mr. Mesirow adjourned the meeting at 7:26 PM. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager P19 IV. MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director, Planning RE: Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment to a Planned Development Resolution No, 5, Series of 2018 DATE OF: October 16, 2018, Continued from October 2, 2018 MEETING SITE VISIT: Monday, October 15th at 12:00 pm. Please meet at the historic Lift 1 bull wheel. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT / OWNER: Lift One Lodge Aspen, LLC REPRESENTATIVES: Stan Clauson and Patrick Rawley Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. LOCATION: 710 South Aspen Street LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4, Lift One Lodge Subdivision / PUD, according to the Plat thereof recorded March 5, 2013 at Book 102, Page 1, Reception No. 597438. CURRENT ZONING: Planned Development Lodge (L) and Park (P) underlying zones ORIGINAL APPROVAL: Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2011 AMENDMENTS: P&Z Resolution (Design Changes) No. 2, Series of 2016 City Council Resolutions (Vested Rights) No. 41, Series of 2015 No. 90, Series of 2017 No. 71, Series of 2018 VESTED RIGHTS: Project is vested through Nov. 28, 2021 SUMMARY: In response to the proposed relocation of Lift 1A to Willoughby Park and adjacent to Dean Street, the applicant is requesting review of significant changes to the existing approvals for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision and Planned Development. The proposed changes would alter the following features from existing approvals: 1) site planning for both Lift One Lodge and City of Aspen property; 2) scale and massing of the Lift One Lodge buildings; 3) affordable housing mitigation and other requirements of development; 4) internal programming of lodge units, free market residential units, commercial net leasable, and affordable housing units; and 5) access and configuration of subgrade parking. While this is a separate application from the Gorsuch Haus Lodge project, it is important to consider the two projects as integral to each other in defining a reimagined Lift 1 Corridor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Lift One Lodge amendment and the Lift One Corridor process, with conditions. P20 VI.A. Page 2 of 11 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission Figure 1. Rendering of the proposed project with redesigned Willoughby Park in the foreground. UPDATES FROM THE OCTOBER 2nd MEETING AND THE PREVIOUS MEMO Due to the iterative nature of this project, at the October 2nd hearing, P&Z Commissioners requested a number of updates to the application and memo so that a more complete understanding of the project could be realized prior to the formulation of a recommendation. The following is a point by point breakdown of these requested items – including a staff recommendation to the commission in each area. The original memo immediately follows this and is unchanged. It is included to provide necessary background for P&Z. 1. Materials and massing of the elements on the East and West Buildings that contain elevator and stair towers. Due to the narrowing and lengthening of the Lift One Lodge buildings to accommodate the ski corridor, internal configuration of the buildings, including vertical circulation also needed to change. The most prominent external outcome of this is the presence of the elevator and stair towers on both buildings. From Staff’s perspective, while these elements do serve to articulate the horizontal massing of the buildings, they also serve as the tallest elements on each of the buildings. While these features comply with the previously approved height limitations for the buildings, Staff’s perspective is that they create a perception of increased massing from the approved design and recommends that they be reconfigured, or better articulated using form or materials. The applicant has not proposed any changes at this time. If P&Z shares staff’s concerns, staff has included the following condition in the Resolution: P21 VI.A. Page 3 of 11 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission “P&Z recommends the applicant provide options to City Council regarding the vertical circulation elements on both buildings, including changes to materiality or form, or relocation to the interior of the building.” 2. Visual analysis of the project from the Wheeler View Plane. Since the original and amended approvals, the view plane regulations have changed. Based on GIS analysis, the Wheeler View Plane hits Gilbert Street at an elevation of approximately 7,981ft. This likely means that significant portions of both the East and West Building infringe into this view plane. The location of the project situates it within the “background” of a view plane. As such, the most relevant of the possible criteria to meet the standard requires that the development “does not materially alter the observer’s ability to see the preserved view from the reference point.” While it is likely the case that the Lift One Lodge will be obscured by development between the project location and the view plane origin point, staff requires that the applicant provide visual evidence of this condition at City Council’s 2nd Reading. This has been included as condition in the Resolution. 3. The size of free market residential units. Since the October 2nd meeting, staff and the applicant team have spent significant time evaluating the approved and proposed projects on a variety of metrics. The measurement of the free market residential units is based on “net livable” square footage. Essentially this includes the internal area of each unit. In the existing approval, staff has estimated that the average size of the five units is 2,774 sf of net livable. In the proposed project the average size of the six units is 2,789.5 sf of net livable – that includes more than 400 square feet of storage for each unit. Subtracting the storage area, the average unit size in the proposed project is 2,381 sf of net livable. While all of these calculations depict sizes that are significantly greater than the maximum free market unit size now allowed in the Lodge zone district (1,500 sf), staff finds that the new units are roughly consistent with the approved project (that was not subject to the limit on unit size) – and recommends approval of the proposed unit sizes. This has been included in the Resolution. 4. The interface of the parking garage with the ski museum and Ski Co. facilities in the subgrade space associated with the Skiers’ Chalet. While Staff sees this area as essential to the functioning of the entire project, the design detail of how this space would function is still in flux. Staff recommends deferring the detail on the functioning of this area to the future Detail/Final review with P&Z and HPC, if Aspen Skiing Company, Aspen Historical Society, the City of Aspen Parks Department, and Lift One Lodge agree to continue a collaborative design effort. This has been included as a condition for Detailed Review in the Resolution. 5. The subgrade garage to ensure compliance with the needs of trash and recycling removal. While the internal parking configuration of the subgrade garage can change, and the detail of the trash/recycling facilities can be further designed, the applicant must show evidence that trucks utilized to service the trash/recycling facilities can enter and navigate in this space. Staff recommends that the applicant provide this evidence prior to Second Reading of an Ordinance with City Council. This has been included as a condition in the Resolution. P22 VI.A. Page 4 of 11 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission 6. Gilbert and Dean Streets to ensure adequate access for fire protection, reduce potential impacts to existing neighbors, and comply with Engineering Standards. It is important to note that Dean and Gilbert Streets are City of Aspen property. They are not private streets. While staff wants to ensure that the proposed project has limited impacts to the neighbors of the project, engineering standards for width and grade, access to the project for vehicles, emergency equipment, pedestrian walkability, bicycle safety, and ADA access are the priorities. On Gilbert Street, both Community Development and Engineering Staff support the cul-de-sac design under the Lift One Lodge East Building. While the design differs from the original approval, Staff finds the new condition as an improvement to the existing approval that simply has Gilbert Street coming to a dead end. Any traffic on Gilbert, whether directly related to the Lift One Lodge or not, can now safely use the cul-de-sac to change direction and exit back onto Monarch Street. The street is narrow and does not meet minimum requirements for fire equipment access, but physical access is possible. Staff recommends the design for Gilbert Street as proposed. Neighbor concerns about any increased traffic can be mitigated through signage at the intersection of Gilbert and Monarch Streets. On Dean Street, a collaborative effort with City Engineering, City Parks, Lift One Lodge, and Sopris Engineering has developed a design for the interface with the Willoughby Park and the new lift that meets the outcomes listed above. The existing conditions on Dean Street are difficult, but the proposed design improves these conditions significantly: • The existing severe cross grades will be reduced; • A one-way travel lane from west to east with sharrows ** is proposed ; • A drop-off pull-out is designed to accommodate three vehicles; • A contra** bike lane that allows east to west travel; • Improved pedestrian facilities on both sides of Dean Street; • Grade improvements that provide ADA access to the site via Monarch Street. There are no additional retaining walls proposed on the north side of Dean Street. The design does not change the relation of grade to Southpoint Condominiums (the neighbors to the north). Additionally, the existing Southpoint trash dumpster, which is currently located on City of Aspen Right of Way (ROW), will need to be moved, but an alternative location will be incorporated into the final design. The necessary movement of this dumpster is a result of its location on City ROW. The catalyst for many of the design changes to Dean Street are the lift relocation and the changed access point to the subgrade garage. Staff recommends approval of this proposed design and additionally recommends the garage access via Dean Street. City of Aspen Engineering staff will be at the October 16th meeting to answer any questions related to site access. A recommendation of approval of conceptual Dean Street and Gilbert Street designs is included in the Resolution. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ** a “sharrow” is a traffic lane designed for bikes and cars to share the roadway. These are used throughout Aspen and are indicated by distinctive paint marking that include a bike symbol and a pattern of directional arrows. **a “contra” lane is a separated lane that allows bicycle travel counter to a one-way vehicle travel lane P23 VI.A. Page 5 of 11 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission 7. Mud/Debris Flow Analysis and Mitigation Systems, Storm Water Management Design, and Grading Design to show compliance with Engineering Standards. The existing project has fully completed engineering studies and design completed – including mud flow analysis, storm water management, and grading. While important aspects of the project are changing that need to be fully understood in a detailed way, Staff is confident that the coordinated effort between Lift One Lodge, Gorsuch Haus, City Engineering, City Parks, and Sopris Engineering will present a project that works. Staff recommends that final approval of these elements be included in the future Planned Development, Detail Review with P&Z. A condition requiring approval of these elements during Detailed Review is include in the Resolution. 8. Site plan that specifically identifies provision of on-site pedestrian amenity for Lots 1 & 2. On the Planned Development as a whole, staff finds that the pedestrian amenity writ large for the project is provided primarily on Lot 3. While pedestrian amenity can be provided off-site, staff would like to better understand the on-site pedestrian amenity on Lot 1 – which contains the Lift One Lodge West Building and Steakhouse. A visual identification of these spaces is required. This has been included as a condition in the Resolution. 9. Roof Top – public access on West Building Planning and Zoning had requested information about public rooftop access in the previous meeting. While this is not something that can be required of a project, public access to lodge-related amenities has been a topic of discussion on other large lodge/hotel projects. This would likely be a topic to be addressed at Detail Review. A condition that the applicant consider this option can be added to the Resolution if P&Z desires. 10. Energy and Water efficiency P&Z Commissioners highlighted the importance of water and energy efficiency at the October 2nd meeting. The City has a number of specific requirements that the project will need to meet, including REMP and the Water Efficient Landscaping requirements. These can be addressed more specifically during Detail Review. This has been added as a condition in the Resolution. 11. Ski Corridor conditions The Aspen Skiing Company has been integrally involved in the design of the corridor and the establishment of minimum requirements for the ski experience and ski operations that have shaped several aspects of the Lift One Lodge, Gorsuch Haus, and Willoughby Park site planning. A representative from Ski Co. will be present to answer any specific questions the commission may have on this topic. 12. On-site parking, mobility improvements and neighborhood parking context. The project is providing 50 public parking spaces. This number is fixed as a result of the current vested approval. Based on the proposed uses in the Lift One Lodge Project, the lodge would require an additional 75.1 parking spaces – for a total of 125.1 physical parking spaces. This is based on 104 lodge keys, 16,125 sf of net leasable commercial floor area, and 7 residential units – including the AH unit. The proposed project currently provides 59 spaces, or 16.1 below that required by code. Through special review, minimum parking requirements can be altered based on specific aspects of the project, including location efficiency or additional provision of TDM/MMLOS mobility P24 VI.A. Page 6 of 11 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission enhancements. While the project appears to mitigating for more new vehicle trips than it is generating, staff is primarily concerned with the neighborhood parking context and does not recommend any reduction from on-site parking requirements. Staff recommends the following (in order of preference): 1)Provision of the 75.1 on-site parking spaces as required by code for the uses directly related to the Lodge. These spaces would be required to meet the definition of a parking space provided in the Land Use Code, or 2) Provision of the 75.1 on-site parking spaces – utilizing tandem, or stacked parking spaces – and committing to the use of valet service to access the lodge spaces. These spaces do not meet the definition of a parking space in the LUC – and would therefore require special review approval, or 3) Provision of a cash-in-lieu payment for the parking deficiency. This is allowed by the LUC. In the Lodge zone district, projects can provide up to 40% of the required parking (75.1 x .4 = 30 spaces). In this case, if the project remains as proposed, and the tandem spaces currently designed are approved, a cash-in-lieu payment for 16.1 spaces would be required ($38,000 x 16.1 = $611,800). If the parking design as proposed is not changing, a cash-in lieu payment would be required (permitted by code) and special review approval would be required for the tandem parking spaces proposed in the lodge portion of the parking garage. Staff recommends that approval of this parking configuration be conditioned on the provision that the spaces are only accessed by valet service – a condition typical for other lodge projects in town. Final parking requirements are dependent on confirmation of finalized project uses. If P&Z shares staff’s perspective on the required number of parking spaces, staff has included a recommended condition in the Resolution to this effect. 13. Detail on floor plans and more complete analysis of proposed v. existing dimensions. A primary question raised by P&Z in the initial review of this project is: How does the proposed project compare to the existing approval? And the follow-up questions: Is it bigger? If yes, how much bigger? In terms of gross floor area (the total size of the building both below and above grade), the two buildings are nearly identical - approximately 200,000 square feet in both iterations. However, when analyzing this more closely, there is one important change. The parking area is getting approximately 22,000 square feet smaller in the proposed project. This means that roughly 22,000 square feet is being allocated to the lodge, commercial and residential space. This also means that a portion of the 22,000 square feet is above grade rather than below grade. In short, the projects are roughly the same, but the proposed project is shifting gross floor area above grade. It is important to note that this comparison of the two buildings is solely for the purpose of trying to get at “apples to apples” evaluation. These numbers are not considered in the Land Use Code. Other calculations to consider: P25 VI.A. Page 7 of 11 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission • As stated above, the Land Use Code does not measure or consider gross floor area. Instead it uses “Floor Area”, a somewhat complicated calculation (that has changed over time) that differentiates above grade and below grade square footage. Lots 1 and 2 have a combined lot area of 44,830 square feet. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a restriction placed on building size in relationship to lot area. In this measure, the new project proposes 107,651 square feet, which equates to an FAR of 2.4 : 1. The maximum FAR in the Lodge zone district (for a project with this lodge unit density) is 2.5 : 1 or 112,075 square feet. It is this number that is most important when considering whether a project complies with the Land Use Code. As long as the project remains under this maximum FAR and the corresponding allowable Floor Area, staff is supportive of the overall dimension as it complies with the Code requirements in the Lodge zone district. • An important measure of the project is the average lodge key size. In the approved project, staff estimates that the average key size is approximately 535 square feet of net livable area. This is not a number that has any importance to the original approval, but today, the LUC provides incentives for reducing lodge unit size. The application for the proposed project has provide an average unit size of 519 square feet. Staff’s estimation is that the average key size in the proposed project is approximately 496 square feet of net livable. This discrepancy will need to be confirmed, but in any case, the average unit size has been reduced in the proposed project. While most of the keys are between 535 – 650 square feet, a significant number (28) are between 290 – 320 square feet. These smaller keys were not present to this same degree in the existing project. Additionally in the approved project, two of the lodge units have average key sizes of more than 700 square feet. There are no keys in the proposed project that average out at this size. This is important as smaller units are more likely to be utilized as active or “hot” beds within the cumulative lodging stock. • As proposed, the project has estimated floor areas for commercial net leasable (16,125 sf), non-unit area, and remains under the floor area ratio for free market residential in relationship to lodge and affordable housing net livable. As is typical, all dimensional numbers will need to be confirmed during building permit review, and any changes could alter growth management mitigation requirements. At this point in time, staff finds that the proposed project meets the dimensional requirements in regards to Floor Area and related calculations in the Lodge zone district (with the exception of the free market unit size described in #3 above. *At the writing of this memo, no updates to the dimensional table have been provided by the applicant. It is hoped that updates will be available for P&Z’s consideration on the 16th. P26 VI.A. Page 8 of 11 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission 14. Growth Management Quota System – including APCHA’s recommendation APCHA’s Board made a recommendation (included as Exhibit I) at their October 3rd meeting related to the changes to the Lift One Project. In summary the Board recommended: • The ski museum be recognized as an Essential Public Facility, allowing the square footage of the museum to be excluded in the calculation of housing mitigation – with future employee audits. This does not include the floor area of the Aspen Skiing Company facilities that are also in the Skiers’ Chalet Lodge building – and will be calculated as commercial net leasable for the purposes of housing mitigation. • As the project is proposing to change the methods through which it is providing mitigation, APCHA discussed and recommended that the project utilize the following methods in order of priority: 1) on-site deed restricted housing, 2) off-site units, 3) Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, or 4)APCHA approved buy-down units. It is important to note that the APCHA Board does not support cash-in-lieu as a method for providing affordable housing mitigation. ComDev staff agrees with continuing the ski museum as Essential Public Facility. On the second topic, while staff recognizes the APCHA decision on cash-in-lieu, it is important to note for P&Z that it remains an option in the APCHA guidelines, the Land Use Code, and in the existing Lift One Lodge approvals. Staff recommends that the applicant may request cash-in-lieu as an option for required mitigation with City Council – as provided in the LUC. P&Z direction on this point is requested. In terms of existing and proposed employee housing generation and mitigation, a more extensive discussion is necessary. This is not a topic that APCHA weighed in on – as the methodology is established by the Land Use Code, not the APCHA Guidelines. As P&Z considers this topic, two topics are relevant. First, the generation rate is a calculation based on established studies for the Aspen area that represent the employees generated by certain types of development (example: 4.7 employees for every 1000 square feet of commercial development). This number is expressed as FTEs, or full-time equivalents. Once the total FTE’s generated by development are calculated, a second calculation is established. The mitigation rate is a percentage of the employees generated for which a development has to mitigate. The original approvals for the Lift One Lodge project used the generation rates in place in 2006 when the project was first considered, but unusually had a mitigation rate of 100% – which was not required by the code at the time. It seemed to have been a negotiated outcome as part of the larger set of issues that came to define the approval. Specifically, the project was required to mitigate for 35.12 FTE – again at 100%. If the mitigation rate from the LUC at the time were used, the project would have been required to provide 12.88 FTE. In the 2016 Minor Amendment, changes to the internal programming of the Lodge buildings translated into a significant increase to commercial net leasable. As a consequence of the Amendment and the increase to commercial space, the mitigation required for the project increased to 90.96 FTEs (Category 4); again using a mitigation rate of 100%. As the proposed project is a Major Amendment to a Planned Development, the project is now subject to the generation and mitigation rates in the current Land Use Code. Since 2006, both the generation and mitigation rates have changed in response to updated studies and new community P27 VI.A. Page 9 of 11 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission goals. While Staff acknowledges the existing vested rights that the project holds, and recognizes the contribution of the Lift One Lodge developers toward the current momentum towards the Lift One Corridor project and the relocation of the lift, the Land Use Code is clear on this topic. Based on the current generation and mitigation rates and the application of LUC methodology to the proposed project, Staff estimates that the project would generate nearly 162 FTEs and would be required by Code to mitigate for nearly 62 FTEs (Category 4). This number includes all of the proposed uses on the Lift One Lodge property and the net leasable associated with Ski Co. operations. See Exhibit J for a detail of this calculation. The Land Use Code does provide (at City Council’s discretion) an alternative to the standard methodology for calculating required mitigation. This path is specifically available to Lodge development. At this time the applicant has not proposed an alternative method for staff to respond to. The applicant may have additional information at the October 16th meeting. The recommended condition in the Resolution is written to refer to the mitigation calculations available in the current code. 15. D etail in describing building heights between proposed and existing dimensions The maximum height for a building in the Lodge zone district is 40 feet. Typically, under current code, building heights are measured from natural or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. In the Lift One Lodge approval from 2011, the Planned Development allowed a maximum height of 53 feet, 3 inches, but in reality, established a number of maximum heights by including an approved height over topography plan. If a building permit would have been issued on the approved project, the building would have needed to comply with the heights established by the roof plan. Additionally, the project established an “interpolated” grade, or estimation of pre-development grade using a 1957 survey. The approval establishes that height shall be measured from this interpolated grade. Both then and now, the sole use of this interpolated grade to measure height is somewhat unusual. However, this was allowed through their original PD process and approval by City Council. The maximum height on the West Building is 53 feet, 3 inches. Staff’s evaluation is that no portion of the building exceed this height. Similarly, on the East Building, a maximum height of 47.5 feet was established in the original approval and no potion exceed this height. For both buildings, code allowed exceptions to height including stair and elevator overruns, and allowed rooftop attachments exceed the maximum heights, but appear to meet code allowances for such features. See Exhibit K for additional visual materials illustrating heights. Staff finds that the minimal nature of rooftop mechanical equipment is a very positive element of the proposed design. The massing of the buildings is changing to accommodate the ski corridor. The buildings are becoming narrower and longer in response. As such, it is staff’s evaluation that more of the height points of the building approach the maximum height. For example, the average of all of the height points (excluding elevator overruns and other attached roof features) on the proposed West Building is 47 feet, six inches. This is not a measure in the Land Use Code, but does give some sense of the overall massing of the building. Please see Exhibit K to see a comparison of the approved and proposed massing of both buildings. P28 VI.A. Page 10 of 11 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission In light of community conversations and decisions related to building heights, Staff would agree that the approved and proposed height of this building and its overall massing are important issues to consider. Staff, in consideration of vested rights of this project – and that approvals have been granted for amendments and extensions of the vested rights – that have allowed this height to remain, is supportive of the maximum height established by the previous approval to remain in this approval. 16. Review Timeline Several commissioners raised questions about the compressed timeline of the review. Staff, in full acknowledgement of this concern would make the following points in response: • While important changes to the project are proposed, the basic concept and several key elements of the site planning have been approved since 2011. • P&Z, HPC, Open Space and Trails Board, APCHA, City Council and ultimately the voters of Aspen will have had a chance to fully vet the conceptual approval of this project. • If the project is approved by voters, the project will return to Planning and Zoning Commission for Detail Review of the Planned Development. • Due to the interrelated nature of the project as a whole, there will be extremely descriptive and precise development agreements and requirements between the property owners and stakeholders of the project to ensure that development occurs in an orderly and predictive manner. • As was committed previously, if there are specific elements of the project that continue to raise concern or questions of uncertainty, staff will work with the applicant to provide the information necessary for a recommendation of P&Z to City Council. In summary, staff has confidence that through the course of the review of the project, any necessary conceptual aspects will be confirmed. Recommendations from the various review boards and public comments, from throughout the process will be considered in the review by City Council. If approved conceptually, the project will be required to return to review boards for Final/Detail Review – where any unresolved aspects of the project can be finalized. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Planning and Zoning provide a recommendation of approval for the Lift One Lodge Amendment and Lift One Corridor Project, with conditions. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No.5, Series of 2018, recommending approval of the Lift One Lodge Amendment and the Lift One Corridor Project, subject to changes identified in the Resolution. P29 VI.A. Page 11 of 11 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission EXHIBITS: A. Dimensional Table (not updated) Review Criteria B.1 Planned Development, Major Amendment, Project Review B.2 Subdivision B.3 Rezoning B.4 Growth Management Quota System B.5 Commercial Design B.6 Timeshare Development B.7 Transportation and Parking Management B.8 ESA, Mountain View Plane B.9 Vested Property Rights C. Development Review Committee Comments D. Complete Application **(included in October 2 packet, not included here) E. Updated Drawings; 9/24/18 F. Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011 (original approval) G. P&Z Resolution No. 2, Series of 2016 (minor amendment) H. City Council Resolution No. 71, Series of 2018 (vested rights extension) New Exhibits since October 2nd Memo I. APCHA recommendation from October 3, 2018 J. Estimate of Employee Generation/Mitigation K. Height/Massing Diagrams P30 VI.A. MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director, Planning RE: Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment to a Planned Development DATE OF: October 2, 2018 MEETING SITE VISIT: Monday, October 15, 2018, 12:00pm ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT / OWNER: Lift One Lodge Aspen, LLC REPRESENTATIVES: Stan Clauson and Patrick Rawley Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. LOCATION: 710 South Aspen Street LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4, Lift One Lodge Subdivision / PUD, according to the Plat thereof recorded March 5, 2013 at Book 102, Page 1, Reception No. 597438. CURRENT ZONING: Planned Development Lodge (L) and Park (P) underlying zones ORIGINAL APPROVAL: Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2011 AMENDMENTS: P&Z Resolution (Design Changes) No. 2, Series of 2016 City Council Resolutions (Vested Rights) No. 41, Series of 2015 No. 90, Series of 2017 No. 71, Series of 2018 VESTED RIGHTS: Project is vested through Nov. 28, 2021 SUMMARY: In response to the proposed relocation of Lift 1A to Willoughby Park and adjacent to Dean Street, the applicant is requesting review of significant changes to the existing approvals for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision and Planned Development. The proposed changes would alter the following features from existing approvals: 1) site planning for both Lift One Lodge and City of Aspen property; 2) scale and massing of the Lift One Lodge buildings; 3) affordable housing mitigation and other requirements of development; 4) internal programming of lodge units, free market residential units, commercial net leasable, and affordable housing units; and 5) access and configuration of subgrade parking. While this is a separate application from the Gorsuch Haus Lodge project, it is important to consider the two projects as integral to each other in defining a reimagined Lift 1 Corridor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Commission support the Lift One Lodge amendment and the Lift One Corridor process, with conditions. P31 VI.A. Page 2 of 17 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission Figure 1. Rendering of the proposed project with redesigned Willoughby Park in the foreground. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission to City Council for the following Land Use approvals: • Planned Development, Major Amendment, Project Review (26.445) for proposed changes to an approved planned development. While the project holds vested rights, changes of this magnitude require that a project be reviewed under the current Land Use Code. • Subdivision (26.480) for proposed changes to the established lot configuration of Lift One Lodge and City of Aspen Property. • Amendment to the Zone District Map (26.310) for proposed changes to the zoning map in response to changes to the lot configuration of the subdivision/planned development • Growth Management (26.470) to review growth management allotments and affordable housing mitigation in response to changes to the project and for conformance with the current Land Use Code. • Commercial Design Review (26.412) for compliance of the proposed project with current Pedestrian Amenity requirements and the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. P32 VI.A. Page 3 of 17 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission • Timeshare Development (26.590) to review compliance with requirements related to the establishment, operation, and management of timeshare lodge development. • Transportation and Parking Management (26.515) for review of compliance with parking and transportation demand management requirements. • Special Review (26.430) for review of specific Land Use Code sections, including, but not limited to Transportation and Parking Management, that allow for special review in evaluating flexible compliance. • Mountain View Plane Review (26.435) for compliance with criteria established to protect mountain views. The project is in the background of two view planes. • Vested Property Rights (26.308) for review of the request for a new three-year vesting period, for the substantially changed project should the application be approved. The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) will make a recommendation to City Council regarding the reviews listed above. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) Board, and Open Space and Trails Board will additionally be making separate recommendations to City Council. City Council is the final review authority for these reviews, but there are aspects of this project that will require a public vote for full approval. A ballot question for the Lift One Corridor Project is tentatively scheduled for February of 2019. If the ballot initiative is successful, the project will be subject to Detailed Review (primarily a materials and fenestration review) by both the P&Z and HPC subsequent to the vote. It is important to note that given the scale of the proposed changes, this project is reviewed under the current code as a Major Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission, at the October 2nd meeting will be given an introduction to the project by City Staff and the Applicant team. Mass and scale, site planning and other issues will be discussed. A site visit is scheduled for the review boards on October 15th at noon. P&Z is scheduled for a second meeting on October 16th – and at this meeting P&Z will be asked to make a formal recommendation to City Council, BACKGROUND: Prompted by the Gorsuch Haus Lodge land use application in 2016, a community discussion encouraged a collaborative effort by multiple stakeholders to evaluate the feasibility of moving Lift 1A further down its corridor to be closer to Dean Street. An exhaustive study by ski lift consultant, the SE Group provided a preferred alternative that proposed placement of the lift station in the approximate location of the original Lift 1, on today’s Willoughby Park. To accommodate this proposed realignment, Lift One Lodge Aspen, LLC, initiated a redesign of their previously approved and currently vested project. In this new design, many aspects of the project are not changing, while others would change significantly. Some of the proposed changes are a direct response to a physically different ski corridor and other site planning necessities; other aspects of the amendment reflect desires for new, and additional programming. P33 VI.A. Page 4 of 17 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission The Lift One Lodge received its original Planned Development approvals with Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2018. A summary of the existing approvals: • A reconfiguration of parcels to create four lots. Two are owned by Lift One Lodge and would accommodate the lodge buildings and the Skiers’ Chalet Steakhouse. The other 2 lots are parks owned by the City of Aspen; Willoughby and Lift One Parks. • The maintenance of a future ski corridor between the two lodge buildings • A re-aligned/narrowed Aspen Street that reshaped the western property lines of the Planned Development. • A vacated Gilbert Street that would now end at the east Lift One Lodge property boundary. • Two lodge buildings that include timeshare lodge units, free-market residential units, and commercial space. • A relocated Skier’s Chalet to Willoughby Park that would house a ski museum to be owned and operated by the Aspen Historical Society. Lift One Lodge was responsible for relocating the building and updating it to a “white box” condition (where basic life safety and essential mechanical systems are installed, but interior finishes are left rough) prior to AHS taking possession. • The Skiers’ Chalet Steakhouse would remain in its current location and would be renovated to provide deed-restricted, dorm-style housing for 16 employees as part of the affordable housing mitigation requirements of Lift One Lodge. • A subgrade parking garage, that would enter from S. Aspen Street and would provide 163 parking spaces, 50 of which would be public to replace lost parking along S. Aspen and in Willoughby Park. • A maximum height for the Lift One Lodge buildings that would be measured from an interpolated grade. Additionally, the approved height for both buildings was taller than allowed by the Lodge (L) Zone District. • An extensive list of development requirements that included improvements to Dean and S. Aspen Streets, relocation of the Skiers’ Chalet and Skiers’ Chalet Steakhouse, 50 public parking spaces, amenities for skiers including a public locker room, preservation of the historic Lift One structures, and escrow funds to pay for an eventual lift solution to bring skiers up to Lift 1A from Dean Street. A subsequent amendment in 2016 approved changes to exterior architectural features, and an increase to commercial net leasable square footage to accommodate a rearrangement of internal programming of the lodge building. Additionally, on three occasions, City Council has approved extensions of vested rights. The most recent approval of a two-year extension was specifically granted to accommodate the efforts to study the potential realignment of Lift 1A. The approved project has vesting through November 28, 2021. P34 VI.A. Page 5 of 17 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Figure 2 (below) illustrates the proposed site plan for the Planned Development that has resulted from the relocation of the ski lift to the preferred alternative identified by the SE Group study. The site plan depicts the following changes: • A widened ski corridor • A relocated lift station and lift corridor • Relocated Skiers’ Chalet and Skiers’ Chalet Steakhouse • A relocation of historic Lift One structures (the bull wheel and three towers) • Inclusion of ASC skier services and ski patrol • A redesign of Willoughby Park • A change to the point of access to subgrade parking garage – proposed for Dean Street • A cul-de-sac that creates a terminus of Gilbert Street • The use of the Steakhouse as commercial space for a restaurant/bar rather than dorm-style employee housing. • Changes to footprint of the Lift One Lodge Buildings • Additional design changes and improvements to Dean Street Lot Configuration and Rezoning The project would reduce the lots in the PD from 4 to 3. Lot 1 would include the west Lift One Lodge Building and the Skiers’ Chalet Steakhouse. Lot 2 would include the east building of Lift One Lodge. Lot 3 would be owned by the City of Aspen and would include Willoughby Park, Lift One Park, the ski corridor as it moves through the project area, the new lift station, Historic Lift One structures, and the relocated Skiers’ Chalet that would include the ski museum, and skier services and ski patrol facilities for Aspen Skiing Company. While the lots would be reconfigured and reduced from 4 to 3 lots, the total square footage that would be owned by Lift One Lodge and the City of Aspen would be nearly Figure 2 – Conceptual Site Plan for Amended Lift One Lodge Planned Development P35 VI.A. Page 6 of 17 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission identical to the existing approval. This change is reviewed through Subdivision criteria in Chapter 26.480. See Figure 3 for the proposed lot configuration. While the zone designations for the PD will not change (Lodge (L) and Park (P) zone districts with a Planned Development overlay), because the lot configuration is changing – an amendment to the Zone District Map is required in addition to the Subdivision approval. While the proposed uses on Lots 1 and 2 are consistent with the underlying Lodge zone district, the commercial nature of accessory uses and the subgrade vehicle access and parking proposed for Lot 3 (reconfigured Willoughby and Lift One Parks) are not permitted uses in the Park (P) zone district. The PD overlay can provide allowance for these uses, but the exchange of the land to accommodate the changes and establishment of these uses on a City Park are issues requiring voter approval. Figure 3 – Proposed Lot Configuration. Lots 1 and 2 would be owned by the Lift One Lodge, Lot 3 by the City of Aspen. Lots 1 and 2 would have underlying zoning of Lodge (L), Lot 3 would have underlying zoning as Park (P). All lots would be included within the Planned Development overlay. Changes to Lift One Lodge Buildings The two Lift One Lodge Buildings are changing in response to requirement that the ski corridor widen. Consequently, both buildings are becoming narrower and longer. Additionally, the buildings are proposed for a combined 31,528 square feet of additional floor area – compared to the calculations from the 2011 approvals. Lot 1 Lot 3 Lot 2 Aspen Street Dean Street Dolinsek Property P36 VI.A. Page 7 of 17 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission Height and Massing Important to the original approvals, Lift One Lodge was granted an interpolated grade from which to measure height. Typically, height is measured from the more restrictive of either finished or natural grade. In this case, the previous approval identified an interpolated grade (which is an estimated pre- development, or natural grade) and allows measurement of height from this interpolated grade. In the original approval, the maximum height of the west building was established as 53.3 feet; for the east building, 47.5 feet. Additionally, additions to the roof to accommodate mechanical equipment, including elevator overruns were limited to 10 feet. In the original approval, a roof over topography plan and elevations that complied with these heights were established. As depicted in newly submitted drawings (including height over topography and elevations), the proposed changes comply or are less than the maximum dimensions of the original approval. Both buildings include elevator and mechanical overruns that comply with a 10 feet height maximum. As both buildings are getting narrower to accommodate the ski corridor and floor area is increasing, the length of the massing of both buildings is increasing. Consideration of these changes to overall massing in relation to the maximum height of the building will be an important part of P&Z’s review. Related to the height issue, Mountain View plane review is required as the project is located in the background of two View Planes (Main Street and Wheeler). While staff agrees with the application that the maximum height of the approved project is established, both the massing of the building and the code language for Mountain View planes have since changed. In staff’s initial analysis, the project infringes only on the Wheeler view plane. Staff will work with the applicant to provide a visual analysis from the Wheeler view plane point of origin to better understand the project’s compliance with the review criteria. Figure 4. Existing Approval – West Elevation of West Building – as viewed from S. Aspen Street. P37 VI.A. Page 8 of 17 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission Figure 5. Proposed Amendment – West Elevation of West Building – as viewed from S. Aspen Street. Figure 6. Existing Approval – East Elevation of the West Building – as viewed from the ski corridor. Figure 7. Proposed Amendment – East Elevation of the West Building – as viewed from the ski corridor. P38 VI.A. Page 9 of 17 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission Internal Programming Lift One Lodge proposes an additional 31,528 square feet of floor area in comparison to existing approvals – for a total of 107,651 square feet. The allowed floor area for Lot 1 and 2 combined is 112,075 square feet. This expanded programming provides for a total of 34 lodge units (104 keys), six free- market units, one affordable housing unit, and 16,125 square feet of commercial, net leasable. With these proposed changes to programming: 1) commercial, net leasable space is reduced by just over 7,000 square feet 2) the number of lodge units is increasing by 12; lodge keys by 20. 3) free-market residences are increasing by 1 unit and just over 5,000 square in net livable area 4) non-unit space (areas used to serve the lodge as a whole) is increasing significantly A few numbers emerge from this amended programming that are worthy of specific consideration. First, the configuration of this project, like other lodges, creates a number of units that can then be broken down into smaller configurations called lock-off units or lodge keys. In the smallest unit configuration of the proposed project, the average lodge unit size (key size) is 517 square feet of net livable. This number is important as it informs the affordable housing mitigation and dimensional allowances for the project as a whole. The Land Use Code places priority on this number in providing incentive to reduce the size of an individual, rentable division, lock-off unit. The smaller the division, the less mitigation required. The largest unit configuration (using the 34 full size units as the measure) is approximately 1,575 square feet. The application includes a Conceptual Timeshare Use and Management Plan. As submitted, the plan combined with regular audits of the operation of the lodge, provide assurance that the west building of the development will function as a lodge. Secondly, in the Lodge (L) zone district, thresholds exist for free-market residential uses that are associated with lodge uses. The first of these thresholds is a floor area ratio (FAR) that establishes the Figure 8. Existing (left) and Proposed (right) Elevations of the East Building. P39 VI.A. Page 10 of 17 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission amount of free-market net livable permitted relative to the amount of lodge and affordable housing net livable – and is established based on the average lodge unit size described above. In this measure, the proposed amendment is compliant as it is less than (0.343) the 0.4 : 1 FAR limit in the Lodge (L) zone district. The second threshold is a maximum unit size. Today, free-market units are limited to 1,500 square feet that can be increased to 2,000 square feet if TDRs are extinguished for each unit. The previous approval allowed an average free-market unit size of just more than 2,600 square feet (Floor Area). The proposed project increases the size of the free-market units, to an average 3,138 square feet of net livable area. While the floor area and net livable numbers are not comparable – the units are proposed to get larger – to a number that is significantly greater that allowed by current code. The applicant proposes this increase as part of the Planned Development and public vote. Please see Exhibit A, Dimensional Table for details in comparing the original approvals with the proposed amendment. Transportation, Access, Parking Dean Street and Subgrade Garage In the proposed project, Dean St. becomes one-way from west to east with a single auto travel lane, a drop-off pullout adjacent to Willoughby Park, a “contra” lane for bicycles, and improved pedestrian facilities on both sides of the street. These improvements, that have the support of the City Engineering Department, are proposed to support a major change to the approved project. In the original design, a subgrade parking garage was accessed from S. Aspen Street. In the proposed change, the garage is now accessed via Dean Street with a ramp that emerges to the west of the Skiers’ Chalet. The garage provides 50 public parking spaces (that were required in the original approval) and proposes 59 additional spaces related to Lift One Lodge. The subgrade garage provides trash and recycling facilities, a loading zone and service access for Lift One Lodge, service access and loading for Aspen Historical Society and Ski Co., public locker space, storage for the City Parks Department, bicycle parking, and vertical circulation to connect to levels above. Importantly, the subgrade garage also has to provide structural support for the ski lift terminal that is located directly above the garage. As the lift is proposed closer to Dean St., improvements on Dean include greater pedestrian, bike and drop- off accommodations than originally designed. Figure 9. Level one of the subgrade parking garage with entry from Dean Street that includes the majority of the public parking area. P40 VI.A. Page 11 of 17 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)/Multi- Modal Level of Service (MMLOS)/Parking The most recent changes to Aspen’s parking code ties parking and transportation requirements together, requiring projects to provide both parking and mitigate new vehicle trips generated through alternative means such as bike racks, car share or sidewalk upgrades. Special Review for the number of on-site parking spaces will be required to evaluate the proposed parking spaces (currently at 16 spaces under that required by code). The Applicant, and Community Development, Engineering, Parking, and Transportation Departments are working to better evaluate the required parking spaces, while additionally considering the larger transportation impacts of the project and the project elements that are helping to mitigate these impacts. Additional information on this will be available for the next P&Z meeting. Employee Housing Mitigation In the original approvals for the Lift One Lodge PD, the project was approved with mitigation for 100% of their employee generation through a mix on on-site units, off-site units, affordable housing credits, and cash-in-lieu. While not required by code at the time, the 100% rate was an outcome of the larger negotiation of the project. Based on the specific project and mitigation formulas in place at the time of the original approval, the project generated 35.12 FTEs. 16 of the FTEs were to be housed in eight (8) dormitory units on-site in a renovated Skiers’ Chalet Steakhouse and the additional 19.12 FTEs were to be mitigated using the other options. In 2016, a Minor Amendment to the Planned Development was approved that among other things reconfigured the internal programming of the lodge building. The result was an increase to Commercial Net Leasable area of more than 18,000 square feet. At the time, this increase of commercial floor area required an additional 55.84 FTE of employee mitigation – again, at the 100% rate. This brought the total mitigation for the project to 90.96 FTE. A second important element of the original project related to employee housing mitigation was the relocated Skiers’ Chalet. The new location of this building in Willoughby Park would house a ski museum owned and operated by the Aspen Historical Society. In the approval, this building was determined to be an “Essential Public Facility”. Then, as now, City Council has the discretion to require, waive, or reduce the mitigation requirements for Essential Public Facilities. In the approvals, Council waived the mitigation requirements for the ski museum. Figure 10. Level 2 of the subgrade parking area- includes the parking for L1L – that will likely be primarily served by valet service. P41 VI.A. Page 12 of 17 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission Proposed Changes The amendment proposes some changes that will impact the overall employee housing mitigation. First, the Skier Chalet Steakhouse is relocated and repurposed. Moving closer to Willoughby Park and the new lift, the building would now be used as space for a restaurant / bar – rather than the dormitory- style employee housing units. Second, the applicant proposes one (1), on-site, one bedroom, employee housing unit to be located in the east building of Lift One Lodge. This unit would satisfy 1.75 FTE of the required mitigation. The unit is proposed at 791 square feet of Net Livable area. The remaining mitigation is proposed to be provided through a mix of off-site units, affordable housing credits and cash-in-lieu Third, in the current proposal, the Skiers’ Chalet is shared by the Aspen Historical Society and Aspen Skiing Company – to provide space for Skier Services and Ski Patrol – in addition to the ski museum. The square footage utilized by Ski Co. is considered net leasable square footage and will be included in the calculation of mitigation for the project as a whole. The square footage in the building that will be programmed by the Aspen Historical Society is proposed to remain as Essential Public Facility. P&Z recommendation regarding employee housing mitigation will be an important aspect of the proposed resolution. Additional information on housing mitigation, including a recommendation from APCHA regarding mitigation methods will be available for the next P&Z meeting. Growth Management Quota System Allotments The majority of the GMQS allotments for this project have been previously approved. The proposed project is requesting additional allotments for 40 additional lodge pillows and one (1) free-market unit. The additional requested allotments are available for the 2018 year. Willoughby Park Site Planning and Programming While the formal recommendations regarding Willoughby Park’s site planning and programming will primarily be in the hands of the Historic Preservation Commission and Open Space and Trails Board, it is important to understand this essential component of the re-imagined corridor. With the reconfigured lot lines, City Property extends from the south end of the planned development as it moves through the ski corridor and between the Lift One Lodge buildings. As the property gets closer to Dean Street, Willoughby Park widens. In the proposed Plan, Willoughby Park will contain the new ski lift, the relocated Skiers’ Chalet that will contain a ski museum operated by the Historical Society, and space for skier services facilities and ski patrol for Ski Co. At ski level, the pool house that is part of the current Skiers’ Chalet property will be relocated and in the most recent iteration is proposed to house exterior restrooms. Importantly, Willoughby Park is the home of the historic Lift 1 bull wheel and first tower. Two additional towers that are located up hill on Lift One Park that remain in the original alignment are proposed for relocation, perhaps off-site as they will conflict with ski operations. Aspen Ski Co. is evaluating the potential of alternative location for these towers on Aspen Mountain retaining the original alignment, perhaps at the terminus of the historic Lift 1. The bull wheel and first tower are proposed to remain P42 VI.A. Page 13 of 17 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission onsite, although relocated about 40 feet downhill from their existing locations and remaining in the same alignment. These structures are being highlighted in the Parks Department design and will be even more visually prominent from Dean Street. As essential element of the proposed Lift One Corridor project is the Dolinsek family property. Adjacent to Willoughby Park, this property while owned by the City of Aspen and the Aspen Valley Land Trust, holds a life estate and permanent open space covenant. While the covenant prohibits the placement of ski lift structures on or above the property, it does allow the property to be used for the ski way and ski-related operations. Combined, Willoughby Park and the planned Dolinsek Gardens will play essential roles in the functioning of ski operations, and the ski corridor. Several skiing access points – including Dean Street, S. Aspen Street, and Monarch Street accessed via Dolinsek Gardens are proposed. Significant design work has provided ADA access from Dean Streets and S. Aspen Streets. Development Requirements In the original approvals, as outlined in Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2011 and confirmed with a recorded development agreement, a full range of development requirements were agreed to by the original developers of Lift One Lodge. These requirements included financial guarantees, infrastructure improvements, escrow funds for specific purposes – and importantly the relocation and restoration of the Skiers’ Chalet to white box condition. As the corridor project has developed and aspects of the project have changed, the applications from Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus have provided a Draft Cost Sharing Plan that outlines individual and shared responsibilities for the improvements required for the project as a whole. While still in draft form, this plan proposes alterations to some of the development requirements of the original approvals and includes the City of Aspen as a partner in costs associated with the project. This will be a topic more fully addressed and negotiated by City Council. STAFF EVALUATION: Community Development Staff has helped to facilitate and organize the process that has resulted in the cooperative outcomes that are emerging in the Lift One Corridor Project and the land use applications submitted by Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge. Staff believes that there is significant community benefit in bringing Lift 1A down to Dean Street and in re-vitalizing this original portal to Aspen Mountain. The proposed redesign of Willoughby Park and the relationship to the future Dolinsek Gardens will provide year round amenity to residents and visitors. In regards to Lift One Lodge, Community Development staff recognizes the existing vested rights that the project holds – granted by two separate approvals in 2011 and 2016. However, due to the nature of the proposed changes in the application for a Major Amendment, this project is now subject to the requirements of current code. Staff is attempting to balance the original approvals, established vesting of the project, and the proposed changes against the current Land Use Code. In doing so, staff has identified the following issues that are worthy of discussion and in some cases are recommending specific changes to the project. Height, Massing, Scale, Impact to view plane P43 VI.A. Page 14 of 17 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission The original Planned Development approvals for this building allowed for heights beyond what is permitted in the Lodge (L) zone district by a significant degree (53.3 feet vs. 40 feet). Additionally, the project was granted an interpolated grade and an approval to use this interpolated grade to measure height. Staff acknowledges these approvals and recommends maintaining the approved limitations. Staff also recognizes that widening the ski corridor required the narrowing and lengthening of the east and west buildings – and a necessary creation of new mass and scale of the buildings. However, the amendment proposes the addition of more than 31,500 square feet. While the proposal complies with the allowable floor area ratio and total allowable floor area, staff has some concerns regarding the expanded building facades along S. Aspen Street. Staff recommends these changes to the project related to height/massing: 1) A re-study of the building elements that contain the vertical circulation for both the east and west buildings. While compliant with the original approval and calculations for elevator / stair towers on roofs, as designed these features are presented as a singular vertical mass and are the tallest elements of the design. Reconfiguring the floor plan that moves these elements to the interior of the building, or better articulating these elements through form or materials are possible solutions. Staff requires the following submission item prior to City Council review: 1) A visual analysis of the project from the origin point of the Wheeler View Plane. Lodge and Free Market Residential Unit Sizes In the Growth Management and Zone District chapters of the Land Use Code, there is significant discussion of lodge unit size and free market unit size, and the relationship of overall free market net livable area to lodge unit and affordable housing net livable area. The issue of lodge unit size and configuration and role of free market residential units within lodge development has been a frequent subject of community discussion and has prompted numerous changes to the Land Use Code in response. While the proposed project is compliant with the code in most ways, Staff has one concern. Staff recommends these changes to the project related to lodge/free market unit sizes: 1) In the original PD approval, the average free-market unit size was 2,620 square feet of Floor Area. The Land Use Code then and now allows a maximum of 1,500 square feet – or up to 2,000 square feet if a Transfer of Development Right were extinguished on the unit. No TDRs were required to attain the unit size in the original approval. The proposed plan increases the unit size to an average of 3,138 square feet of net livable area. This is a dimension that staff cannot support. Increasing the number of units to retain or reduce the approved average unit size, or landing TDRs for the expanded unit sizes are solutions that staff could possibly support. Parking and Transportation The Land Use Code requires projects to provide both physical parking spaces based on programming and Mobility Commitments through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Multi Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) strategies to mitigate for new trip generation. The current proposal is under P44 VI.A. Page 15 of 17 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission parked by approximately 16.1 spaces, but is mitigating for significantly more trips than it is generating in its TDM/MMLOS analysis within its mobility plan. Staff is recommending Special Review for the parking / transportation / mobility requirements of the project. This will require further discussion with the Applicant and City Community Development, Parking, Transportation, and Engineering Departments prior to City Council Review. Staff anticipates having additional information on this for the next P&Z meeting. GMQS – Employee Housing Mitigation As discussed above, following the APCHA board meeting on October 3rd, Staff will provide further detail on Growth Management mitigation. Staff recommends the following: 1) The project will provide one (1) on-site unit in providing 1.75 FTE. The balance of the required mitigation will be provided utilizing off-site units or Affordable Housing Credits. The applicants may request Council to consider cash-in-lieu as a mitigation option. 2) The ski museum facilities under the management of the Aspen Historical Society is determined to be an Essential Public facility. Staff recommends a waiver of GMQS mitigation subject to an employee audit at years 5 and 10 from issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. This does not include the space occupied by Aspen Skiing Company. This square footage will be calculated as net leasable and will be calculated to include consideration of existing Ski Co. facilities at Lift 1A. Programming / Site Planning / Design In an effort to confirm that the conceptual project plans are compliant with various City requirements prior to approval, Staff requires the following prior to City Council review: 1) Further study of the interface of the parking garage with the Skiers’ Chalet subgrade area and adjacent locker rooms, storage, and vertical circulation to ensure efficient use of space, meet ADA access requirements, and provide functional access to the ski museum exhibit space. 2) Further study of the subgrade area to ensure that the design can meet requirements related to trash, recycling, and compost facilities. The proposed location and design will likely not meet minimum requirements. 3) Further study of Gilbert Street design to ensure compliance with fire protection access needs for the east building, while considering road width constraints and potential impacts to existing Gilbert Street residents. 4) Further study of Dean Street design to ensure adequate access for fire protection along Dean Street and the subgrade parking area, and that the grade of the street aligns with the proposed design of Willoughby Park P45 VI.A. Page 16 of 17 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission 5) Mud flow analysis and mitigation systems, storm-water management design, and grading studies to show compliance with Engineering Standards. Vested Rights Due to the substantial proposed changes to the existing approvals, including a reconfiguration of lot lines, rezoning, changes to site planning and programming of Lift One Lodge and Willoughby Park, and importantly, the review for authorization of new growth management allotments, staff finds it appropriate that a new vesting period for the project (3 years) is established from the issuance of a new development order for this site specific approval. REFERRAL DEPARTMENTS: At a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting on September 19, 2018, City agencies had a first opportunity to make formal comments on the proposed changes to the project. These comments are included as Exhibit L. While the conceptual foundation of this project is established, there are details that are still being designed by the applicant team’s planners, engineers, and architects. Much of this work is in response to initial comments from City Staff. Referral agencies will continue to evaluate this new work as the project moves toward Council review. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND APPROVAL PROCESS: This project will likely have two public hearing meetings each with P&Z and HPC in the creation of recommendations to City Council. APCHA will be making a recommendation regarding employee housing mitigation. Open Space and Trails Board will consider and make recommendation on the design and programming related to Willoughby Park and the ski corridor. Lift One Lodge is holding a meeting on October 1st with their neighbors, and a site visit is scheduled for review boards, city council and interested members of the public on October 15th at 12pm – to view staked building footprints and a discussion on height and massing. With this input, City Council will be considering Lift One Lodge at First Reading on October 22nd. Second Reading for both Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge is scheduled for November 12th and 26th (and into December if needed). As part of Council’s consideration, additional opportunities for the public to provide input will be scheduled by City Staff in coordination with the applicant teams. If supported by Council, ballot language will be crafted and an election will be held in February of 2019, unless a November 2018 ballot initiative related to the timing of municipal elections is successful. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Planning and Zoning provide a recommendation of support for the Lift One Lodge Amendment and Lift One Corridor Project, with conditions. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No.5, Series of 2018, recommending approval of the Lift One Lodge Amendment and the Lift One Corridor Project, subject to changes identified in the Resolution. P46 VI.A. Page 17 of 17 Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment Staff Memo – Planning and Zoning Commission EXHIBITS: A. Dimensional Table Review Criteria B.1 Planned Development, Major Amendment, Project Review B.2 Subdivision B.3 Rezoning B.4 Growth Management Quota System B.5 Commercial Design B.6 Timeshare Development B.7 Transportation and Parking Management B.8 ESA, Mountain View Plane B.9 Vested Property Rights C. Development Review Committee Comments D. Complete Application E. Updated Drawings; 9/24/18 F. Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011 (original approval) G. P&Z Resolution No. 2, Series of 2016 (minor amendment) H. City Council Resolution No. 71, Series of 2018 (vested rights extension) P47 VI.A. DRAFT Planning and Zoning Commission Res. No. 5, Series of 2018 Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment Page 1 of 8 RESOLUTION NO. 5 (SERIES OF 2018) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE LIFT ONE CORRIDOR PROJECT, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION, RE-ZONING, GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM, COMMERCIAL DESIGN, AND RELATED REVIEWS, FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 710 S. ASPEN STREET, WILLOUGHBY PARK, AND LIFT ONE PARK, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF THE LIFT ONE LODGE SUBDIVISION / PUD ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MARCH 5, 2013, AT BOOK 102, PAGE 1, RECEPTION NO. 597438, COUNTY OF PITKIN, CITY OF ASPEN, STATE OF COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735-131-01-001; 2735-131-01-002; 2735-131-01-800; 2735-131-01-801 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (the Application) from Lift One Lodge Aspen, LLC (Applicant), represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. for the following land use review approvals: · Planned Development, Major Amendment, Project Review - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.445); and, · Subdivision - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.480); and, · Amendment to the Zone District Map - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.310); and, · Growth Management Quota System - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.470); and, · Commercial Design - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.412); and, · Timeshare Development - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.590); and, · Transportation and Parking Management - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.515); and, · Special Review - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.430) · ESA - Mountain View Plane - pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.435); and, · Vested Property Rights- pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter (26.308); and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Lodge (L) and Park (P) with a Planned Development (PD) Overlay; and, WHEREAS, The original approval of the Lift One Lodge Subdivision / PUD was granted through Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2011; and, WHEREAS, an Amendment to the Planned Development was approved by Planning and Zoning Commission in Resolution No. 2, Series of 2016; and, P48 VI.A. DRAFT Planning and Zoning Commission Res. No. 5, Series of 2018 Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment Page 2 of 8 WHEREAS, City Council, in Resolution No. 41, Series of 2015, Resolution No. 90, Series of 2017, and Resolution No. 71, Series of 2018 have approved extensions of vested rights; and, WHEREAS, the Lift One Lodge Project has existing vested rights through November 28, 2021; and, WHEREAS, as a consequence of the proposed changes constituting a Major Amendment, all code citation references to the City of Aspen Land Use Code are in effect on the day of initial application – September 4, 2018, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the proposed changes in the Application for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PD are in response to a completed study of the Lift 1A corridor and the proposed relocation of the Lift 1A lift station to Willoughby Park; and, WHEREAS, a Development Review Committee Meeting was held on September 19, 2018 and the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Aspen Fire Protection District, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Parking Department, and the Transportation Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, of the Land Use Code, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority met on October 3, 2018 and recommended approval of the proposed changes, with a condition; and, WHEREAS, a properly noticed site visit on October 15, 2018 provided additional information on the project with relationship to site planning and proposed building heights for the Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus applications; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on October 2, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing to a regularly scheduled meeting on October 16, 2018; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October XX, 2018, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution 5, Series of 2018, by a X to X (X-X) vote; recommending approval, with conditions for a Major Amendment to a Planned Development, Project Review, and related reviews for Subdivision, Rezoning, Growth Management Quota System, Commercial Design, Timeshare Development, Transportation and Parking Management, Special Review, ESA – Mountain View Plane, and Vested Rights, as identified herein, with the recommended changes to the application listed hereinafter. P49 VI.A. DRAFT Planning and Zoning Commission Res. No. 5, Series of 2018 Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment Page 3 of 8 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends approval with conditions of the Lift One Lodge Asepn, LLC application for a Site Specific Development Plan for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision / PD that includes reviews for a Major Amendment to a Planned Development - Project Review, and related reviews for Subdivision, Rezoning, Growth Management Quota System, Commercial Design, Timeshare Development, Transportation and Parking Management, Special Review, ESA – Mountain View Plane, and Vested Rights – allowing for a site specific development inclusive of the proposed uses in the Lift One Corridor project At final approval, unless otherwise noted, all conditions outlined in all previous approvals remain valid and in effect. The Commission specifically recommends the following conditions and/or approval of specific aspects of the application as the project moves toward review with City Council: 1. Applicant shall provide options to City Council regarding the vertical circulation elements on both buildings, including changes to materiality or form, or relocation to the interior of the building. 2. Applicant shall provide visual analysis of the project from the origin point of the Wheeler View Plane for City Council during conceptual review. 3. Approval of the proposed free market unit sizes, subject to confirmation of the net livable calculations showing that proposed units are the same or smaller in size when compared to previously approved units. 4. Acknowledgement of the importance of the interface between the parking garage and facilities managed by Aspen Skiing Company and Aspen Historical Society in the Skiers’ Chalet Lodge a recommending that final design of this interface will be reviewed at Detail Review of the Planned Development Amendment. 5. Applicant shall provide evidence that standard trash and recycling equipment can enter and navigate the subgrade garage. Final design of the trash and recycling facilities will be completed at Detail Review. 6. Approval of the conceptual design for Dean Street and Gilbert Street. 7. Mud flow analysis and mitigation systems, storm-water management design, and grading studies to show compliance with Engineering Standards shall be reviewed conceptually with City Council with fully realized design being approved at Detail Review with P&Z. 8. Applicant shall provide visual identification of any on-site pedestrian amenity on Lot 1 of the Lift One Lodge property – inclusive of the West Building and Skiers’ Chalet Steakhouse. P50 VI.A. DRAFT Planning and Zoning Commission Res. No. 5, Series of 2018 Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment Page 4 of 8 9. Water and energy efficiency efforts are a priority for the Planning and Zoning Commission. At Detail Review, water and energy efficiency strategies, including those required by City of Aspen Municipal Code, will be evaluated. 10. P&Z recommends that proposed project meet its minimum, on-site parking requirement, (at a current estimate of 125.1 spaces) as specified by the Code or through Special Review for parking space design. P&Z recognizes that one option defined by Code in meeting this requirement is provision of cash-in-lieu payment. 11. The applicant shall work with staff to confirm project dimensions prior to City Council review. 12. Approval of the use of established standards in the Lodge zone district related to floor area ratio (FAR) and allowable Floor Area for the proposed project. 13. The project will provide one (1) on-site unit in providing 1.75 FTE. The balance of the required mitigation will be provided utilizing off-site units or Affordable Housing Credits. The applicants may request Council to consider cash-in-lieu as a mitigation option. 14. The ski museum facilities under the management of the Aspen Historical Society is determined to be an Essential Public facility. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends a waiver of GMQS mitigation subject to an employee audit at years 5 and 10 from issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. This does not include the space occupied by Aspen Skiing Company. This square footage will be calculated as net leasable and will be calculated to include consideration of a credit for existing Ski Co. facilities at Lift 1A. 15. Affordable Housing mitigation for the proposed project will be calculated utilizing the methods provided in the Land Use Code in effect on September 4, 2018. 16. Due to the substantial changes to the site specific land use approval, approval of a new vesting period of three (3) years shall be established from the date of issuance of a development order. 17. Approval of the proposed lot re-configuration. 18. Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes the approved maximum heights for the project and the role of the approved interpolated grade and recommends application of these height and grades to the proposed project. P51 VI.A. DRAFT Planning and Zoning Commission Res. No. 5, Series of 2018 Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment Page 5 of 8 Section 2: Vested Approval and Proposed Dimensions** Vested Approval Proposed Net Lot Size 44,845 sf Lots 1 and 2 44,830 sf reconfigured Lots 1 and 2 Floor Area 76,123 sf 107,651 sf Floor Area Ratio 1.95 : 1 2.40 : 1 Max. Height West Building Interpolated: 53.3 ft. See height plan Interpolated 53.3 ft. Finished 56 ft. Max. Height East Building Interpolated 47.5 ft. See height plan Interpolated 47 ft. Finished 42.6 ft. Setbacks West Building Different Lot Configuration west 8.5’; east 1.5’ south 3.5’ Setbacks East building Different lot Configuration west 0’; east 14.9’ north 12’; south 3.5’ Distance between East and West Buildings 45 ft. 66 ft. Lodge Units Keys Pillows 22 units 84 keys 168 pillows 34 units 104 keys 208 pillows Lodging Floor Area 45,118 sf FA 79,680 sf FA 53,976 sf NL Lodging Unit Size 537.1 sf (key) FA 2050.8 sf (unit) FA 519 sf (key) NL 1587.5 sf (unit) NL Commercial Net Leasable 23,676 sf 16,125 sf Does not include AHS or ASC Free Market Units 5 6 Free Market Floor Area 13,108 sf Floor Area 18,831 sf Net Livable Average Free Market Unit Size 2,774 sf Floor Area 2789.5 sf Net Livable On-Site Affordable Housing Units Housing for 16 FTE dormitory style In Steakhouse (8 units) 1 BR Unit in East Building 1.75 FTE P52 VI.A. DRAFT Planning and Zoning Commission Res. No. 5, Series of 2018 Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment Page 6 of 8 **Note: The proposed dimensions for the project may change as the project moves toward review by City Council. Section 3: Subsequent Reviews Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Applicant is required to obtain Planned Development – Detail Review following approval of the reviews outlined herein (with it being acknowledged that City Council intends to refer the decision of final approval to the voters pursuant to the applicable referendum provisions of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter). The application shall be made no later than one (1) year following a public vote. Section 4: Subdivision/PD Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall submit a Subdivision/PD agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) that meets the requirements of the Land Use Code and any conditions of approval in the final ordinance within 180 days of final approval. The 180 days shall commence upon the granting of Planned Development – Detail Review approvals by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The recordation documents shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 26.490 Approval Documents of the Land Use Code. a. In accordance in Section 26.490.040, Approval Documents Content and Form, the following plans are required in the Approved Plan Set: 1. Final Architectural Character Plan. 2. Planned Development Project and Detail Review Plans. 3. Public Infrastructure Plan. 4. Final Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). 5. An updated Timeshare Management Plan b. In accordance with 26.480, Subdivision and 26.490.040; Approval Documents, a subdivision Plat shall contain the information and be in the format required by Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. c. In accordance with Section 26.490.050, Development Agreements, a Development Agreement shall be entered into with the City. Affordable Housing Unit Size 3,184 Total sf 398 sf/unit 623 sf FA 791 sf NL Ratio Free-Market to Lodge/AH .27 : 1 .343 : 1 Off-Street Parking 163 - Total 50 – Public 113 - Lift 1 Lodge Lodge, Commercial, FM, AH 109 – Total 50 – Public 75.1 – Lift 1 Lodge Lodge, Commercial, FM, AH P53 VI.A. DRAFT Planning and Zoning Commission Res. No. 5, Series of 2018 Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment Page 7 of 8 d. In accordance with Section 26.490.060, Financial and Site Protection Requirements, the applicant shall provide a site protection guarantee and a site enhancement guarantee. e. In accordance with Section 26.490.070, Performance Guarantees, the following guarantees are required in an amount equal to 150% of the current estimated cost of the improvement: 1. Landscape Guarantee. 2. Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure Guarantee. 3. Storm Water and Drainage Improvements Guarantee. f. A Condominium Map, for necessary elements of the project, shall be completed for the development in accordance with Section 26.480.050(A), Condominiumization. Section 5: Engineering Department The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 29 and all applicable standards published by the Engineering Department. Section 6: Building Department The Applicant shall meet all applicable building, fire, energy, and accessibility codes in place at the time of building permit submission. Section 7: Parks Department 1. WELS (Water Efficient Landscaping Standards) will apply to this project. 2. A tree removal permit will be required along with both an existing and proposed landscape plan 3. The Parks Department will require that required tree mitigation be bonded in its entirety to protect against project delays and/or insolvency. Section 8: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 9: Environmental Health Department 1. This project is subject to Special Review due to the lack of alley access. (Municipal Code 12.10.040 C, F, G). 2. The dimensions required for this project is 400 square feet with 10’ height clearance, with space for both trash and recycling (Municipal code 12.10.040 A(a)). 3. Subgrade location must be able to provide access to trucks to service the compactor. Section 10 Unless otherwise noted in the previous approval for the Planned Development, or this Amendment, the project is subject to the current Land Use Code, and any other relevant aspects of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Section 11: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation P54 VI.A. DRAFT Planning and Zoning Commission Res. No. 5, Series of 2018 Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment Page 8 of 8 presented before the Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 12: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 13: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this XXth day of October, 2018. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair Attest: _______________________________ Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Attachments: Exhibit A: Submitted Drawings (updated from initial application) P55 VI.A. Exhibit A Lift One Lodge Dimensional Table Approved Proposed Difference between Approved and Proposed Net Lot Size 44,845 sf Lots 1 and 2 44,830 sf Lots 1 and 2 Reconfiguration of 4 lots into 3 Floor Area 76,123 sf 107,651 sf 31,528 sf 41% increase Floor Area Ratio 1.95 : 1 2.40 : 1 0.45 : 1 23% increase Max. Height West Building Interpolated: 53.3 ft. See Height Plan Interpolated 53.3 ft. See Height Plan Max. Height East Building Interpolated 47.5 ft. See Height Plan Interpolated 47.5 ft. See Height Plan Setbacks West Building Different Lot Configuration west 8.5’; east 1.5’ south 3.5’ Setbacks East building Different lot Configuration west 0’; east 14.9’ north 12’; south 3.5’ Distance between East and West Buildings 45 ft. 70 ft. 25 ft. increase Lodge Units Keys Pillows 22 units 84 keys 168 pillows 34 units 104 keys 208 pillows +12 units +20 keys +40 pillows Lodging Floor Area 45,118 sf FA 79,680 sf FA 53,976 sf NL +34,562 sf FA Lodging Unit Size 537.1 sf (key) FA 2050.8 sf (unit) FA 519 sf (key) NL 1587.5 sf (unit) NL Not comparable FA v. Net livable Commercial Net Leasable 23,676 sf 16,125 sf Does not include AHS or ASC (7,551 sf) decrease P56 VI.A. Note – This Dimensional Table is derived from numbers submitted in the Application. This table may be adjusted during review process to reflect any iterative changes to the project and further verification of project dimensions. The dimensional table will be finalized during City Council review. Approved Proposed Difference between Approved and Proposed Free Market Units 5 6 +1 Free Market FA 13,108 sf FA 21,925 sf FA 18,831 sf Net Livable +8,817 sf FA Average Free Market Unit Size 2620.2 sf FA 3,138 sf Net Livable Not Comparable On-Site Affordable Housing Units Housing for 16 FTE dormitory style In Steakhouse (8 units) 1 BR Unit in East Building 1.75 FTE decrease of 14.25 FTE of on-site housing Affordable Housing Unit Size 3,184 Total sf 398 sf/unit 623 sf FA 791 sf NL Not Comparable Ratio Free-Market to Lodge/AH .27 : 1 FA .343 : 1 Net Livable Not Comparable Off-Street Parking 163 - Total 50 – Public 113 - Lift 1 Lodge Lodge, Commercial, FM, AH 109 – Total 50 – Public 59 – Lift 1 Lodge Lodge, Commercial, FM, AH (54) decrease P57 VI.A. Page 1 of 6 Exhibit B.1 Planned Development, Project Review 26.445.050. Project Review Standards. The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Response: There are nor regulatory plans for this property. Staff finds this criterion not applicable B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snow slide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: City Engineering is working closely with Sopris Engineering, who has been retained by Lift One Lodge, Gorsuch Haus, and the City of Aspen to evaluate these issues though the entire ski corridor as it moves across these projects. Staff is confident that this collaborative effort to respond to any existing hazards will produce a unified plan that meets the Engineering Design Standards. While the standards have changed since then, it is important to note that the existing Lift One Lodge Planned Development was compliant with standards in the 2011 approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: P58 VI.A. Page 2 of 6 1. The site plan responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. Staff Response: The applicant team worked during previous approvals and is working during this amendment process to design appropriate responses to site conditions and any hazards that are present. This is particularly true of the interface with Willoughby Park and the Dolinsek property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. Staff Response: In the proposed amendment, the applicant has worked with City Parks Department on thoughtful site planning in Willoughby Park to retain the character of a park – while still proving a location for the new lift station, related ski operations, and a subgrade parking garage under the park – and in the interface with the future Dolinsek Gardens. Additionally, the bull wheel and towers remaining from the Historic Lift 1 while proposed for relocation, have been given careful consideration for how to best preserve their condition and importance while accommodating the needs of the ski corridor. Lastly, the relocated Skiers’ Chalet and Skiers’ Chalet Steakhouse are becoming central features of the site plan and programming. Staff finds this criterion to be met 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Staff Response: The two buildings of Lift One Lodge and the Skiers’ Chalet and Steakhouse are closely oriented to Aspen and Dean Streets, with a strong north- south orientation, with facades that are parallel to the streets. While some details remain to be finalized, the proposed project provides emergency, maintenance and service vehicle access. Staff finds this criterion to be met D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. Staff Response: The existing approvals for this project grant dimensional variations – most importantly to height and free-market unit size. This approval is vested through 2021. While staff would likely not support the maximum height if this were a new project, the existing approval of this height is important to P59 VI.A. Page 3 of 6 consider. As the project has changed to accommodate the widening of the ski corridor, the maximum height of the buildings has not changed, but the overall massing of the buildings has – both buildings are narrower and longer. As the community considers the amenities that are generated by this project, the approved and proposed height and massing will need to be weighed. Staff does not believe that any increase to the free-market unit size should be increased, but could support the landing of TDRs if an increase were approved. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. Staff Response: The Lift One Lodge Buildings are 3 and 4 stories above grade at different sections of the design. This is consistent with other existing lodge development in town – although height of development continues as topic that the community in interested in considering. Again, related to the criteria #1 above, the development’s dimensions seem consistent with what would be found in lodge development proximate to a ski lift and meet the limits established in the vested approvals. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. Staff Response: Much of the adjacent neighborhood is condominiumized, multi- family residential development. The east building would be entirely consistent with this established pattern. As the Lift One Corridor Project as a whole seeks to re-establish this part of town as a vital ski portal, further addition of lodge and related commercial uses would add to the contribution of other nearby lodges, such as the St. Regis, Dancing Bear, and Limelight. The enhancement of Willoughby Park and addition of Dolinsek Gardens maintains a feeling of openness and public access that is currently a part of the experience in the area. Lastly, while the Skiers’ Chalet and Steakhouse, and historic Lift 1 structures are of a different scale than the Lift One Lodge buildings, they are featured prominently as experienced from Aspen and Dean Streets and are essential features of the Willoughby Park site plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. P60 VI.A. Page 4 of 6 Staff Response: As currently proposed, the project is under-parked by approximately 16 spaces, but is mitigating for more new trips than they are generating in their TDM/MMLOS strategies. Staff will work with the applicant and other City departments, through special review, to identify the minimum number of parking spaces that will be required for the project. 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council’s discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 – Amendments. Staff Response: Because this project will ultimately require voter approval after project review, these allowances will need to be carefully considered and likely limited to ensure consistency with the ballot language that voters will ultimately consider. E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation. Staff Response: Staff’s evaluation is that the project meets these standards in general, however, there are specific standards, particularly related to the historic resources on site that will require evaluation by the Historic Preservation Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission has jurisdiction over Commercial Design Review. Please see Exhibit G, Commercial Design Review for further discussion. 2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. Staff Response: Proposed materials are of high quality and consistent with that found in architecture across Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. P61 VI.A. Page 5 of 6 Staff Response: The proposed improvements to Dean Street would be a marked improvement over existing conditions for bikes, pedestrians, and the interface with automobiles. Improved sidewalks and facilities for accessibility are proposed as are “sharrows” and a contra-lane for bicycles. The proposed drop-off areas on Aspen and Dean Street to provide access to Willoughby Park and the lift are also notable improvements. While it is unknown at this point if RFTA would provide direct service to the site, Rubey Park Transit Center is a short walk away. The Lift One Lodge TDM/MMLOS strategies mitigate for more trips than they are generating. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: Sopris Engineering, which works for Lift One Lodge, Gorsuch Haus, and the City of Aspen is working to create a coordinated plan for the ski corridor to ensure compliance with Engineering Standards. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: The original approvals had an extensive set of development requirements including improvements to public infrastructure and facilities. Some of these improvements have already been implemented. In the current applications for both Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus, a proposed Cost Sharing Agreement has been submitted that includes the City of Aspen as a partner in costs associated with the project. This will be a point of negotiation with City Council as both projects move forward in the review process. I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Response: No proposed changes related to this issue are included in the amendment application. The project is accessed by public ways, does not obstruct access to adjacent property owners, there are no private streets, and no gates are proposed does not restrict access. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P62 VI.A. Page 6 of 6 (Ord. No. 12, 2007, §24; Ord. No. 3-2012, §12, 13, 14 & 15; Ord. No. 36-2013, §4; Ord. No. 9- 2015, §3; Ord. No. 20-2015, §12) P63 VI.A. Page 1 of 5 Exhibit B.2 Subdivision, General and Major 26.480.040. General subdivision review standards. All subdivisions shall be required to conform to the following general standards and limitations in addition to the specific standards applicable to each type of subdivision: A. Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. All subdivided lots must have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed subdivision shall not eliminate or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Subdivision retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Response: Access to the lots are not changing – they have access to a public way; do not block access to adjacent properties; there is no privately owned streets; there are no gates proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Alignment with Original Townsite Plat. The proposed lot lines shall approximate, to the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite, and additions thereto, as applicable to the subject land. Minor deviations from the original platting lines to accommodate significant features of the site may be approved. Staff Response: The proposed lot configuration is primarily designed to accommodate the ski corridor and retain the balance of square footage owned by Lift One Lodge and the City of Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of the zone district in which the property is situated, including variations and variances approved pursuant to this Title. A single lot shall not be located in more than one zone district unless unique circumstances dictate. A rezoning application may be considered concurrently with subdivision review. Staff Response: The proposed amendment to zone district map is required simply to accommodate the reconfigured lots. All three lots in the subdivision will be subject to the PD overlay with underlying zones of Lodge (L) for Lots 1 and 2 and Park (P) for Lot 3. The proposed uses, with voter approval for the proposed various uses of Willoughby Park are consistent with the previous zoning classifications and PD. D. Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities. A subdivision shall not create or increase the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning application or other mechanism to correct the non-conforming nature of a use, structure, or parcel may be considered concurrently. Staff Response: The proposed changes to the subdivision does not create of increase P64 VI.A. Page 2 of 5 the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. The commercial use in the park will need the approval of voters per Municipal Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 26.480.070. Major subdivisions. The following subdivisions shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Major subdivisions are subject to Section 26.480.030 – Procedures for Review, the standards and limitations of Section 26.480.040 – General Subdivision Review Standards, and the standards and limitations of each type of subdivision, described below. All subdivisions not defined as administrative or minor subdivisions shall be considered major subdivisions. A. Land Subdivision. The division or aggregation of land for the purpose of creating individual lots or parcels shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according to the following standards: 1. The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040 – General Subdivision Review Standards. Staff Response: Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed subdivision enables an efficient pattern of development that optimizes the use of the limited amount of land available for development. Staff Response: The Lodge development creates an efficient use of land (approximately one unit per 325 square feet of lot area) and qualifies for the density incentives that are found in Growth Management and the Lodge (L) zone district. Willoughby Park site planning provides a location for the lift and ski corridor, and has been designed to thoughtfully locate the Skiers’ Chalet and structures of the historic Lift 1. 3. The proposed subdivision preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. Staff Response: 4. The proposed subdivision prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snow slide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted with specific design details and timing of implementation addressed through a Development Agreement pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. P65 VI.A. Page 3 of 5 Staff Response: This will be a required element of the approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Response: Sopris Engineering is in the process of creating a coordinated engineering plan for the entire Lift One Corridor and had been doing so in consultation with City Engineering. It is anticipated that the proposed plans will comply in their entirety with Title 29 and the Engineering Standards, including URMP. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. The proposed subdivision shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the subdivision. Improvements shall be at the sole cost of the developer. 7. The proposed subdivision is exempt from or has been granted all growth management approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.470 – Growth Management Quota System, including compliance with all affordable housing requirements for new and replacement development as applicable. Staff Response: On the topics of Growth Management and development requirements, the amendment proposes changes to both and will be negotiated further with City Council. Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to make a recommendation on Growth Management mitigation requirements 8. The proposed subdivision meets the School Land Dedication requirements of Chapter 26.620 and any land proposed for dedication meets the criteria for land acceptance pursuant to said Chapter. Staff Response: The project as approved and proposed will pay a cash payment to satisfy school land dedication requirements for Lots 1 and 2. 9. A Subdivision Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. Staff Response: This will be a required element of the approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 10. A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. Staff Response: This will be a required element of the approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P66 VI.A. Page 4 of 5 B. Vehicular Rights-of-Way. The dedication, boundary alteration, realignment, or any partial or whole vacation of a Street, Alley, or other vehicular right-of-way serving more than one parcel, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according to the following standards: 1. The proposed change maintains or improves the public health, safety, and welfare of the community and is in the best interests of the City of Aspen. Staff Response: The conditions along Dean and Aspen Street will be greatly improved in terms of health, safety and welfare. By bringing the lift down from the top of S. Aspen Streets, many fewer vehicle trip will need to navigate the icy grades found at the top of S. Aspen Street. Staff finds the criterion to be met. 2. The proposed change to the public rights-of-way maintains or improves safe physical and legal access from a public way to all adjacent properties and shall not restrict the ability for a property to develop by eliminating or hindering access. Redundant access, such as a primary street access plus alley access, is preferred. Staff Response: Access to this and surrounding properties is enhanced by the proposed amendments – most notably on Dean Street. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The design of the proposed change complies with Municipal Code Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards and is consistent with applicable adopted policies, plans, and approved projects for the area (such as a highway access policy, an approved development project, an infrastructure plan, a trails plan, an improvement district plan, and the like). Staff Response: Once fully designed, the project will ultimately comply with all applicable requirements of Title 29 and the Engineering Design Standards. Additionally the project is being coordinated with previously implemented infrastructure improvements and the improvements to adjacent properties. Staff finds the criterion to be met. 4. The proposed change maintains or improves normal traffic circulation, traffic control capabilities, access by emergency and service vehicles, pedestrian and bike connections, drainage infrastructure, street and infrastructure maintenance needs, and normal operating needs of the City including snow removal. Staff Response: Staff finds proposed amendment to be improving several aspects of the design of the project that includes mobility improvements to Dean Street and compliance with the most recent versions of the Engineering standards for mudflow mitigation and storm water management. Access for emergency vehicles is improving – particularly on Dean and Gilbert Streets. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. For all new rights-of-way and physical changes to existing rights-of-way, the applicant shall design and construct the proposed right-of-way improvements according to the P67 VI.A. Page 5 of 5 design and construction standards of the City Engineer. Upon completion, the right-of- way improvements shall be subject to inspection and acceptance by the City Engineer. The City may require a performance warranty. The requirements of this criterion shall be reflected in a Development Agreement. Staff Response: The previous approvals amended or vacated right of way along Aspen Street, and for a portion of Gilbert Street. There are no proposed changes to the Right of Way in this Amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. For partial or full vacation of existing rights-of-way, the applicant shall demonstrate the right-of-way, or portion thereof, has no current or future use to the community as a vehicular way, pedestrian or bike way, utility corridor, drainage corridor, or recreational connection due to dimensions, location, topography, existing or proposed development, or other similar circumstances. The City shall consider whether the interests of the applicant and the City can be achieved through a “closure” of the right- of-way. Staff Response: The previous approvals amended or vacated right of way along Aspen Street, and for a portion of Gilbert Street. There are no proposed changes to the Right of Way in this Amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. A Right-of-Way Dedication/Vacation Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. The plat shall demonstrate how the lands underlying vacated rights-of- way shall accrue to adjacent parcels in compliance with State Statute. Staff Response: This will be a required element of the approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. This requirement may be waived if no right-of-way construction is proposed. Staff Response: This will be a required element of the approval. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P68 VI.A. Page 1 of 1 Exhibit B.3 Rezoning 26.310.090. Rezoning - Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. B. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title. Staff Response: The proposed rezoning – or amendment to the Official Zone District Map is required as the proposed changes to subdivision are reconfiguring lot lines. The underlying zoning is not changing (currently (L) Lodge for lots 1 and 2 and Park (P) for Lot 3 – and a Planned Development overlay. Staff finds the Rezoning criteria to be met. P69 VI.A. Page 1 of 8 Exhibit B.4 Growth Management Quota System General, Employee Generation Review, Expansion or New Lodge Development, and Essential Public Facility See Staff Response at the end of the document. 26.470.080. General Review Standards. All Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. A. Sufficient Allotments: Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.040.B. Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.110.A shall be required to meet this standard for the growth management years from which the allotments are requested. B. Development Conformance: The proposed development conforms to the requirements and limitations of this Title, of the zone district or a site specific development plan, any adopted regulatory master plan, as well as any previous approvals, including the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable. C. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. D. Affordable Housing Mitigation. 1) For commercial development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial net leasable space, according to Section 26.470.050.B, Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. 2) For lodge development, sixty-five percent (65%) of the employees generated by the additional lodge pillows, according to Section 26.470.050.B, Employee generation rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. For the redevelopment or expansion of existing lodge uses, see section 26.470.100.H. 3) For the redevelopment of existing commercial net leasable space that did not previously mitigate (see Section 26.470.070.F), the mitigation requirements for P70 VI.A. Page 2 of 8 affordable housing shall be phased at 15% beginning in 2017, and by 3% each year thereafter until 65% is reached, as follows: 4) Unless otherwise exempted in this chapter, when a change in use between development categories is proposed, the employee mitigation shall be based on the use the development is converting to. For instance, if a commercial space is being converted to lodge units, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for lodge space, outlined in subsection 2, above. Conversely, if lodge units are being converted to commercial space, the mitigation shall be based on the requirements for commercial space, outlined in subsections 1 and 3, above. 5) For free-market residential development, affordable housing net livable area shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area. 6) For essential public facility development, mitigation shall be determined based on Section 26.470.110.D. 7) For all affordable housing units that are being provided as mitigation pursuant to this chapter or for the creation of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540, or for any other reason: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. b. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of methods outlined in this chapter, including newly built units, buy down units, certificates of affordable housing credit, or cash-in-lieu. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard, and the approved forms of mitigation methods shall be based on this recommendation. c. Affordable housing that is in the form of newly built units or buy-down units shall be located on the same parcel as the proposed development or located off- site within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.110.B. When off-site units within City limits are proposed, all requisite approvals shall be obtained prior to approval of the growth management application. d. Affordable housing mitigation in the form of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, shall be extinguished pursuant to Section 26.540.120, Extinguishment and Re-Issuance of a Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.050.F, Employee/Square Footage Conversion. e. If the total mitigation requirement for a project is less than .25 FTEs, a cash-in- lieu payment may be made by right. If the total mitigation requirement for a P71 VI.A. Page 3 of 8 project is .25 or more FTEs, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Section 26.470.110.C. f. Affordable housing units shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100.D, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. g. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430 8) Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied (RO). 26.470.050. Calculations. A. General. Whenever employee housing or fee-in-lieu is required to mitigate for employees generated by a development, there shall be an analysis and credit for employee generation of the existing project, prior to redevelopment, and an employee generation analysis of the proposed development. The employee mitigation requirement shall be based upon the incremental employee generation difference between the existing development and the proposed development. Unless otherwise exempted by this Chapter, the employee mitigation requirement shall be based upon the total employee generation of the proposed development. Except for the conversion between residential and lodge uses outlined in Section 26.470.140, Reconstruction limitations, credits are not given for changes between the land use categories outlined in Table 1. For instance, a change in use from commercial net leasable area to free- market residential units does not generate a credit. B. Employee generation rates. Table 3 establishes the employee generation rates are the result of the Employee Generation Study, an analysis sponsored by the City during the fall and winter of 2012 considering the actual employment requirements of over one hundred (100) Aspen businesses. This study is available at the Community Development Department. Employee generation is quantified as full-time equivalents (FTEs) per one thousand (1,000) square feet of net leasable space or per lodge bedroom. Table 3, Employee Generation Rates Zone District Employees Generated per 1,000 Square Feet of Net Leasable Space Commercial Core (CC) Commercial (C-1) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Commercial Lodge (CL) commercial space Lodge (L) commercial space Lodge Preservation (LP) commercial space 4.7 P72 VI.A. Page 4 of 8 Zone District Employees Generated per 1,000 Square Feet of Net Leasable Space Lodge Overlay (LO) commercial space Ski Base (SKI) commercial space Mixed-Use (MU) 3.6 Service Commercial Industrial (S/C/I) 3.9 Public1 5.1 Lodge Preservation (LP) lodge units .3 per lodging bedroom Lodge (L), Commercial Lodge (CL), Ski Base (SKI) and other zone district lodge units .6 per lodging bedroom 1 For the Public Zone, the study evaluated only office-type public uses, and this number should not be considered typical for other non-office public facilities. Hence, each Essential Public Facility proposal shall be evaluated for actual employee generation. Each use within a mixed-use building shall require a separate calculation to be added to the total for the project. For commercial net leasable space within basement or upper floors, the rates quoted above shall be reduced by twenty-five percent (25%) for the purpose of calculating total employee generation. This reduction shall not apply to lodge units. For lodging projects with flexible unit configurations, also known as "lock-off units," each separate "key" or rentable division shall constitute a unit for the purposes of this Section. Timeshare units and exempt timeshare units are considered lodging projects for the purposes of determining employee generation. C. Employee generation review. All essential public facilities shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine employee generation, pursuant to Section 26.470.110D. In addition, any applicant who believes the employee generation rate is different than that outlined herein may request an employee generation review with the Planning and Zoning Commission during a duly noticed public hearing, pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E. In establishing employee generation, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following: 1) The expected employee generation of the use considering the employment generation pattern of the use or of a similar use within the City or a similar resort. 2) Any unique employment characteristics of the operation. 3) The extent to which employees of various uses within a mixed-use building or of a related off-site operation will overlap or serve multiple functions. 4) A proposed restriction requiring full employee generation mitigation upon vacation of the type of business acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. P73 VI.A. Page 5 of 8 5) Any proposed follow-up analyses of the project (e.g., an audit) to confirm actual employee generation. The requirements of any proposed follow-up analysis shall be outlined in a Development Agreement, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 6) For lodge projects only: An efficiency or reduction in the number of employees required for the lodging component of the project may, at the discretion of the Commission as a means of incentivizing a lodge project, be applied as a credit towards the mitigation requirement of the free-market residential component of the project. Any approved reduction shall require an audit to determine actual employee generation after two (2) complete years of operation of the lodge. D. Employees housed. Whenever a project provides residential units on or off site the schedule in Table 4 shall be used to determine the number of employees housed by such units: Table 4, FTEs Housed Unit Type Employees Housed Studio 1.25 One-bedroom 1.75 Two-bedroom 2.25 Three-bedroom or larger 3.00, plus .5 per each additional bedroom Dormitory 1.00 employee per 150 square feet of net livable space E. Employee housing fee-in-lieu payment. Whenever a project provides employee housing via a fee-in-lieu payment, in part or in total, the amount of the payment shall be based upon the following (fee-in-lieu is only allowed for Categories 1-4, Categories 5-7 is calculated only for use in the Housing Certificates Program): Fee-In-Lieu (per FTE): Category 1: $381,383.31 Category 2: $342,599.02 Category 3: $306,549.65 Category 4: $238,687.04 Category 5: $168,289.60 Category 6: $142,114.19 Category 7: $111,438.36 Payment shall be calculated on a full-time-equivalent employee (FTE) basis according to the Affordable Housing Category designation required by this Title. Unless otherwise stated in this Title or in a Development Order, Fee-in-Lieu payments shall be collected by the City of Aspen Building Department upon and as a condition of Building Permit issuance. P74 VI.A. Page 6 of 8 The Fee-In-Lieu rates shall be updated every five years and adopted by city council ordinance. During intermediate years, The City may choose to update the fee-in-lieu schedule, by ordinance, based on the change in the engineering news record inflation index. The following methodology was used to determine the above fee-in-lieu schedule: The subsidy per FTE was calculated by subtracting unit sales revenue per FTE from the total development costs per FTE. Total development cost per FTE was determined by using an average of recent City of Aspen projects and foreseeable future City of Aspen projects for which land has already been acquired and program/density has been deliberated, where in each case actual land costs were used in the calculation. The Program/Density projections for future projects were based upon assumptions suitable for the respective neighborhood, public outreach, and program/density review by City Council. Development cost calculations included all “hard” and “soft” costs associated with development. F. Employee/square footage conversion. Whenever an affordable housing mitigation requirement is required to be converted between a number-of-employees requirement and a square-footage requirement, regardless of direction, the following conversion factor shall be used: 1 employee = 400 square feet of net livable area. G. Accessory dwelling units as mitigation units. Accessory dwelling units, approved pursuant to Chapter 26.520 and which are deed-restricted as "for sale" category housing and transferred to a qualified purchaser according to the provisions of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, shall be considered mitigation units and attributed to a project's affordable housing provision. ADUs which are not deed-restricted as category units and are not transferred to qualified purchasers shall not be considered mitigation units and shall not be attributed to a project's affordable housing provision. (Ord. No. 5, 2018, §1) 26.470.100; Planning and Zoning Commission Applications H. Expansion or new lodge development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: 1) If the project contains a minimum of one (1) lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of lot area, the following affordable housing mitigation standards shall apply: a. Affordable housing net livable area equaling a percentage, as defined in the unit size table below, of the additional free-market residential net livable area shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. b. A percentage, as defined in the table below, of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units and associated commercial development, according to Paragraph 26.470.100.A.1, Employee generation, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. P75 VI.A. Page 7 of 8 Average Net Livable Area of Lodge Units Being Added to the Parcel Affordable Housing Net Livable Area Required (Percentage of Free-Market Net Livable Area) Percentage of Employee Generation Requiring the Provision of Mitigation 600 square feet or greater 30% 65% 500 square feet 30% 40% 400 square feet 20% 20% 300 square feet or smaller 10% 10% When the average unit size falls between the square-footage categories, the required affordable housing shall be determined by interpolating the above schedule. For example, a lodge project with an average unit size of four hundred fifty (450) square feet shall be required to provide mitigation for thirty percent (30%) of the employees generated. c. Affordable housing units provided shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.100.D, Affordable housing. 26.470.110. City Council applications. The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council, pursuant to Section 26.470.060, Procedures for review, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.080. Except as noted, all City Council growth management approvals shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotments. D. Essential public facilities. The development of an essential public facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: 1. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an essential public facility project. 2. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine the number of employees generated by the essential public facility pursuant to Section 26.470.050.C, Employee generation review. 3. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director and the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. P76 VI.A. Page 8 of 8 Staff Response: Growth Management Allotments – The previous approvals (2011 and 2016) granted allotments for the residential, commercial and lodging development that was proposed. This amendment would require an additional 40 pillows and one free-market residential allotment for the 2018 year. Staff has evaluated this request with available allotments and recommends granting these additional allotments. All applicable criteria are met. Growth Management Mitigation – Staff and the applicant are continuing to discuss Growth Management mitigation requirements. An updated set of review criteria and staff recommendation for project mitigation will be updated for the P&Z meeting on 9/16. At this time, staff offers two points for recommendation by P&Z: 1) Approval of the 1.75 FTE to be provided on-site in one, one bedroom unit 2) Recommendation of the Aspen Historical Society ski museum as an Essential Public Facility. This does not include the 2,500sf allocated to Aspen Skiing Company for skier services and ski patrol. This area will be considered as net leasable and will be calculated towards employee generation and mitigation for the site. See further discussion in memo and draft resolution. P77 VI.A. Page 1 of 17 Exhibit B.5 Commercial Design Review Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines 26.412.060. Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. Guidelines and Standards 1. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines are met as determined by the appropriate Commission. The Standards and Guidelines include design review criteria that are to be used to determine whether the application is appropriate. Staff Response: See below. Staff finds that the project as proposed meets the standards and guidelines. 2. All applicable standards in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines shall be met unless granted a Variation pursuant to Section 26.412.040.D, Variations. Staff Response: No Variations are proposed. 3. Not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines must occur on a case-by-case basis. The applicable Commission must: a. determine that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines are adequately met in order to approve a project proposal; b. weigh the applicable guidelines with the practicality of the measure. Staff Response: Staff finds that the project generally conforms to both the Standards and Guidelines. B. Pedestrian Amenity The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.070, Pedestrian Amenity. Staff Response: The PD, when considered as a whole, clearly meets the 25% of gross lot area required as Pedestrian Amenity, but the majority of the provided Pedestrian Amenity is related to the City Parks lot. Staff agrees with the applicant’s assessment that when considered as a whole – the project creates excellent public gathering space that clearly meets the letter and intent of the Pedestrian Amenity code section. When the Lift One Lodge Lots 1 and 2, are evaluated separately from Lot 3, on-site provision becomes less P78 VI.A. Page 2 of 17 clear. In this evaluation, however, the Willoughby Park improvements and the Lift One Lodge contribution to this could be considered off-site improvements. While there is on-site Pedestrian Amenity on both Lots 1 and 2, the configuration of the lots to accommodate the ski corridor makes provision of at-grade amenity more difficult. The primary at-grade, on- site pedestrian amenity is provided at the north end of the west building as it relates to the Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse. This area will provide access to the new lift and Willoughby Park, and will define the public interface between the two buildings and the associated commercial uses. Additionally, both the west building and Skiers’ Chalet Steakhouse provide second story and rooftop amenity. Staff finds this criterion to be met. See Pedestrian Amenity Standards and Guidelines below. Prior to final approval, the Applicant will need to provide additional diagrams and calculations to show the provision of Pedestrian Amenity on Lots 1 and 2 – and how any off-site amenity fits into the total calculation. Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines Staff Discussion: The responses to the standards and guidelines below have been provided by the applicant, in the application. Staff agrees with the descriptions provided by the applicant and agrees that the project meets the Standards and Guidelines – both in the General section and specifically for the Mountain Base character area. As further details emerge with the project at both Project and Detail review, the project will continue to be evaluated for conformance with these standards and guidelines. It is important to note that while the Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines have been updated since the Lift One Lodge approvals, the project has on two occasions – at original approval and amendment – been reviewed and approved under Commercial Design Review. Standards are highlighted. General The purpose of Commercial Design Review is to prese rve and to encourage appropriate architecture that creates walkable neighborhoods an d supports the heritage of Aspen. The Standards and Guidelines below apply to all pro jects subject to Commercial Design Review. Site Planning and Streetscape The original townsite was platted in 1880 based on an orthogonal pattern, regardless of topography. Orienting buildings parallel to the street reinforces the traditional network of streets and alleys and enhances the pedestrian experience. Today, given the increased height and density of development, site planning and the relationship to streets and adjacent properties have a particularly important role in shaping neighborhood character. P79 VI.A. Page 3 of 17 Special care should be taken when placing a building within the River Approach and Mountain Base character areas. The majority of parcels in these areas are not located on the traditional townsite grid and topography of the site should be given additional consideration. 1.1 All projects shall provide a context study. • The study should include the relationship to adjacent structures and streets through photographs, streetscape elevations, historic maps, etc. 1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid. • A building shall be oriented parallel to the street unless uncharacteristic of the area. Refer to specific chapters for more information. • Buildings on corners shall be parallel to both streets. 1.3 Landscape elements (both hardscape and softscape) should complement the surrounding context, support the street scene, and enhance the architecture of the building. • This applies to landscape located both on-site and in the public right-of-way. • High quality and durable materials should be used. • Early in the design process, consider stormwater best management practices as an integral part of the landscape design process. 1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition from public space, to semi- public space to private space. • This may be achieved through a fence, a defined walkway, a front porch element, covered walkway, or landscape. 1.5 Maintain alignment of building facades where appropriate. • Consider the entire block of a neighborhood to determine appropriate building placement. Carefully examine and respond to the variety of building alignments that are present. • Consider all four corners of an intersection and architectural context to determine appropriate placement for buildings located on corners. • Consider the appropriate location of street level Pedestrian Amenity when siting a new building. 1.6 When a building facade is set back, define the property line. Review the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique. Examples include: • A fence which is low in height and mostly transparent so as to maintain openness along the street. • Landscaping, though it may not block views of the architecture or a Pedestrian Amenity space. Hedgerows over 42 inches are prohibited. • Benches or other street furniture. Alleyways Alleys are an important feature of most of the Character Areas. Traditionally, Aspen alleyways were unpaved, supported a range of building materials, and often had small buildings located along them. They continue to function as a utilitarian location for back of house operations, deliveries, required utilities, and mechanical areas. P80 VI.A. Page 4 of 17 Staying true to traditional development, alleys are an appropriate area for simple building forms and materials. It is important to design an alley facade with special attention to reduce perceived building mass. Wherever possible, pedestrian access and appealing alleyscapes should be achieved in the design. Improved access to alleyways creates opportunities for small commercial space. The following guidelines only apply to properties that are adjacent to an alley. 1.7 Develop alley facades to create visual interest. • Use varied building setbacks and/or changes in material to reduce perceived scale. 1.8 Consider small alley commercial spaces, especially on corner lots or lots with midblock access from the street (See Pedestrian Amenity Section PA4). • Maximize visibility and access to alley commercial spaces with large windows and setbacks. • Minimize adverse impacts of adjacent service and parking areas through materials, setbacks, and/or landscaping. Parking The Aspen community values a positive pedestrian experience and encourages walking and biking to get around town. Designs for on-site parking should minimize conflicts between pedestrians and cars. The original Aspen townsite includes alleyways, which are an appropriate location to access parking. Neighborhoods without alleys require additional measures to accomodate cars successfully. Because parking areas can detract from other desirable qualities of a neighborhood, the visibility of on- site parking should be reduced in all locations. The following standard only applies to properties that are providing on-site parking. 1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking. • All on-site parking shall be accessed off an alley where one is available. • Break up the massing of the alley facade, especially when garage doors are present. • Consider the potential for future retail use accessed from alleys and the desire to create a safe and attractive environment for cars and people. • If no alley access exists, access should be from the shortest block length. • Screen surface parking and avoid locating it at the front of a building. Landscaping and fences are recommended. • Consider a paving material change to define surface parking areas and to create visual interest. • Design any street-facing entry to underground parking to reduce visibility. Use high quality materials for doors and ramps and integrate the parking area into the architecture. Building Mass, Height, and Scale Designing a new building to fit within the context of the neighborhood requires careful thought. Researching historic maps, identifying nearby historic landmarks, and defining key character features of a neighborhood are critical steps before designing a new building. Special care is required for P81 VI.A. Page 5 of 17 development adjacent to a designated landmark. New development has the opportunity to positively impact the cohesion of a neighborhood. Specific context descriptions are provided in each Character Area Chapter to define these features. 1.10 A new building should appear similar in scale and proportion with buildings on the block. 1.11 A minimum building height difference of 2 feet from immediately adjacent buildings is required. • The height difference shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide. • The height difference should reflect the range and variation in building height in the block. • This may be achieved through the use of a cornice, parapet or other architectural articulation. 1.12 On lots larger than 6,000 square feet, break up building mass into smaller modules. • A street level front setback to accommodate Pedestrian Amenity in accordance with the Pedestrian Amenity Guidelines may be an appropriate method to break up building mass. • Building setbacks, height variation, changes of material, and architectural details may be appropriate techniques to vertically divide a building into modules. 1.13 Development adjacent to a historic landmark should respond to the historic resource. • A new building should not obscure historic features of the landmark. • A new large building should avoid negative impacts on historic resources by stepping down in scale toward a smaller landmark. • Consider these three aspects of a new building adjacent to a landmark: form, materials and fenestration. • When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource. • When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site, and use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of pedestrian scale. • When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size, shape, and proportion to those of the historic resource. Street Level Design Street level design directly contributes to the vitality, walkability, and overall success of a commercial, lodge, or mixed use area. The relationship of entrances and storefronts to the street is critical. Carefully considered pedestrian-scaled elements can enhance the experience along Aspen’s streets and reinforce neighborhood character. 1.14 Commercial entrances shall be at the sidewalk level and oriented to the street. • Finished floor and sidewalk level shall align for at least 1/2 the depth of the ground floor where possible. If significant grade changes exist on property, then the project will be reviewed on a case-by- case basis. • All buildings shall have at least one clearly defined primary entrance facing the front lot line, as defined in the Land Use Code. An entrance located within a chamfered corner is an alternative. (See Commercial Core Historic District). • If a building is located on a corner lot, two entrances shall be provided; a primary entrance facing the longest block length and a secondary entrance facing the shortest block length. P82 VI.A. Page 6 of 17 1.15 Incorporate an internal airlock or air curtain into first floor commercial space. • An airlock or air curtain shall be integrated into the architecture. • Adding a temporary exterior airlock of any material to an existing building not allowed. 1.16 Entries that are significantly taller or shorter than those seen historically or that conflict with the established scale are highly discouraged. • Transom windows above an entry are a traditional element that may be appropriate in neighborhoods with 19th century commercial buildings. • Entries should reflect the established range of sizes within the context of the block. Analyze surrounding buildings to determine appropriate height for entry doors. 1.17 ATMs and vending machines visible from the street are prohibited. Roofscape The roofscape of a building is considered the fifth facade given its visibility from nearby buildings and mountains. As such, careful attention should be paid to creating a thoughtful, organized, and varied roofscape. Rooftop design can be a challenge considering the need to place mechanical equipment, venting, and elevator shafts on the roof. A successful roofscape can minimize the visual impacts of these elements and also incorporate City goals such as storm water treatment through a green roof system or streetscape vibrancy with an activated roof deck. Consider a birds-eye view when creating a roof plan. 1.18 The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the elevations of the building. • Consolidate mechanical equipment, including solar panels, and screen from view. • Locate mechanical equipment toward the alley, or rear of a building if there is no alley access. • Use varied roof forms or parapet heights to break up the roof plane mass and add visual interest. 1.19 Use materials that complement the design of the building facade. • Minimize the visual impact of elevator shafts and stairway corridors through material selection and placement of elements. 1.20 Incorporate green roofs and low landscape elements into rooftop design where feasible. 1.21 Minimize visibility of rooftops railings. • Mostly transparent railings are preferred. • Integrating the rooftop railing into the architecture as a parapet or other feature, may be appropriate considering the neighborhood context and proposed building style. Set back the railing a distance that equals or exceeds the height of the railing. Materials and Details P83 VI.A. Page 7 of 17 In the 19th Century, Aspen had a limited range of architectural materials: red brick, painted wood, glass, and locally sourced sandstone. In the mid- century the palette expanded to include natural wood, stucco, river rock and moss rock, metal, concrete block, and bricks of other tones. It is important to maintain a relationship to the existing material palette evident in the general vicinity while allowing some new materials and material technology to be used. The color palette of natural materials throughout the commercial and lodging neighborhoods represents Aspen’s environment, with browns and reds being the predominant colors. High quality materials that relate to the context of the neighborhood and the building type are important. Carefully consider existing color schemes and textures within a neighborhood before selecting materials. Paint color is variable and is not subject to review. Introducing a new material may require other aspects of the architecture to show restraint. Materials must have a proven performance in Aspen’s extreme climate. 1.22 Complete and accurate identification of materials is required. • Provide drawings that identify the palette of materials, specifications for the materials, and location on the proposed building as part of the application. • Physical material samples shall be presented to the review body. An onsite mock-up prior to installation may be required. 1.23 Building materials shall have these features: • Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block context or seen historically in the Character Area. • Convey pedestrian scale. • Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension. • Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a primary material. • Have provendurability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s climate. • A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is allowed for secondary materials. 1.24 Introducing a new material, material application, or material finish to the existing streetscape may be approved by HPC or P&Z if the following criteria are met: • Innovative building design. • Creative material application that positively contributes to the streetscape. • Environmentally sustainable building practice. • Proven durability. 1.25 Architecture that reflects corporate branding of the tenant is not permitted. Lighting, Service and Mechanical Areas The character and intensity of outdoor lighting can greatly impact neighborhood character. The City of Aspen has comprehensive exterior lighting standards, defined in the Land Use Code. These standards balance the needs of the building with the desire to enjoy the dark night skies. P84 VI.A. Page 8 of 17 When the service and mechanical areas of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the neighborhood. Poor logistics of one building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. 1.26 The design of light fixtures should be appropriate to the form, materials, scale, and style of the building. 1.27 Trash and recycle service areas shall be co- located along an alleyway where one exists, and screened from view with a fence or door. • Screening fences shall be 6 feet high from grade (unless prohibited by the Land Use Code), shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than 90% opaque, unless otherwise varied based on a recommendation from the Environmental Health Department. 1.28 Design trash and recycle areas thoughtfully and within the style of the building, with the goal of enhancing pedestrian and commercial uses along alleys. 1.29 Delivery areas shall be located along an alleyway where one exists. • Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 1.30 Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or co-located on the roof. • Screen rooftop mechanical equipment and venting with a low fence or recess behind a parapet wall to minimize visual impacts. 1.31 Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. • Group and discreetly locate these features. • Use screening and materials that compliment the architecture. 1.32 Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company standards and codes. • Place a transformer on an alley where possible. • Provide screening for any non-alley location. Remodel Upgrading an existing building through a remodel can improve energy efficiency, building function and appearance, and meet community goals to reduce construction waste. Altering specific features of a building, such as replacing exterior materials or constructing an addition to an existing building, is considered a remodel project. A project that reaches the demolition threshold as defined in the Land Use Code is not considered a remodel. It is important to carefully plan a remodel to meet the design guidelines and neighborhood character where feasible. Gradually bringing remodel projects into conformance with design guidelines reinforces neighborhood character. These guidelines apply to projects that are proposing changes to an existing building but do not reach the P85 VI.A. Page 9 of 17 demolition threshold. 1.33 All remodel projects shall meet Standards 1.22 and 1.23. 1.34 Consider updating windows, doors, and/ or primary entrances to better relate to the Character Area and pedestrian experience. 1.35 Design alterations to relate to the existing building style and form that may remain. 1.36 Incorporate elements that define the property line in accordance with Guideline 1.6. 1.37 Creative solutions that incorporate ADA compliance into the architecture are encouraged. • Minimize the appearance of ramps by exploring other on-site options such as altering interior floor levels or exterior grade. P86 VI.A. Page 10 of 17 Pedestrian Amenity Street Level Pedestrian Amenity PA1 - (All Character Areas) Historic maps of 19th century Aspen illustrate a densely developed downtown core with minimal building setbacks. This pattern generally remains in place today. Setbacks are varied as development moves out from the downtown core. The Design Standards and Guidelines recognize and encourage this historic pattern of development by providing more Pedestrian Amenity options for properties located outside of the Historic Districts. Properties within the Historic Districts need to maintain historic integrity and continuity. Street level Pedestrian Amenity must be carefully planned to highlight, not erode, these important development patterns. PA1.1 Maximize solar access to Pedestrian Amenity space on the subject property. • At grade Pedestrian Amenity on the north side of the street is discouraged, except when providing a front yard along Main Street. PA1.2 Consider all four corners of an intersection when designing street level amenity space on a corner lot. • If one or more lots on the intersection already includes a large corner Pedestrian Amenity, a new corner amenity space may not be appropriate. PA1.3 Street level Pedestrian Amenity spaces should be equal to a minimum of 1/3 of the total Pedestrian Amenity requirement. • For example, a requirement of 300 square feet of Pedestrian Amenity can be comprised of three 100 square feet spaces; but cannot be comprised of one 275 square feet space and one 25 square feet space. PA1.4 Street level Pedestrian Amenity shall be within 18 inches above or below the existing grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the space.PA1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall be open to the sky. • Direct access to the Pedestrian Amenity from the street is required. • A street level Pedestrian Amenity space may be covered, subject to HPC or P&Z approval. If the space is covered, the street-facing portion shall be entirely open. PA1.5 Street level Pedestrian Amenity areas shall be open to the sky. • Direct access to the Pedestrian Amenity from the street is required. • A street level Pedestrian Amenity space may be covered, subject to HPC or P&Z approval. If the space is covered, the street-facing portion shall be entirely open. PA1.6 Design meaningful street level space that is useful, versatile, and accessible. • Small unusable spaces are inappropriate. • Consider providing space for future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating opportunities when designing the space. • Providing good solar access, capturing mountain views, and providing seating is recommended. • Do not duplicate existing nearby open space. P87 VI.A. Page 11 of 17 • Storage areas, delivery areas, parking areas, or trash areas are not allowed uses within Pedestrian Amenity space. PA1.7 Design amenity space that enhances the pedestrian experience and faces the street. • On corner lots, Pedestrian Amenity space may be considered on side streets or adjacent to the alley rather than facing primary streets. PA1.8 Street level Pedestrian Amenity space should reinforce the property line. Consider the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique. Examples include: • Overhangs: A cantilevered roof or retractable awning that stretches to the property line. • Fences: A low fence, mostly transparent, that allows views into the Pedestrian Amenity space. • Landscape: Low planter boxes. If including trees, the mature tree canopy size should not prohibit views into the amenity space. Hedgerows over 42 inches are prohibited. • Street Furniture: Permanent, fixed benches or other pedestrian-related elements may be considered to establish property lines. • Surface Material: A change in hardscape material to differientiate between Pedestrian Amenity and right-of-way. PA1.9 Street level Pedestrian Amenity may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis within the Commercial Core Historic District. • Consider the existing context of the block . • Clearly define the property line as defined in PA1.8. • In this District, street level Pedestrian Amenity should be subordinate to the line of building fronts. PA1.10 Street level Pedestrian Amenity may include providing public access to the mountain or river in the Mountain Base and River Approach Character Areas through a trail easement, subject to Parks and Engineering approval. PA1.11 Within the Main Street Historic District, required building setbacks may be used toward a Pedestrian Amenity requirement. Second Floor Pedestrian Amenity PA2 - (CC, CA, NMU, MB, SL, RA) Second floor or rooftop amenity can bring vitality to upper floors, provide outstanding mountain views, create meaningful upper floor setbacks, and still allow a building to define the property line at ground level, which reinforces traditional commercial development patterns. PA2.1 A second floor Pedestrian Amenity shall be in the form of a deck that is visible from, and adjacent to the street. • Railing height shall not be increased above the minimum IBC requirement. • Historic landmark parapets may be exempt, subject to HPC approval. • Railings shall be a minimum of 50% transparent unless located in the Commercial Core Historic District where transparent railings may not be appropriate, given the pattern of decorative cornices P88 VI.A. Page 12 of 17 capping buildings. PA2.2 Pedestrian Amenity is highly discouraged on the roof of the second floor. PA2.3 Second floor amenity shall be accessed directly from the street. • Remodels and historic landmarks may be exempted from this requirement, subject to P&Z or HPC approval. • A separate exterior entrance is preferred. • A public access easement may be requested by the City as part of an approval. PA2.4 Second floor Pedestrian Amenity should be equal to a minimum of 50% of the total Pedestrian Amenity requirement. PA2.5 All second floor Pedestrian Amenity shall be open to the sky. • Small seasonal umbrellas or retractable canopies may be allowed, subject to Planning Staff, HPC or P&Z approval, as long as these features do not cover the entire space and do not obstruct views in from the street. PA2.6 Design meaningful space that is useful, versatile and accessible. • Small unusable spaces are inappropriate. • Consider providing space for future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating opportunities. • Providing good solar access, mountain views, and seating is recommended. • Storage area or trash area are not allowed uses within pedestrian amenity space. PA2.7 The Pedestrian Amenity shall be directly connected to a publicly accessible area. • A second floor Pedestrian Amenity in a lodge may be accessible from a restaurant, lobby, or other adjacent public space. • Access to second floor Pedestrian Amenity shall be integrated into the architecture, either through an interior or exterior space. PA2.8 Design wayfinding to the second floor amenity into the architecture. Pedestrian Malls Pedestrian Amenity PA3 - (CC) On the Pedestrian Malls, on-site amenity space may duplicate the experiences offered by the Malls and Wagner Park. Replicating open space can erode the streetscape and can dilute the success of on-site Pedestrian Amenity spaces. PA3.1 Off-site Pedestrian Amenity or cash-in- lieu payment for Mall improvements and maintenance is strongly recommended. See Section PA6 or Chapter 26.412 Commercial Design Review of the Land Use Code for cash-in-lieu payment calculation. P89 VI.A. Page 13 of 17 PA3.2 The design of on-site amenity on the Pedestrian Malls requires consideration of the following: • The presence of other street-facing, street level amenities in the block means that additional street facing Pedestrian Amenity may be inappropriate. • On corner lots, if the intersection already contains street level amenity on the Mall, additional street level Public Amenity should not be created. • Spaces designed to highlight adjacent historic landmarks may allow for a new Public Amenity on the Mall. • A project’s success in defining the property line based on Standard PA1.6 may allow for a new Public Amenity on the Mall. • Other restrictions on the property such as designated viewplanes may justify a new Public Amenity on the Mall. Midblock Pedestrian Amenity PA4 - (CA, NMU, MB, RA) Midblock walkways create open space between buildings, activate alleyways, and provide alternative locations for commercial space and outdoor dining. This type of Pedestrian Amenity should be used sparingly throughout town to preserve historic development patterns. PA4.1 New midblock Pedestrian Amenity walkways shall not be located in a block face that already has a midblock walkway. PA4.2 Midblock Pedestrian Amenity shall provide access to additional commercial space. • The amount of Pedestrian Amenity of the feature counts as double. For example, a midblock walkway that is 500 square feet in size is equal to 1,000 square feet for the purposes of Pedestrian Amenity calculation. • Commercial space shall be accessed directly from the walkway and at least 40 feet back from the street edge. • Midblock Pedestrian Amenity shall extend the length of the lot to the alley and be a minimum width of 10 feet. PA4.3 Midblock Pedestrian Amenity walkways shall be open to the sky. • A midblock Pedestrian Amenity space may be covered subject to HPC or P&Z approval. If the space is covered, the street-facing portion shall be entirely open. PA4.4 Design the space to be surrounded with high quality materials and architectural details. PA4.5 A midblock Pedestrian Amenity should include lighting and landscape elements. PA4.6 Design wayfinding to the midblock walkway into the architecture. Subgrade Courtyard Pedestrian Amenity PA5 - (CA, NMU, RA) P90 VI.A. Page 14 of 17 Lower level walk-out patios, also referred to as subgrade courtyards, may provide additional opportunities for commercial uses. When carefully designed, these spaces have the potential to provide natural light and open space for commercial tenants. The design, placement, and neighborhood context of subgrade courtyards are critical to their success as a positive addition to the streetscape. PA5.1 A subgrade courtyard shall be visible from, and adjacent to the street. • Access shall be provided from the street. • The measurement of a subgrade courtyard shall not exceed 30% of the lot width. • Railings shall allow views into the Pedestrian Amenity space and be a minimum of 50% transparent. PA5.2 New subgrade courtyards are not permitted on corner lots, unless located along the side lot line, towards the rear of the lot. PA5.3 Subgrade courtyard Pedestrian Amenity should be equal to a minimum of 30% of the total Pedestrian Amenity requirement. • Access and circulation are included in the calculation of Pedestrian Amenity. PA5.4 A subgrade courtyard shall be no more than 10 feet below the existing grade of the street or sidewalk which abuts the space. PA5.5 Design of the subgrade courtyard at grade should reinforce the property line. • Consider the context of the block when selecting an appropriate technique to the property line. PA5.6 Design meaningful space that is useful, versatile, and accessible. • Small unusable spaces are inappropriate. • Consider future outdoor merchandising or restaurant seating when designing the space. • Providing good solar access and seating is recommended. North facing courtyards are prohibited. • Storage area or trash area are not allowed uses within Pedestrian Amenity space. PA5.7 All subgrade courtyard spaces shall be open to the sky. • Small seasonal umbrellas or canopies that do not cover the entire space prohibiting views in from the street may be allowed, subject to Planning Staff, HPC or P&Z approval. PA5.8 A subgrade courtyard shall be accessible from the interior of commercial use(s) abutting the Pedestrian Amenity space. • Integrate clear access to this space into the architecture through interior or exterior corridors. • Limit ramps, stairs and elevators leading to the courtyard. PA5.9 Design wayfinding to the subgrade courtyard space into the architecture. P91 VI.A. Page 15 of 17 Off-site Pedestrian Amenity PA6 - (All Character Areas) Off-site pedestrian amenity is an option when on-site amenity is not feasible or not appropriate as determined by HPC or P&Z. Off-site amenity must be constructed by the applicant and include improvements equal to or exceeding the cash-in- lieu amount calculated according to the Land Use Code. A permit is required for modifications within the publicly owned right-of-way, including planting strips, street trees, and sidewalks. In general, the right-of-way within a given neighborhood should have a consistent design character. Covered walkways are found throughout Aspen’s commercial neighborhoods. Covered walkways introduce a one-story pedestrian scaled element to a building and may be appropriate in specific areas. Coordination with the Engineering Department and Parks Department is required. PA6.1 Off-site improvements shall be located within the block of the subject property. • The proposed design shall not detract from nearby historic resources. • The proposed design shall provide or enhance the streetscape or historic district. • A right-of-way may be altered to reflect the design of an adjacent building. • Only off-site improvements that are completed beyond minimum Engineering requirements shall qualify as Pedestrian Amenity. PA6.2 Covered walkways are prohibited in blocks that already have a similar feature. • The final design of these features shall be subject to Engineering Department and Parks Department approval. PA6.3 At least 50% of the block shall meet standard City of Aspen right-of-way design. PA6.4 Additions to the streetscape should enhance the pedestrian experience. Interior Courtyard Pedestrian Amenity PA7 - (CC, CA, NMU) Interior courtyards offer areas for the public to get out of the weather and enjoy a communal space. Well designed and successful interior courtyards are easy to find, versatile, large, and include communal seating. Interior Pedestrian Amenity activates and increases presence of smaller commercial spaces that front the courtyard. PA7.1 Design interior courtyards to be versatile. PA7.2 Interior courtyards shall provide primary access to commercial uses to count as Pedestrian Amenity. PA7.3 Commercial spaces adjacent to an interior courtyard shall have large storefront windows open to the interior courtyard. P92 VI.A. Page 16 of 17 PA7.4 Interior courtyards should include communal seating and tables. PA7.5 Incorporate wayfinding to the interior courtyard into the architecture. PA7.6 Interior corridors or hallways leading to the interior courtyard do not count as Pedestrian Amenity space. Mountain Base Character Area Building Placement This neighborhood has significant steep slopes that do not encourage pedestrian traffic and create challenging sites for new development. The pedestrian experience can be greatly improved by design that encourages walkability and accessibility. As one moves up the hill, the sense of transitioning into an alpine area, separated from the town below increases. In this neighborhood, architectural context, nature, topography, and the visibility of buildings from far away vantage points are all important considerations in siting a new building. 6.1 On lots greater than 15,000 square feet, the massing of the building should be broken into smaller volumes. 6.2 Place a building into the topography to minimize visual impacts from downtown and to reinforce a strong relationship to the mountain. • Make mountain access easier when siting a building. • For larger projects, offer pedestrians multiple entry points. • Emphasize horizontal elements to blend the building into the topography. • Step a building up the hillside to minimize visual impacts and allow points of entry to be at natural grade. 6.3 Minimize retaining walls. • When retaining walls are necessary, integrate them into the architecture. 6.4 Incorporate open space into building placement and site design. • Create views through the property to the mountain slopes to strengthen mountain connection to the neighborhood and improve the pedestrian experience. 6.5 Eclectic and creative approaches to break up building mass and scale is encouraged. • Consider separate buildings on a property, or linked exterior walkways instead of internal corridors. 6.6 Create interest along the street, for instance by providing places for the public to sit. 6.7 Carefully plan parking areas and loading zones to minimize visual impacts P93 VI.A. Page 17 of 17 Architecture A mix of architectural styles that respond to the mountain topography define this neighborhood and allow visitors to locate their lodging. It is important that buildings within this neighborhood respond to the steep slopes, but equally important is a variety of building styles, types, and eras. 6.8 Roof forms should be low pitched to reinforce the mountain character of the neighborhood. • Other roof forms may be considered on a case-by- case basis depending on the context of the block, adjacent historic landmarks, and other restrictions such as viewplanes. • Flat roofs are particularly appropriate to provide upper level decks and for installation of mechanical equipment. Details and Materials Similar to the range of architectural styles, there is a mix of materials and details. Many of the buildings within this neighborhood have been renovated in the past ten years with new materials, windows, and details. A wide range of materials and architectural details are appropriate in this eclectic neighborhood. 6.9 Easily identifiable architectural details are encouraged. • Character defining details are recommended to engage the pedestrian, to promote variety of architecture, and to aid in wayfinding. P94 VI.A. Page 1 of 2 Exhibit B.6 Transportation and Parking Management C. Review Criteria. All development and redevelopment projects are required to submit a Mobility Plan, which shall include and describe a project’s mitigations for TIA and Parking Requirements. The Engineering, Transportation, and Community Development Department staff shall determine whether the project conforms to this Chapter requirements using the following standards: 1. Project TIA and the resulting mitigation program meets requirements for exempt, minor, or major project categories as outlined in the TIA Guidelines. 2. Project provides full mitigation for the Parking Requirements pursuant to Section 26.515.050. 3. If existing development is expanded, additional Parking Requirements shall be provided for that increment of the expansion. 4. If existing development is redeveloped, on-site parking deficits may not be maintained unless all parking, or at least 20 spaces are provided as Public Parking. Projects failing to meet the requirements of this section may apply for a variation to the Planning and Zoning Commission through the Special Review process (Section 26.430 and Section 26.515.080). Staff Response: Criteria #1 and #2 apply to this project. On Criterion #1 – the project has submitted Project TIA requirements – and corresponding TDM/MMLOS mobility measures. This criterion is met. On Criterion #2, the project as proposed has approximately 16 parking spaces fewer than the current code requires. However, staff recommends Special Review to evaluate parking requirements in relation to the proposed mobility measures of the project. OR 26.515.080. Special Review Standards. Whenever the transportation, mobility, and parking impacts of a proposed development are subject to special review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated according to the following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the special review application. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving transportation, mobility, or off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on its conformance with all of the following criteria: P95 VI.A. Page 2 of 2 1. The transportation, mobility, and off-street parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on-site mitigation solution meeting the requirements and guidelines is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Staff Response: The previous approval provided 113 parking spaces related the Lift One Lodge lodging, residential and commercial uses, but minimal mobility requirements. At a proposed 59 spaces in the current proposal, the project would provide 54 parking spaces less than the approved project, but offers much more in the way of TDM/MMLOS mobility measures and is efficiently located. Additionally, parking requirements have been reduced in the period since the project was originally approved. City Staff – including Parking, Transportation, Engineering and Community Development will work with the applicant to evaluate the proposed project’s parking requirements in relationship to proposed mobility measures. P96 VI.A. Page 1 of 1 Exhibit B.7 ESA – Mountain View Plane 3. Background mountain view plane standards. The following standards apply to the background component of a mountain view plane: a. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located entirely behind (as seen from the reference point) a building designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, which already blocks the view plane, the Review Body shall determine whether the proposed development will further infringe upon the view plane. If the Review Body determines the proposed development does not further infringe upon the view plane and is not visible from the reference point, the Review Body shall make a finding that the development is consistent with the requirements of this Section; or b. The Review Body, after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director, may make a finding that a development that infringes on the view plane background is consistent with the requirements of this Section if it does not materially alter the observer’s ability to see the preserved view from the reference point; or c. The infringement shall involve the lowest building height practicable, taking into consideration the proximity of the view plane, lot size, topography, and the reasonable use of the property. The development shall utilize building and roof forms and materials designed to blend into the surrounding landscape, and shall respect the character and massing of adjacent buildings and the mountain landscape. The development shall also comply with the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines or the Residential Design Standards, or shall receive a variation from said standards, as applicable. d. If the Review Body does not find a development meets the exemptions listed in subsection 26.435.050(D)(1-2) or the review criteria of subsection 26.435.050.(F)(3)(a-c), above, the application shall be subject to the variation criteria outlined in section 26.435.050(D), and is subject to a public vote on the variation per Section 13.14 of the City Charter. Staff Response: Staff’s initial analysis is the project is located in the background of and will infringe on the Wheeler View Plane. While the project is also located in the Main Street View Plane, it does not infringe this view plane. Staff disagrees with the applicant’s assessment that the previous approval of height means that the current view plane requirements do not apply – or are made invalid by the previous approval. Staff will work with the applicant to provide a visual analysis of the project from the origin point of the Wheeler View Plane, so that City Council can review the project under review criteria b. or c. above. P97 VI.A. Page 1 of 3 Exhibit B.8 Timeshare Development 26.590.050. Timeshare review standards A. General Standards. All timeshare lodge development shall comply with the following review standards. A timeshare residence development shall comply with standards 2 through 7. 1. Onsite reception. Onsite reception area is required for all timeshare development in a multi-family building, a mixed use building, or a lodge building. 2. Management plan. A property management plan shall be submitted for a multi-family building, a mixed use building, or a lodge building. Detached and duplex dwelling units shall comply with Section 26.575.220.D.3, Vacation Rental Standards, and provide a local owner representative. A fair procedure shall be established for the estate owners to review and approve any fee increases which may be made throughout the life of the timeshare development, to provide assurance and protection to timeshare owners that management/assessment fees will be applied and used appropriately. The applicant shall also demonstrate that there will be a reserve fund to ensure that the proposed timeshare development will be properly maintained throughout its lifetime. 3. Rental by the public. Timeshare estates shall be made available for short term rental to the general public when not in use by the owner or owner’s guests. The covenants of the homeowners association shall permit rental of units to the general public. 4. Minimum number of estates per unit. A maximum of 6 estates per unit are created per dwelling unit for a timeshare residence development. A minimum of 6 estates are created per lodge unit for a timeshare lodge development. 5. Complex-wide requirement. All residential units within a multi-family building, mixed use building, or a duplex building shall be developed as timeshare estates. 6. Physical upgrades. Any existing project that is proposed to be converted to a timeshare development shall be upgraded and improved to meet current Building Code requirements, which includes at a minimum the physical upgrades necessary to comply with current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. An inspection by the Chief Building Official shall be required. 7. Parking requirements. The parking requirement for timeshare lodge development shall be calculated by applying the parking standard for the underlying zone district for lodge uses. The parking requirement shall be calculated based on the maximum number of proposed lock off rooms, or keys, in the development. The parking requirement for timeshare residential development shall be calculated by applying the parking standard for the underlying zone district for the applicable residential use. The owner of a P98 VI.A. Page 2 of 3 timeshare estate shall be prohibited from storing a vehicle in a parking space on-site when the owner is not using that estate. 8. Affordable housing requirements. Whenever a timeshare lodge development is required to provide affordable housing, mitigation for the development shall be calculated by applying the standards for lodge uses. The conversion of any multi-family dwelling unit that meets the definition of residential multi-family housing to timesharing shall comply with the provisions of Section 26.470.070(5), Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing, even when there is no demolition of the existing multi-family dwelling unit. No other Growth Management Reviews shall be required. 9. CC Timeshare Lodges. A timeshare lodge in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District shall not have any lodge rooms located on the ground floor. Instead, a timeshare lodge in the CC Zone District shall contain at least one of the following elements: publically accessible bar, restaurant or retail facilities. The elements provided shall be located along the street front, shall be accessible from the street and shall be designed to serve the public, not just the occupants of the timeshare lodge. Staff Response: The application has provided a draft Conceptual Timeshare Use and Management Plan from the original approval in 2011. In the evaluation, staff has read the plan and finds it to be in conformance with the General Standards – and several of the Variation Standards described below. In the original approval there were a mixture of free-market residences and timeshare units – not meeting the complex-wide requirement and thus requiring consideration of the variation standards below. In the new configuration, the free-market residences are separated by building and lot from the time share units. While the submitted plan conforms – a new plan will be required at final approval – and will need to be re-evaluated at that point. At this point, no variations are proposed and staff finds the criterion in this section to be met. As proposed, the project would also meet the variation standards listed below. B. Timeshare Variations Standards. Only variations to standards 1 (Onsite reception), 5 (complex-wide requirement), 6 (Physical upgrades), and 7 (Parking requirements) outlined above in Section 26.590.050(A) is permitted. An applicant requesting a variation shall demonstrate that the provision requested to be varied is not applicable to the proposed development or cannot be met and shall demonstrate that the proposed variation is reasonable, would not be contrary to the public interest and better implements the purpose and intent of these timeshare regulations than the codified requirement. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed variation will result in a successful short-term rental product. The following characteristics shall be considered in meeting this standard. A project need not meet all of the following characteristics: 1. The development contains a sufficient level of on- or off-site recreational facilities (such as exercise equipment, a pool or spa or similar facilities) and other amenities (such as a P99 VI.A. Page 3 of 3 lobby, meeting spaces and similar facilities) to serve the occupants, or provides such amenities through off-site method such as gym privileges at local work-out facilities. The extent of the facilities provided should be proportional to the size of the development. The types of facilities should be consistent with the planned method and style of operating the development. 2. The project includes commercial operations, or services available to the general community. 3. The timeshare units will use a standard palate of décor that has been established for the property. 4. The proposal maximizes the potential for short-term occupancies through design and operational characteristics, for instance by isolating larger residential units from high activity uses. 5. The proposal provides lock-off configurations to enable flexible unit configurations that may be attractive to a broader segment of guests. 6. The application shall demonstrate how the operation provides short-term occupancies to the general public. The City may require an annual audit to ensure operation provides accommodations to the general public and is not operating as a private residence, pursuant to Section 26.575.210, Lodge occupancy auditing. 7. Nightly rental rates are standardized and established by a Management Company rather than individual owners. 8. The management and marketing plan provides for a standard management and marketing strategy, either through Stay Aspen Snowmass, or other entity. 9. Any changes to Section 26.590.050(A)(7), Parking requirements, shall meet the requirements of Chapter 26.515, Off-Street Parking. P100 VI.A. Page 1 of 2 Exhibit B.9 Vested Property Rights 26.308.010. Vested property rights. A. Rights conferred. A development order constitutes a site specific development plan and subject to a vested property right. A vested property right is subject to expiration (See Subsection 26.304.070.D), revocation (See Subsection 26.304.070.E) and all rights of referendum and judicial review. A vested property right shall preclude any zoning or land use action by the City or by an initiated measure which would alter, impair, prevent, diminish or otherwise delay the development or use of the property as set forth in the development order, except as set forth in Section 24-68-105, C.R.S., as amended. C. Extension or reinstatement of vested rights. The City Council may, by resolution at a public hearing noticed by publication, mailing and posting (See Subparagraphs 26.304.060[E][3][a][b] and [c]) approve an extension or reinstatement of expired vested rights or a revoked development order in accordance with this Section. 1. In reviewing a request for the extension or reinstatement of vested rights the City Council shall consider, but not be limited to, the following criteria: a) The applicant's compliance with any conditions requiring performance prior to the date of application for extension or reinstatement; b) The progress made in pursuing the project to date including the effort to obtain any other permits, including a building permit and the expenditures made by the applicant in pursuing the project; c) The nature and extent of any benefits already received by the City as a result of the project approval such as impact fees or land dedications; d) The needs of the City and the applicant that would be served by the approval of the extension or reinstatement request. 2. An extension or reinstatement may be in the form of a written agreement duly authorized and executed by the applicant and the City. Reasonable conditions may be imposed by the City Council including, but not limited to, compliance with any amendments to this Title adopted subsequent to the effective date of the development order and associated vested rights. If the request is for reinstatement of a revoked development order, the City Council shall determine the financial impacts of the investigation and may require the applicant to pay the reasonable costs of investigation, enforcement and reporting by City staff. Staff Response: This project was granted an original vesting period of five years and has received three extensions – providing vesting to November 28, 2021. Staff believes that the substantial nature of the proposed changes in the Major Amendment that include a new lot line configuration, a rezoning of the new lots, granting of additional GMQS allotments – and ultimately, the requirement for voter approval of the project – would P101 VI.A. Page 2 of 2 necessitate the issuance of a new development order with a new period of vesting. The applicant has requested a three-year vesting period, which staff supports. P102 VI.A. o o o o o P103 VI.A. o o o P104 VI.A. P105 VI.A. P106 VI.A. P107 VI.A. P108 VI.A. LOL Aspen DRC comments Page: 31 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Max 8.3% slope for ramps LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf (22) Page: 31 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Is a 2nd exit needed from this level? 2015 IBC 1006. Page: 32 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Open exit access stairs may only connect 2 stories max (2015 IBC 1019) Page: 32 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Check common path distance from far end of private parking garage. 2015 IBC 1006. Page: 32 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Provide a man door in the parking garage gate to the private area to get access to a 2nd exit. 2015 IBC 1010. Max 8.3% slope for ramps Is a 2nd exit needed from this level? 2015 IBC 1006. A-301.0 1 Open exit access stairs may only connect 2 stories max (2015 IBC 1019) Check common path distance from far end of private parking garage. 2015 IBC 1006. Provide a man door in the parking garage gate to the private area to get access to a 2nd exit. 2015 IBC 1010. P109 VI.A. Page: 32 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Calculate and show grade plane to determine number of stories. Type IIB construction (to allow openings at south elevation) allows 5 stories R1. (other occupancies like A2 are less so separated occupancies would be required. Page: 33 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Detail fire wall/building separation for historic buildings from rest. Coordinate with Types of construction. 2015 IBC 706, chapter 5. Page: 34 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: 16x8=128 128/203=63% 0 property line: no openings allowed. If Hill St not vacated, then 10' separation: 45% openings allowed unless Type IIB construction, then no max. Page: 34 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: 50% of exits may terminate at exit discharge lobby. 2015 IBC 1028. Page: 34 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Exit discharge access to public way needed at these exit doors. Calculate and show grade plane to determine number of stories. Type IIB construction (to allow openings at south elevation) allows 5 stories R1. (other occupancies like A2 are less so separated occupancies would be required.79357940794579507955A-301.00 1a A-304.00 2a A-302.00 2a A-301.00 1b A-304.00 1a A-304.00 2b S. ASPEN STREET Detail fire wall/building separation for historic buildings from rest. Coordinate with Types of construction. 2015 IBC 706, chapter 5. 16x8=128 128/203=63% 0 property line: no openings allowed. If Hill St not vacated, then 10' separation: 45% openings allowed unless Type IIB construction, then no max.79707980A-301.00 2 797550% of exits may terminate at exit discharge lobby. 2015 IBC 1028. A-303.00 2b A-302.00 2 Exit discharge access to public way needed at these exit doors. P110 VI.A. Page: 34 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Two exit enclosures serving the free market building open into a corridor with elevators. Only 50% allowed 2015 IBC 1028. Page: 34 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: May need a 2nd exit from restaurant. 2015 IBC 1006. Page: 34 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Sidewalk access required to public way. Page: 36 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Coordinate structure and openings with mudflow requirements. Page: 37 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Exterior exit stair can't go into unprotected. must be protected exit until exit discharge. Two exit enclosures serving the free market building open into a corridor with elevators. Only 50% allowed 2015 IBC 1028.794579507955A-303.00 2a S. ASPEN STREEMay need a 2nd exit from restaurant. 2015 IBC 1006. A-302.00 1 Sidewalk access required to public way.79757980798579907995A-310.00 1 A-310.00 2 A-301.00 1 A-303.00 1b A-302.00 2 AS NOTED 10' 20'0 40' Coordinate structure and openings with mudflow requirements. A-303.00 2a Exterior exit stair can't go into unprotected. must be protected exit until exit discharge. P111 VI.A. Page: 37 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Occupant load for lodge lower pool deck could require a 2nd exit. Page: 37 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Accessible pool req'd. Page: 39 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: A path to an exit may only traverse a single story. If these stairs become protected exterior exit stairs, coordinate opening locations and protection. Must remain in a protected exit until discharge. 2015 IBC 1006.3, 1027. Page: 39 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: 125' travel distance from private deck to protected exit. 2015 IBC 1006. Page: 39 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Accessible route to pool may be required for type b unit. Minimum requirement for a lift for future adaptability for type b unit. A-303.00 2a Occupant load for lodge lower pool deck could require a 2nd exit. Accessible pool req'd. A-302.00 2 A path to an exit may only traverse a single story. If these stairs become protected exterior exit stairs, coordinate opening locations and protection. Must remain in a protected exit until discharge. 2015 IBC 1006.3, 1027. 125' travel distance from private deck to protected exit. 2015 IBC 1006. A-303.00 1a Accessible route to pool may be required for type b unit. Minimum requirement for a lift for future adaptability for type b unit. P112 VI.A. Page: 40 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Need accessible route to pool lodge terrace. Lift not allowed 2015 IBC 1109.8 Page: 40 File Name: LOL Supplemental PD application 180924 (1).pdf Subject: PlanCheck Author: nickt Color: Check separation of exits at lodge pool deck.797579807985Need accessible route to pool lodge terrace. Lift not allowed 2015 IBC 1109.8 Check separation of exits at lodge pool deck. P113 VI.A. DRC, 9-19-18 Lift One Lodge Revised Application Created on 9/18/2018 12:13:00 PM Page 1 of 2 MEMO Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 565 North Mill St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970-925-3601 Fax: 970-925-2537 Date: September 18, 2018 To: Ben Anderson CC: Bruce Matherly From: Hamilton Tharp RE: ACSD Requirements: LIFT ONE LODGE Upgrades to the sanitary sewer main in the area of South Aspen Street and the First Street Trunk line have been completed since the original DRC review and Requirements to Serve was issued for this project on 4-11-07. This project is required to financially contribute to a portion of the completed improvements. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains, exterior parking garages, etc.) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. Commercial food service facilities and/or food processing establishments must be served by oil & grease interceptors. Interior parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities with surface/floor drains and, hydraulic elevator equipment rooms and sumps connected to the sanitary system must be served by oil & sand interceptor s. Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. Drain size for pool and spas must be approved by the District. P114 VI.A. DRC, 9-19-18 Lift One Lodge Revised Application Created on 9/18/2018 12:13:00 PM Page 2 of 2 On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. Soil nails are not allowed in the ROW or easements without prior review and acceptance by the District. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Existing service lines or laterals connected to the District’s main line, serving the subject property and adjacent properties, must be identified, located and isolated from soil stabilization processes or other potential damage, or properly disconnected from the ACSD main line at the point of connection according to specific ACSD requirements. Any stub-out fees previously collected by the District for connection stub-outs installed for this project with the recent improvements to the sanitary main line, which, are abandoned in favor of a new connection location, will be forfeited. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an Impact Fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. HT P115 VI.A. c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018Lift One Lodge SOUTH ASPEN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL: 2735-131-01-001 PD Major Amendment Supplemental Submission - 09.24.18P116 VI.A. c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018G-000.10 COVER SHEET G-001.00 SYMBOLS / ABBREVIATION & DRAWING LIST G-010.00 LIFT ONE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN G-010.10 SITE PLAN G-010.20 TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM G-010.30 UTILITIES PLAN G-010.40 DEAN STREET CROSS SECTIONS G-010.50 LANDSCAPE PLAN G-010.60 TREE REMOVAL ZONES G-101.00 FLOOR AREA CALCULATION DIAGRAMS G-102.00 COMMERCIAL NET LEASABLE DIAGRAMS G-103.00 NET LIVABLE DIAGRAMS G-201.00 INTERPOLATED NATURAL GRADE G-202.00 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF 1957 G-301.00 ADA ACCESSIBILITY PLAN G-501.00 HEIGHT PLAN PROPOSED R-001.00 PERSPECTIVAL RENDERINGS R-002.00 PERSPECTIVAL RENDERINGS R-003.00 SITE CONTEXT IMAGES R-004.00 MATERIALS PALETTE A-101.00 FLOOR PLAN - LOADING LEVEL A-102.00 FLOOR PLAN - PARKING LEVEL 1 A-103.00 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL M A-104.00 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 A-105.00 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 A-106.00 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 A-107.00 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 A-108.00 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 5 A-109.00 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 6 A-110.00 ROOF PLAN A-201.00 TYPICAL UNIT PLANS A-301.00 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EAST & WEST BUILDING 1 A-302.00 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EAST & WEST BUILDING 2 A-303.00 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS NORTH & SOUTH BUILDINGS 1 & 2, MUSEUM ELEVATIONS A-310.00 BUILDING SECTION DIAGRAMS A-311.00 BUILDING SECTIONS SYMBOLS LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS LEGEND MATERIALS DRAWING LIST P117VI.A. P118VI.A. SNOW STORAGE AREA 50' SKIER MILLING AREA SKI RACKS TYP. SKIER MAZING GONDOLA LOADING CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS, TYP. SITE STAIRS TYP. TRASH/ RECYCLING RECEPTACLES TYP. SITE BOULDER BOLLARDS TYP. SITE BENCHES APPROX. LIMITS OF SNOW; PER SE GROUP PER CITY OF ASPEN POTENTIAL LOCATION FOR 45' RADIUS SNOWCAT TURNAROUND HARDSCAPE PAVING TYP. SKIER'S CHALET / ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY SKI MUSEUM PROPOSED SKI LIFT; RE: ARCH. POOL SHED SERVICE SHED LIFT ONE LODGE DEAN STREETWILLOUGHBY PARK LIFT ONE PARK S. ASPEN STREET LIFT ONE LODGE PARKING ACCESS STEAK HOUSE HISTORIC LIFT 1 LOT 2 12,904 SQ FT 0.296 AC LOT 3 31,783 SQ FT 0.730 AC LOT 1 33,817 SQ FT 0.776 AC IMPROVEMENTS TO DELINSEK PROPERTY PER CITY OF ASPEN IN GRAY SITE BOULDERS TYP. BIKE RACKS LIFT ONE PROPERTY BOUNDARY SETBACKS SITE RETAINING WALLS HARDSCAPE PAVING EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018710 SOUTH ASPEN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 SEAL ISSUE DESCRIPTION - DATE PROJECT NUMBER PD AMENDMENT 1803 ARCHITECT GUERIN GLASS ARCHITECTS, P.C.20 JAY STREET, SUITE 1110BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201(212) 358.8380 SCALE LIFT ONE LODGE KEYPLAN PLANNER STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES412 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO 81611(970) 925.2323 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS DHM DESIGN311 MAIN STREET, SUITE 102CARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 963.6520 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS KL&A1717 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 100GOLDEN, CO 80401(303) 384.9910 CIVIL ENGINEERS SOPRIS ENGINEERING502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A-3CARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 704.03111 MECHANICAL ENGINEERS BG BUILDING WORKS251 LINDEN STREET, SUITE 200FORT COLLINS, CO 80524(970) 221.5691 OWNER LIFT ONE LODGE ASPEN, LLC605 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2ASPEN, CO 81611(970) 544.4196 DEVELOPER HAYMAX CAPITAL, LLC605 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2ASPEN, CO 81611(970) 544-4196 01 PD AMENDMENT 09.04.18 02 SUPPLEMENTAL PD SUBMISSION 09.17.18 03 SUPPLEMENTAL PD SUBMISSION 09.24.18 G-010.10 SITE PLAN 6030150 NORTH SCALE: 1"=30'P119VI.A. GILBERT STREETR24.00 R50.00 16' ROOF OVERHANG AVAILABLE CLEARANCE = 10'-6" DN S. ASPEN STREET R33.00 Lock to Lock Time ASPEN AMBULANCE Width Track Steering Angle feet : : 7.67 8.00 : 34.5: 6.0 13.754.35 23.64 :27.7Steering Angle 7.50 17.04 8.50 7.03 6.0 ASPEN FPD - PUMPERfeet : : : Width Track Lock to Lock Time 33.50 G-010.20 c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018710 SOUTH ASPEN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 SEAL ISSUE DESCRIPTION - DATE PROJECT NUMBER PD AMENDMENT 18122.0 ARCHITECT GUERIN GLASS ARCHITECTS, P.C.20 JAY STREET, SUITE 1110BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201(212) 358.8380 LIFT ONE LODGE KEYPLAN PLANNER STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES412 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO 81611(970) 925.2323 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS DHM DESIGN311 MAIN STREET, SUITE 102CARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 963.6520 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS KL&A1717 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 100GOLDEN, CO 80401(303) 384.9910 CIVIL ENGINEERS SOPRIS ENGINEERING502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A-3CARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 704.03111 MECHANICAL ENGINEERS BG BUILDING WORKS251 LINDEN STREET, SUITE 200FORT COLLINS, CO 80524(970) 221.5691 OWNER LIFT ONE LODGE ASPEN, LLC605 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2ASPEN, CO 81611(970) 544.4196 DEVELOPERS IRONGATE, LLC10880 WILSHIRE BLVD SUITE 2222LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 01 PD AMENDMENT 09.04.18 HAYMAX CAPITAL, LLC605 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2ASPEN, CO 81611(970) 544-4196 SCALE 1" = 10'G:\2018\18122-LIFT ONE LODGE\CIVIL\PLOT\18122-PLOT SHEETS.DWG - Sep 24, 2018 - 12:04pm1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 010 10 20 10 405 ASPEN FIRE DEPARTMENT PUMPER TRUCK - FORWARD IN AND REVERSE OUT ASPEN AMBULANCE - FORWARD IN, TURN AROUND, FORWARD OUT TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM 02 PD SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION 09.17.18 03 PD SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION 09.24.18P120VI.A. XGASXGASXUT XUTXGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXUTXUT XTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXT VXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTV XTV XTV XFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFO XFOXFOXFOXFOXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXUTXUTXUTXUTXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXELXEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XTVXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XELXTVXTVXTVXTVXTV XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWLXTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XWLXELXWLXWLXWLXSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWLXWLXSA XSAXSAXSAXSAXELXWLXWLXWLXWLXGASXGASXGASXGASXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTV XWL XELXSAXSAXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXSAXWLXWLXGAS XGASXGASXGAS XGASXWLXUT XUT XUT XUT XUTXTV XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS ue ue ue ue ue ue ucucueueueucuuuuuuututut ut ut ut STSTSTXWLXWLXWLXWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXUTXUT XUTXUTXGASXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXEL XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXUT XUTXUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUTXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS XGASXELXEL XELXELXELXELXELXELXEL ucucucucucucut ututututututXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWL XWL XUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTucucucucucucucucucXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXWLXWLXWLXELXUTXWLXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXWLXWLXWLXWL XWLXWLXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXGASXTVXUTXUTXUTXUT XTV XTV XTV XTVXTVuuuuuuuuuuuu uu uu uuuuuuXEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XELXELXELXELXUTXUTXUTXUTXTVXTVXTVXTVXELXEL XEL XTV XTV XTVXTV XTV XTVXTVXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XUT XEL XEL XEL XELXELXELXELXELXELXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS XGAS XGAS XGASXGASXGASXGASXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXTVXTVXTVXUTXUTXT V XT VXUTXUTXUTXUT XUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXTVXELXELXELXELXEL XELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XELXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXUT XELXTVXELXELXELXELXELXELXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXETC XETC XETC XETC XETC XETC XELXELXELXELXGASXSDXSDXSDXTVXTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTV XTVXTVssssssssssssssssXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSD XSD XSD XSD XSD XSD XSD XSD XSD XSD XSD XSD XSD XSD XSDXSD XSD XSD XSD XSD XSD XSD XSD XSDXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSA XSAXSAXSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSAXSAXSAXSAXSA XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWLXWLXWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XWL XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGAS XGASXGAS XG A S XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGAS XGASXELXETCXETCXETCXETCXETCXETCXETCXETCXETCXETCXETCXETCXETCXETCXETCXETCXETC XELXELXSDssXWL XTV XTVXELXELXELXELXELXEL XSD XSD XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSAXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXTVwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww>>>>>>>>>>>>>16''W16''W16''W16''WGAS GAS GAS TC TC TC TC16''W16''W16''W16''W16''W16''W16''W16''W 16''W16''W sasvcsasvcsa svc WL SVC WL SVC UELUELXSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XSA XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XEL XELsvcsasvcsasvcsasvcsasvcsasvcsasvcsasvcsasvcsasvcsasvcsasvc sasvcsasvc>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>DN GAS sa svc WLSVCWLSVCWLSVCUEL UEL UEL UELUELUELUELUELUEL UELUELUELUELUELUEL UELGASGASGASMONARCH STREET HILL STREETGILBERT STREETCARIBOU CONDOMINIUMS SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE \ TOWNHOMESASV ASPEN STREET OWNER LLC LOT 2, SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION AZTEC CONDOMINIUMS TELEMARK APARTMENTS ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC ASV ASPEN STREET OWNER LLC LOT 2, SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISIONSOUTH POINTCONDOMINIUMSDANCING BEARRESIDENCESASPEN RESIDENCE CLUB AND HOTEL S. ASPEN STREET DOLINSEK LIFE ESTATE MH A-16.1 4' Ø MANHOLE RIM=7929.18' INV IN (SW) 12" PVC= 7919.08' INV IN (E) 8" PVC= 7924.39' INV IN (E) 8" PVC= 7918.93' INV OUT (N) 12" PVC= 7918.58' MH-3 4' Ø MANHOLE RIM =7930.79 INV. IN (S) 12" PVC=7919.93' INV. IN (S) 6" PVC= 7922.99' INV. OUT(N) 12" PVC= 7919.73' MH-4 4' Ø MANHOLE RIM = 7946.62' INV IN (S) 12" PVC= 7938.27' INV OUT (N) 12" PVC= 7938.06' MH A-16.2 SEWER MANHOLE RIM ELEVATION =7937.26' INV. IN (S) 8" CAST IRON = 7931.96' INV. OUT (W) 8"CAST = 7931.71' GORSUCH HAUS DEVELOPMENTDEAN STREETPROPOSED MUSEUM AND SKIER SERVICES LIFT ONE LODGE EAST WING 60' SKIER EASEMENT PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE W/ CLEANOUT. FINAL SIZE T.B.D. IF8" OR GREATER SERVICE WILL NEED TO CONNECT TO A MANHOLE. ABANDON EXISTING TRANSFORMER, METERS AND PEDESTALS PROPOSED GAS METER TO SERVE LODGE; SIZE T.B.D. PROPOSED WATER SERVICE TO SERVE LODGE & STEAKHOUSE. SIZE T.B.D. PROPOSED 7'X7' VAULT &TRANSFORMER PROPOSED 7'X7' VAULT & TRANSFORMER FOR LODGE & STEAK HOUSE; FINAL LOCATION & SIZE TBD PROPOSED FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION PROPOSEDFIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION PROPOSED 4" SEWER SERVICE W/ CLEANOUT APPROX INV AT MAIN: 7928± APPROX. INV AT BUILDING: 7929± PROPOSED WATER SERVICE. SIZE T.B.D. PROPOSED GAS METER EXISTING TRANSFORMER HAS FOUR (4) AVAILABLE WIRE PORTS FOR 3-PHASE SERVICE. IF ADDITIONAL SERVICE LINES ARE REQUIRED THEY MUST BE PULLED FROM A DIFFERENT TRANSFORMER OR NEW TRANSFORMER. PROPOSED 10,000 GAL. (25' X 13') GREASE INTERCEPTOR LIMITS OF PROPOSED BELOW GRADE STRUCTURE EXISTING 12" WATER LINE PROPOSED REALIGNMENT OF 16" WATER LINE. CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE EXISTING 16" WATER MAIN AND EXTEND NEW WATER MAIN AS ILLUSTRATED HEREIN. SET MANHOLE TO INTERCEPT EXISTING TELEPHONE & CABLE FEEDS TO MAINTAIN PRIMARY SERVICE LINES. EXTEND SERVICE TO BUILDING. PROPOSED SERVICE TAP LOCATION FOR MUSEUM; FINAL TAP SIZE TO BE DETERMINED. PROPOSED SKI LIFT PROPOSED ACCESS TO PARKING STRUCTURE (BELOW GRADE) TAP EXISTINGGAS MAIN. SERVICE SIZE T.B.D. ABANDON EXISTINGMETERS AND PEDESTALS ABANDON EXISTING TRANSFORMER, METERS AND PEDESTALS EXISTING ELECTRIC VAULT. EXTEND PRIMARY POWER TO PROPOSED TRANSFORMERS PER HOLY CROSS ENERGY'S SPECIFICATIONS. CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER LINES END 16" WATERLINE ALIGNMENT IN SOUTH SUMMIT STREET RECONNECT EXISTING WATER SERVICE RECONNECT EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT CONNECT TO EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT LINE SET MANHOLE TO INTERCEPT EXISTING TELEPHONE & CABLEFEEDS TO MAINTAIN PRIMARY SERVICE LINES. EXTEND SERVICE TO BUILDING. SET MANHOLE TO INTERCEPT EXISTING TELEPHONE & CABLE FEEDS TO MAINTAIN PRIMARY SERVICE LINES. EXTEND SERVICE TO BUILDING. EXISTING WATER SERVICE TO BE ABANDON PER CITY OF ASPEN WATER STANDARDS. EXISTING WATER SERVICE TO BE ABANDON PER CITY OF ASPEN WATER STANDARDS. EXISTING SEWER SERVICE TO BE ABANDON PER ASCD STANDARDS. ELECTRIC SERVICE TO LOODGE STEAK HOUSE 12.00 20.00 12.00 6.00 CONTRA FLOW BIKE LANE 10.00 EXISTING TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN PROPOSED CURB STOP FOR MUSEUM LIFT ONE LODGE SKI RACKS SHED WILLOUGHBY PARK HISTORIC LIFT JUAN STREETONE WAY2.00 SEPARATION ASPEN MOUNTAIN TOWNHOMES CASCADE TOWNHOMES SILVER SHADOW CONDO GUEST ARRIVAL ENTRY EXISTING ELECTRIC MANHOLE EXISTING DRAINAGE DRY-WELL EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE EXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLE EXISTING UTILITY MANHOLE EXISTING GUY WIRE EXISTING POWER POLE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING WATER VALVE EXISTING CURB STOP EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER EXISTING ELECTRIC METER EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL EXISTING SEWER CLEANOUT EXISTING LIGHT POLE EXISTING SIGN EXISTING LEGEND EXISTING STORM INLET EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL EXISTING STORM SEWERXSDXSDXSDXSD 7900 EXISTING EASEMENT EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING SETBACK (XX')20'STBK EXISTING WIRE FENCExx EXISTING ROCK WALL EXISTING 8" WATER MAINXWLXWL EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN EXISTING ELEC, TELE, CABLE, GASXETCGXETCG EXISTING GAS XETC XETC EXISTING TELEPHONE XGAS XGAS XGAS EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EXISTING CABLE TV LINE EXISTING FIBER OPTIC LINE EXISTING ELEC, TELE, CABLE XUT XUT XUT XEL XEL XEL XTV XTV XTV XFO XFO XFO EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICOELOEL EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPEXIRRXIRR EXISTING SWALE OR DITCH>>>> XSA XSA EXISTING ZONE OF INFLUENCE EXISTING TOP OF SLOPE ZOI ZOI TOS TOS PROPOSED WATER VALVE PROPOSED CURB STOP PROPOSED GAS METER/VALVE PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER PROPOSED ELECTRIC METER PROPOSED TELEPHONE PEDESTAL PROPOSED CATV PEDESTAL PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT PROPOSED LEGEND PROPOSED 8" WATER SERVICE8''WL 8''WL 4''WL 4''WL PROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER SERVICE PROPOSED ELEC, TELE, CABLE, GASETCGETCG PROPOSED GAS ETC ETC PROPOSED TELEPHONE GAS GAS PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC PROPOSED CABLE PROPOSED FIBER OPTIC PROPOSED ELEC, TELE, CABLE TEL TEL UEL UEL UTV UTV FO FO PROPOSED OVERHEAD ELECTRICOELOEL PROPOSED IRRIGATION PIPEIRRIRR 8''SA 8''SA 12'' SA 12'' SA PROPOSED 4" WATER SERVICE PROPOSED 4" SANITARY SEWER SERVICE 2''WL 2''WL PROPOSED 2" WATER SERVICE c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018710 SOUTH ASPEN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 SEAL ISSUE DESCRIPTION - DATE PROJECT NUMBER PD AMENDMENT ARCHITECT GUERIN GLASS ARCHITECTS, P.C.20 JAY STREET, SUITE 1110BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201(212) 358.8380 LIFT ONE LODGE KEYPLAN PLANNER STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES412 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO 81611(970) 925.2323 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS DHM DESIGN311 MAIN STREET, SUITE 102CARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 963.6520 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS KL&A1717 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 100GOLDEN, CO 80401(303) 384.9910 CIVIL ENGINEERS SOPRIS ENGINEERING502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A-3CARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 704.03111 MECHANICAL ENGINEERS BG BUILDING WORKS251 LINDEN STREET, SUITE 200FORT COLLINS, CO 80524(970) 221.5691 OWNER LIFT ONE LODGE ASPEN, LLC605 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2ASPEN, CO 81611(970) 544.4196 DEVELOPERS IRONGATE, LLC10880 WILSHIRE BLVD SUITE 2222LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 01 PD AMENDMENT 09.04.18 HAYMAX CAPITAL, LLC605 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2ASPEN, CO 81611(970) 544-4196 SCALE 1" = 30'G:\2018\18122-LIFT ONE LODGE\CIVIL\PLOT\18122-PLOT SHEETS.DWG - Sep 24, 2018 - 12:02pm1 inch = ft. ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE 030 30 60 30 12015 1.IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR FIELD LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2.THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN PLOTTED BASED ON A SURVEY AND UTILITY COMPANY MAPPING. THESE UTILITIES, AS SHOWN, MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN LOCATES OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 3.ALL UTILITIES, BOTH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD, SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN CONTINUOUS SERVICE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE AND LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO, OR INTERRUPTION OF, SERVICES CAUSED BY THE CONSTRUCTION. 4.THE INSTALLATION OF WATER SERVICES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT STANDARDS. 5.ALL WATER SERVICES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A 7' MINIMUM DEPTH OF COVER EXCEPT AT THE 2-INCH GOOSE NECK WHERE A 6' MIN. COVER IS REQUIRED. IF GRADE CONFLICTS OCCUR WITH EXISTING UTILITIES, THE PROPOSED WATER MAIN GRADE CAN BE VARIED PROVIDED THAT THE MINIMUM DEPTH OF COVER IS MAINTAINED. 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSURE THAT ADEQUATE BACKFLOW PREVENTERS AND AN APPROPRIATE PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE WILL BE INSTALLED ON THE NEW WATER SERVICE CONNECTION TO THE PROPOSED FACILITIES. 7.ALL WATER SERVICES SHALL INCLUDE A CURB STOP OR OTHER ISOLATION VALVE LOCATED TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBILITY. 8.ALL WATER SERVICE CONNECTIONS TO BE PERFORMED BY AN AUTHORIZED CONTRACTOR APPROVED BY THE ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT. 9.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION, SCHEDULING, AND INSTALLATION OF WATER SERVICE, SANITARY SERVICE, ELECTRIC, CABLE TELEVISION, GAS AND TELEPHONE UTILITIES PURSUANT TO SPECIFICATIONS AND UTILITY SERVICE AGREEMENTS WITH THE UTILITY PROVIDERS. 10.ALL SEWER LINE CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE STANDARD UTILITY CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES AND THE APPROVAL CONDITIONS OF THE ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT. 11.SEWER SERVICE CONNECTIONS, TAPS AND/OR ABANDONMENTS TO BE APPROVED AND OBSERVED BY THE ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT PERSONNEL. 12.ALL WATER SERVICES TO BE SIZED TO ACCOMMODATE FIRE SUPPRESSANT SYSTEM. 13.ALL MINIMUM DEPTHS, SEPARATION DISTANCES, MATERIALS AND/OR USE OF CONDUIT SHALL BE CONFIRMED AND COORDINATED WITH THE UTILITY PROVIDER PER UTILITY AGREEMENTS. 14.UTILITY SERVICES MAY BE INSTALLED IN COMBINED TRENCHES PER CONSTRUCTION FEASIBILITY AS LONG AS MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCES AND DEPTHS OF BURY ARE MAINTAINED. INSTALL WARNING TAPE OVER ALL UTILITY LINES. GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: NOTE: THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPTUAL OR ILLUSTRATIVE IN NATURE. PRECISE INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE FINAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT DIFFER, THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT SHALL RULE.G-010.30 18122.0 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN 02 PD SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION 09.17.18 03 PD SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION 09.24.18P121 VI.A. c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018 710 SOUTH ASPEN STREETASPEN, CO 81611SEALISSUE DESCRIPTION - DATEPROJECT NUMBERPD AMENDMENT1803ARCHITECTGUERIN GLASS ARCHITECTS, P.C.20 JAY STREET, SUITE 1110BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201(212) 358.8380SCALELIFTONELODGEKEYPLANPLANNERSTAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES412 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO 81611(970) 925.2323LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSDHM DESIGN311 MAIN STREET, SUITE 102CARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 963.6520STRUCTURAL ENGINEERSKL&A1717 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 100GOLDEN, CO 80401(303) 384.9910CIVIL ENGINEERSSOPRIS ENGINEERING502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A-3CARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 704.03111MECHANICAL ENGINEERSBG BUILDING WORKS251 LINDEN STREET, SUITE 200FORT COLLINS, CO 80524(970) 221.5691OWNERLIFT ONE LODGE ASPEN, LLC605 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2ASPEN, CO 81611(970) 544.4196DEVELOPERHAYMAX CAPITAL, LLC605 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2ASPEN, CO 81611(970) 544-419601 PD AMENDMENT 09.04.1802 SUPPLEMENTAL PD SUBMISSION 09.17.1803 SUPPLEMENTAL PD SUBMISSION 09.24.18DEAN STREETCROSS-SECTIONS1:16NORTHG-010.40P122VI.A. PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREESGRASS SEED MIX, TBDPROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREES LEGENDPROPOSED SHRUBSGREEN ROOFEXISTING TREES TO REMAINPERENNIAL / LOW SHRUB AREASHISTORIC LIFT 1WILLOUGHBYPARKLIFT ONE PARKLIFT ONE LODGELIFT ONE LODGEPROPOSED LIFT ONESKI LIFT; RE: ARCHSTEAKHOUSESKIER'S CHALET /ASPEN HISTORICALSOCIETYMUSEUMS. ASPEN STREETDEAN STREET SNOW STORAGEAREAPER CITY OF ASPENSKIER MAZINGPOOL SHEDSERVICE SHEDPOTENTIAL LOCATIONFOR 45' RADIUS SNOWCATTURNAROUNDIMPROVEMENTS TO DELINSEKPROPERTY PER CITY OF ASPENIN GRAY1. SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR PROPOSED GRADES.2. MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM WALLS, WALKS, BUILDINGS, AND OTHERSTRUCTURES AT ALL TIMES. FINE GRADING SHALL BE APPROVED PRIOR TO SEEDING.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTINGUTILITIES, PAVEMENTS OR STRUCTURES TO REMAIN THAT IS A RESULT OF HIS OR HERWORK AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.4. PROTECT ALL VEGETATION TO REMAIN PER CITY SPECIFICATIONS.5. AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION TO BE PROVIDED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS. COORDINATEALL PIPING, VALVING, AND CONTROL WIRES WITH EXISTING DELIVERY & CONTROLSYSTEM (IF ANY).6. SUBSTITUTION OF PLANT SPECIES WITH SIMILAR HORTICULTURAL CHARACTERISTICSIS ACCEPTABLE PER APPROVAL OF CITY OF ASPEN.7. CITY OF ASPEN PARKS DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR LANDSCAPEIMPROVEMENTS OF WILLOUGHBY PARK; REFER TO ALL PLANTING SHOWN IN GRAY ONTHIS PLAN.NOTES:CHANGES MAY RESULT AS A PART OF FINAL ASPEN FIREPROTECTION DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHALL, CITY OFASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF ASPEN PARKSDEPARTMENT, AND CITY OF ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTREQUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS.c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018 710 SOUTH ASPEN STREETASPEN, CO 81611SEALISSUE DESCRIPTION - DATEPROJECT NUMBERPD AMENDMENT1803ARCHITECTGUERIN GLASS ARCHITECTS, P.C.20 JAY STREET, SUITE 1110BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201(212) 358.8380SCALELIFTONELODGEKEYPLANPLANNERSTAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES412 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO 81611(970) 925.2323LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSDHM DESIGN311 MAIN STREET, SUITE 102CARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 963.6520STRUCTURAL ENGINEERSKL&A1717 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 100GOLDEN, CO 80401(303) 384.9910CIVIL ENGINEERSSOPRIS ENGINEERING502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A-3CARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 704.03111MECHANICAL ENGINEERSBG BUILDING WORKS251 LINDEN STREET, SUITE 200FORT COLLINS, CO 80524(970) 221.5691OWNERLIFT ONE LODGE ASPEN, LLC605 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2ASPEN, CO 81611(970) 544.4196DEVELOPERHAYMAX CAPITAL, LLC605 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2ASPEN, CO 81611(970) 544-419601 PD AMENDMENT 09.04.1802 SUPPLEMENTAL PD SUBMISSION 09.17.1803 SUPPLEMENTAL PD SUBMISSION 09.24.18LANDSCAPEPLAN1:306030150NORTHSCALE: 1"=30'G-010.50DECIDUOUS TREESBOTANICAL NAMECONTMSMALUS X `SPRING SNOW`SPRING SNOW CRAB APPLE2.5" CAL B&BPTPOPULUS TREMULOIDESQUAKING ASPEN2.5" CAL B&BTCTILIA CORDATALITTLELEAF LINDEN2.5" CAL B&BEVERGREEN TREESBOTANICAL NAMECONTPCPICEA PUNGENSCOLORADO SPRUCE8` B&BSHRUBSBOTANICAL NAMESIZECBCORNUS SERICEA `BAILEYI`RED TWIG DOGWOOD5 GALCICORNUS SERICEA `ISANTI`ISANTI REDOSIER DOGWOOD5 GALPSPINUS MUGO `SLOWMOUND`MUGO PINE5 GALPMPOTENTILLA FRUTICOSA `MCKAY`S WHITE`MCKAY`S WHITE BUSH CINQUEFOIL5 GALRWROSA WOODSIIMOUNTAIN ROSE5 GALSOSYMPHORICARPOS OREOPHILUSMOUNTAIN SNOWBERRY5 GALPLANT SCHEDULEP123VI.A. C MONARCH STREET HILL STREETGILBERT STREETCARIBOU CONDOMINIUMS REC. #573339 SHADOW AZTEC CONDOMINIUMS TELEMARK APARTMENTS PN 273513126001 ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC DEAN STREETSOUTH POINTCONDOMINIUMSDANCING BEARRESIDENCESLOT 11LOT 10LOT 9LOT 8LOT 7LOT 6 BLOCK 8 EAMES ADD.LOT 7 LOT 8 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 11 JUAN STREET VACATED TO DOLINSEKBLOCK 8 ALLEY VACATED TO DOLINSEKCITY OF ASPEN REC. #615449 30,570 sq.ft.± 0.702 acres± DOLINSEK LIFE ESTATE CITY OF ASPENREC. #615449 (WITHOUT WARRANTY)2,066 sq.ft.±0.0474 acres±DOLINSEK LIFE ESTATEFOUND #5 REBAR AND 1.25" CAP L.S. #28643 FOUND #5 REBAR AND 1.25" CAP L.S. #28643 FOUND #5 REBAR AND 1.25" CAP L.S. #28643 FOUND #5 REBAR AND 1.25" CAP L.S. #28643 FOUND #5 REBAR AND 1.25" CAP L.S. #28643 FOUND P.K. NAIL AND SHINER L.S. #28643 PROJECT BENCHMARK FOUND P.K. NAIL AND SHINER L.S. #25941 ELEVATION = 7958.96 FOUND #5 REBAR AND 1.25" CAP L.S. #9018 FOUND #5 REBAR AND 1.25" CAP L.S. #28643 FOUND #5 REBAR AND 1.25" CAP L.S. #28643 FOUND #5 REBAR AND 1.25" CAP L.S. #28643 FOUND #5 REBAR AND 1.25" CAP L.S. #28643 FOUND #5 REBAR AND 1.25" CAP L.S. #28643 FOUND P.K. NAIL AND SHINER L.S. #25947 FOUND #5 REBAR AND 1.25" CAP L.S. #28643 FOUND #5 REBAR AND 1.25" CAP L.S. #28643 FOUND #5 REBAR AND 1.25" CAP L.S. #28643 FOUND PK NAIL IN PAVEMENT FOUND #5 REBAR AND 1.25" CAP L.S. #28643 FOUND #5 REBAR AND 1.25" CAP L.S. #9184 S. ASPEN STREET S. ASPEN STREET LOT ONE 33,817 SQ.FT. 0.776 ACRES LOT TWO 12,904 SQ.FT. 0.296 ACRES LOT THREE 31,783 SQ.FT. 0.730 ACRES c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018710 SOUTH ASPEN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 SEAL ISSUE DESCRIPTION - DATE PROJECT NUMBER PD AMENDMENT 1803 ARCHITECT GUERIN GLASS ARCHITECTS, P.C.20 JAY STREET, SUITE 1110BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201(212) 358.8380 SCALE LIFT ONE LODGE KEYPLAN PLANNER STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES412 NORTH MILL STREETASPEN, COLORADO 81611(970) 925.2323 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS DHM DESIGN311 MAIN STREET, SUITE 102CARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 963.6520 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS KL&A1717 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 100GOLDEN, CO 80401(303) 384.9910 CIVIL ENGINEERS SOPRIS ENGINEERING502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A-3CARBONDALE, CO 81623(970) 704.03111 MECHANICAL ENGINEERS BG BUILDING WORKS251 LINDEN STREET, SUITE 200FORT COLLINS, CO 80524(970) 221.5691 OWNER LIFT ONE LODGE ASPEN, LLC605 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2ASPEN, CO 81611(970) 544.4196 DEVELOPER HAYMAX CAPITAL, LLC605 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 2ASPEN, CO 81611(970) 544-4196 01 PD AMENDMENT 09.04.18 02 SUPPLEMENTAL PD SUBMISSION 09.17.18 03 SUPPLEMENTAL PD SUBMISSION 09.24.18 TREE REMOVAL ZONES 1:30 6030150 NORTH SCALE: 1"=30' AREA 2 AREA 1 KEY AREA 1: TREE LOCATIONS IN CONFLICT WITH VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION OF LIFT ONE LODGE AREA 2: TREE LOCATIONS IN AREAS WITHIN PROPOSED SKIWAY OR LIFT ONE LODGE SUBGRADE STRUCTURES G-010.60 AREA 3 AREA 3: TREE LOCATIONS IN AREAS WITHIN DOLINSEK LIFE ESTATE PROPERTYP124 VI.A. 7935794079457945S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET793579407945795079557960S. ASPEN STREET 7935794079457950795579607965797079807975S. ASPEN STREET GILBERT ST.E. DEAN STREET79357940794579507955796079657970797579807985S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET79357930E. DEAN STREET7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET797079907985798079757955796079557960796579707975798079857990799579701/64" = 1'-0"c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018% EXPOSED WALL AREA (EXPOSED/TOTAL) GSF PER FLOOR (SF) FLOOR AREA (SF) WEST BUILDING AND SUBGRADE LOADING LEVEL 4%28,582 1,285 non unit 27,120 1,219 commercial 1,462 66 PARKING LEVEL 1 0%31,296 0 non unit 27,083 0 commercial 4,213 0 MEZZANINE LEVEL 18%12,627 2,325 non unit 5,009 922 commercial 7,618 1,403 LEVEL 1 34%16,406 5,532 non unit 16,161 5,450 commercial 245 83 LEVEL 2 75%21,115 15,876 non unit 8,191 6,159 lodge 12,924 9,717 LEVEL 3 100%21,476 21,476 non unit 2,772 lodge 18,704 LEVEL 4 100%17,683 17,683 non unit 2,661 lodge 15,022 LEVEL 5 100%12,579 12,579 non unit 1,750 lodge 10,829 LEVEL 6 100%4,518 4,518 non unit not counted lodge 4,518 SUBTOTAL 166,282 81,274 EAST BUILDING % EXPOSED WALL AREA (EXPOSED/TOTAL) GSF PER FLOOR (SF) FLOOR AREA (SF) PARKING LEVEL 1 MEZZANINE LEVEL LEVEL 1 34%3,743 1,262 non unit 3,743 LEVEL 2 60%7,572 4,511 non unit 929 affordable housing 842 572 free market 5801 3,939 LEVEL 3 100%7,077 7,077 non unit 930 free market 6147 LEVEL 4 100%6,471 6,471 non unit 930 free market 5541 LEVEL 5 100%3,227 3,227 non unit 667 free market 2560 SUBTOTAL 28,090 22,548 STEAKHOUSE CHALET (commercial) LOADING LEVEL PARKING LEVEL 1 100%1,384 1,384 non unit 166 commercial 1,218 MEZZANINE LEVEL 100%1,328 1,328 non unit 166 commercial 1,162 LEVEL 1 100%1,117 1,117 non unit not counted commercial 1,117 SUBTOTAL 3,829 3,829 TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCUALTIONSTOTAL 198,201 107,651 INCL. IN WEST/SUBGRADE LOADING LEVEL CALCULATIONS INCL. IN WEST/SUBGRADE LOADING LEVEL CALCULATIONS INCL. IN WEST/SUBGRADE LOADING LEVEL CALCULATIONS FLOOR AREA BY % USE BY BUILDING WEST BUILDING AND SUBGRADE % USE BY BUILDING NON UNIT AREA ALLOCATION TOTAL FLOOR AREA BY USE lodge 87% 6,598 78,730 commercial 13%992 2,544 EAST BUILDING affordable housing 4%51 623 free market 96% 1,211 21,925 STEAKHOUSE commercial 100%332 3,829 TOTAL FLOOR AREA BY USE lodge 78,730 free market 21,925 commercial 6,373 affordable housing 623 TOTAL 107,651P125 VI.A. 7935794079457945S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET793579407945795079557960S. ASPEN STREET 7935794079457950795579607965797079807975S. ASPEN STREET GILBERT ST.E. DEAN STREET79357940794579507955796079657970797579807985S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET79357930E. DEAN STREET7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET1/64" = 1'-0"c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018NET Leaseable (SF) West Building Commercial Parking 1 3,791 Mezzanine 7,063 Level 1 221 Steak House Chalet Loading 1,904 Parking 1 1,096 Mezzanine 1,046 Level 1 1,005 TOTALS 16,125P126 VI.A. 7935794079457945S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET793579407945795079557960S. ASPEN STREET 7935794079457950795579607965797079807975S. ASPEN STREET GILBERT ST.E. DEAN STREET79357940794579507955796079657970797579807985S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET79357930E. DEAN STREET7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREET1/64" = 1'-0"c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018NET Livable (SF) West Building Lodge Free Market Affordable Housing Level 2 11,329 Level 3 15,827 Level 4 13,155 Level 5 9,418 Level 6 4,247 East Building Level 2 5,438 791 Level 3 5,778 Level 4 5,209 Level 5 2,406 TOTALS 53,976 18,831 791P127 VI.A. c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 20181:20 INTERPOLATED NATURAL GRADE HAS BEEN DETERMINED BASED OFF OF THE EXISTING AERIAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF 1957, PRE-DEVELOPEMENT, INCLUDED AS G-202.00. THE AERIAL SURVEY IS 5.4 FEET LOWER THAN CONTEMPORARY BENCHMARKS. THE INTERPOLATED GRADE HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO REFLECT CONTEMPORARY BENCHMARK ELEVATIONS.P128VI.A. c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018N.T.S.P129VI.A. DN S. ASPEN STREET c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 20181:20 ALL GROUND SURFACE ACCESSIBLE AISLES WILL BE A MIN OF 36" WIDE (PT.36 APP A A SECTION 4.5 OF THE 210 ADA HANDBOOK) ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS ARE LOCATED CLOSEST TO THE PARKING LOT PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCES ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS AT 96" WIDE MIN. ALL CURB RAMPS TO COMPLY WITH PT.36, APP.A SECTION 4.7 OF THE 2010 ADA HANDBOOK SURFACE OF ALL RAMPS SHALL COMPLY WITH PT.36, APP A SECTION 4.5 OF THE 2010 ADA HANDBOOKP130 VI.A. NTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 8: MEASUREMENTS OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 28, SERIES OF 2011, THE HEIGHTS NOTED AREA MEASURED AS THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE POSSIBLE VERTICALLY FROM THE INTERPOLATED NATURAL GRADE TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF STRUCTURE WITHIN A VERTICAL PLANE. THE INTERPOLATED NATURAL GRADE REPRESENTED IS DOCUMENTED ON SHEET G-201.00 EAST BUILDING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT PER PREVIOUS APPROVAL: 47.50 FEET WEST BUILDING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT PER PREVIOUS APPROVAL: 53.30 FEET c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018P131VI.A. c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018NTSP132VI.A. c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018NTSP133 VI.A. c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018NTSP134VI.A. c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018NTSP135 VI.A. 79357930E. DEAN STREETA-303.00 3 A-303.00 3 A-303.00 4 A-303.00 5 DIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. SOME DRAWING TAGS MAY BE SHOWN ON ENLARGED PLANS ONLY (FOR CLARITY). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, PLANS INDICATE FLOORING ASSEMBLY TYPES ONLY, AND ARE NOT MEANT TO DEPICT SPECIFIC COLORS/FINISHES. PLEASE REFER TO ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE FOR ALL FINISHES. LAYOUT OF THE DESIGN RELIES ON ALIGNMENTS AND HOLD DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO FIELD CONDITION AND TRADE COORDINATION. ALL WORK MUST BE CHAULKED AND LAID OUT BY THE GC PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISCREPANCIES MUST BE RECTIFIED BY THE GC AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SPOT ELEVATIONS: ALL NOTED ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO THE SPOT ELEVATION FOR THAT LEVEL. x AFRE - ABOVE FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION x BFRE - BELOW FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018AS NOTED 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" LOADING LEVEL 10'20'0 40' 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" MUSEUM BASEMENT LEVELP136 VI.A. 793579407945A-301.00 1 A-301.00 2 A-303.00 3 A-303.00 3 A-303.00 4 A-303.00 5 7945A-310.00 1 A-310.00 1 A-310.00 1 A-310.00 2A-310.00 2 S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREETA-303.00 6 DIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. SOME DRAWING TAGS MAY BE SHOWN ON ENLARGED PLANS ONLY (FOR CLARITY). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, PLANS INDICATE FLOORING ASSEMBLY TYPES ONLY, AND ARE NOT MEANT TO DEPICT SPECIFIC COLORS/FINISHES. PLEASE REFER TO ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE FOR ALL FINISHES. LAYOUT OF THE DESIGN RELIES ON ALIGNMENTS AND HOLD DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO FIELD CONDITION AND TRADE COORDINATION. ALL WORK MUST BE CHAULKED AND LAID OUT BY THE GC PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISCREPANCIES MUST BE RECTIFIED BY THE GC AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SPOT ELEVATIONS: ALL NOTED ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO THE SPOT ELEVATION FOR THAT LEVEL. x AFRE - ABOVE FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION x BFRE - BELOW FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018AS NOTED 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" PARKING LEVEL 1 10'20'0 40'P137VI.A. 793579407945795079557960A-305.00 2b A-301.00 1a A-304.00 2a A-302.00 2a A-305.00 1 A-301.00 1b A-304.00 1a A-304.00 1b A-304.00 2b A-305.00 2a A-310.00 1 A-310.00 2 S. ASPEN STREET DIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. SOME DRAWING TAGS MAY BE SHOWN ON ENLARGED PLANS ONLY (FOR CLARITY). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, PLANS INDICATE FLOORING ASSEMBLY TYPES ONLY, AND ARE NOT MEANT TO DEPICT SPECIFIC COLORS/FINISHES. PLEASE REFER TO ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE FOR ALL FINISHES. LAYOUT OF THE DESIGN RELIES ON ALIGNMENTS AND HOLD DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO FIELD CONDITION AND TRADE COORDINATION. ALL WORK MUST BE CHAULKED AND LAID OUT BY THE GC PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISCREPANCIES MUST BE RECTIFIED BY THE GC AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SPOT ELEVATIONS: ALL NOTED ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO THE SPOT ELEVATION FOR THAT LEVEL. x AFRE - ABOVE FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION x BFRE - BELOW FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018AS NOTED 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" MEZZANINE LEVEL 10'20'0 40'P138VI.A. 793579407945795079557960796579707980A-310.00 1 A-310.00 1 A-310.00 2A-310.00 2 A-301.00 2 A-301.00 1 A-302.00 1 A-301.00 1 A-303.00 2b A-303.00 2a A-303.00 1b A-302.00 2 A-303.00 6 A-301.00 2 A-303.00 3 A-303.00 3 A-303.00 4 A-303.00 5 A-303.00 1a 7975S. ASPEN STREET GILBERT ST.E. DEAN STREETDIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. SOME DRAWING TAGS MAY BE SHOWN ON ENLARGED PLANS ONLY (FOR CLARITY). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, PLANS INDICATE FLOORING ASSEMBLY TYPES ONLY, AND ARE NOT MEANT TO DEPICT SPECIFIC COLORS/FINISHES. PLEASE REFER TO ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE FOR ALL FINISHES. LAYOUT OF THE DESIGN RELIES ON ALIGNMENTS AND HOLD DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO FIELD CONDITION AND TRADE COORDINATION. ALL WORK MUST BE CHAULKED AND LAID OUT BY THE GC PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISCREPANCIES MUST BE RECTIFIED BY THE GC AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SPOT ELEVATIONS: ALL NOTED ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO THE SPOT ELEVATION FOR THAT LEVEL. x AFRE - ABOVE FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION x BFRE - BELOW FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018AS NOTED 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" LEVEL 1 10'20'0 40'P139VI.A. 79357940794579507955796079657970797579807985A-310.00 1 A-310.00 1 A-310.00 2A-310.00 2 A-301.00 2 A-301.00 1 A-302.00 1 A-301.00 1 A-303.00 2b A-303.00 2a A-303.00 1b A-302.00 2 A-303.00 6 A-301.00 2 A-303.00 3 A-303.00 3 A-303.00 4 A-303.00 5 A-303.00 1a S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREETDIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. SOME DRAWING TAGS MAY BE SHOWN ON ENLARGED PLANS ONLY (FOR CLARITY). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, PLANS INDICATE FLOORING ASSEMBLY TYPES ONLY, AND ARE NOT MEANT TO DEPICT SPECIFIC COLORS/FINISHES. PLEASE REFER TO ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE FOR ALL FINISHES. LAYOUT OF THE DESIGN RELIES ON ALIGNMENTS AND HOLD DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO FIELD CONDITION AND TRADE COORDINATION. ALL WORK MUST BE CHAULKED AND LAID OUT BY THE GC PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISCREPANCIES MUST BE RECTIFIED BY THE GC AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SPOT ELEVATIONS: ALL NOTED ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO THE SPOT ELEVATION FOR THAT LEVEL. x AFRE - ABOVE FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION x BFRE - BELOW FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018AS NOTED 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" LEVEL 2 10'20'0 40'P140VI.A. 7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995A-310.00 1 A-310.00 1 A-310.00 2A-310.00 2 A-301.00 2 A-301.00 1 A-302.00 1 A-301.00 1 A-303.00 2b A-303.00 2a A-303.00 1b A-302.00 2 A-303.00 6 A-301.00 2 A-303.00 3 A-303.00 3 A-303.00 4 A-303.00 5 A-303.00 1a S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREETDIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. SOME DRAWING TAGS MAY BE SHOWN ON ENLARGED PLANS ONLY (FOR CLARITY). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, PLANS INDICATE FLOORING ASSEMBLY TYPES ONLY, AND ARE NOT MEANT TO DEPICT SPECIFIC COLORS/FINISHES. PLEASE REFER TO ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE FOR ALL FINISHES. LAYOUT OF THE DESIGN RELIES ON ALIGNMENTS AND HOLD DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO FIELD CONDITION AND TRADE COORDINATION. ALL WORK MUST BE CHAULKED AND LAID OUT BY THE GC PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISCREPANCIES MUST BE RECTIFIED BY THE GC AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SPOT ELEVATIONS: ALL NOTED ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO THE SPOT ELEVATION FOR THAT LEVEL. x AFRE - ABOVE FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION x BFRE - BELOW FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018AS NOTED 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" LEVEL 3 10'20'0 40'P141VI.A. 7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995A-310.00 1 A-310.00 1 A-310.00 2A-310.00 2 A-301.00 2 A-301.00 1 A-302.00 1 A-301.00 1 A-303.00 2b A-303.00 2a A-303.00 1b A-302.00 2 A-303.00 6 A-301.00 2 A-303.00 3 A-303.00 3 A-303.00 4 A-303.00 5 A-303.00 1a S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREETDIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. SOME DRAWING TAGS MAY BE SHOWN ON ENLARGED PLANS ONLY (FOR CLARITY). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, PLANS INDICATE FLOORING ASSEMBLY TYPES ONLY, AND ARE NOT MEANT TO DEPICT SPECIFIC COLORS/FINISHES. PLEASE REFER TO ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE FOR ALL FINISHES. LAYOUT OF THE DESIGN RELIES ON ALIGNMENTS AND HOLD DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO FIELD CONDITION AND TRADE COORDINATION. ALL WORK MUST BE CHAULKED AND LAID OUT BY THE GC PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISCREPANCIES MUST BE RECTIFIED BY THE GC AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SPOT ELEVATIONS: ALL NOTED ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO THE SPOT ELEVATION FOR THAT LEVEL. x AFRE - ABOVE FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION x BFRE - BELOW FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018AS NOTED 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" LEVEL 4 10'20'0 40'P142VI.A. 7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995A-310.00 1 A-310.00 1 A-310.00 2A-310.00 2 A-301.00 2 A-301.00 1 A-302.00 1 A-301.00 1 A-303.00 2b A-303.00 2a A-303.00 1b A-302.00 2 A-303.00 6 A-301.00 2 A-303.00 3 A-303.00 3 A-303.00 4 A-303.00 5 A-303.00 1a S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREETDIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. SOME DRAWING TAGS MAY BE SHOWN ON ENLARGED PLANS ONLY (FOR CLARITY). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, PLANS INDICATE FLOORING ASSEMBLY TYPES ONLY, AND ARE NOT MEANT TO DEPICT SPECIFIC COLORS/FINISHES. PLEASE REFER TO ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE FOR ALL FINISHES. LAYOUT OF THE DESIGN RELIES ON ALIGNMENTS AND HOLD DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO FIELD CONDITION AND TRADE COORDINATION. ALL WORK MUST BE CHAULKED AND LAID OUT BY THE GC PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISCREPANCIES MUST BE RECTIFIED BY THE GC AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SPOT ELEVATIONS: ALL NOTED ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO THE SPOT ELEVATION FOR THAT LEVEL. x AFRE - ABOVE FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION x BFRE - BELOW FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018AS NOTED 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" LEVEL 5 10'20'0 40'P143VI.A. 7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995A-310.00 1 A-310.00 1 A-310.00 2A-310.00 2 A-301.00 2 A-301.00 1 A-302.00 1 A-301.00 1 A-303.00 2b A-303.00 2a A-303.00 1b A-302.00 2 A-303.00 6 A-301.00 2 A-303.00 3 A-303.00 3 A-303.00 4 A-303.00 5 A-303.00 1a S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREETDIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. SOME DRAWING TAGS MAY BE SHOWN ON ENLARGED PLANS ONLY (FOR CLARITY). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, PLANS INDICATE FLOORING ASSEMBLY TYPES ONLY, AND ARE NOT MEANT TO DEPICT SPECIFIC COLORS/FINISHES. PLEASE REFER TO ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE FOR ALL FINISHES. LAYOUT OF THE DESIGN RELIES ON ALIGNMENTS AND HOLD DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO FIELD CONDITION AND TRADE COORDINATION. ALL WORK MUST BE CHAULKED AND LAID OUT BY THE GC PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISCREPANCIES MUST BE RECTIFIED BY THE GC AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SPOT ELEVATIONS: ALL NOTED ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO THE SPOT ELEVATION FOR THAT LEVEL. x AFRE - ABOVE FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION x BFRE - BELOW FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018AS NOTED 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" LEVEL 6 10'20'0 40'P144VI.A. 7935794079457950795579607965797079757980798579907995A-310.00 1 A-310.00 1 A-310.00 2A-310.00 2 A-301.00 2 A-301.00 1 A-302.00 1 A-301.00 1 A-303.00 2b A-303.00 2a A-303.00 1b A-302.00 2 A-303.00 6 A-301.00 2 A-303.00 3 A-303.00 3 A-303.00 4 A-303.00 5 A-303.00 1a S. ASPEN STREETE. DEAN STREETDIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. SOME DRAWING TAGS MAY BE SHOWN ON ENLARGED PLANS ONLY (FOR CLARITY). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, PLANS INDICATE FLOORING ASSEMBLY TYPES ONLY, AND ARE NOT MEANT TO DEPICT SPECIFIC COLORS/FINISHES. PLEASE REFER TO ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE FOR ALL FINISHES. LAYOUT OF THE DESIGN RELIES ON ALIGNMENTS AND HOLD DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO FIELD CONDITION AND TRADE COORDINATION. ALL WORK MUST BE CHAULKED AND LAID OUT BY THE GC PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISCREPANCIES MUST BE RECTIFIED BY THE GC AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SPOT ELEVATIONS: ALL NOTED ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO THE SPOT ELEVATION FOR THAT LEVEL. x AFRE - ABOVE FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION x BFRE - BELOW FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018AS NOTED 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" ROOF 10'20'0 40'P145VI.A. DIMENSIONS: DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. SOME DRAWING TAGS MAY BE SHOWN ON ENLARGED PLANS ONLY (FOR CLARITY). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, PLANS INDICATE FLOORING ASSEMBLY TYPES ONLY, AND ARE NOT MEANT TO DEPICT SPECIFIC COLORS/FINISHES. PLEASE REFER TO ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE FOR ALL FINISHES. LAYOUT OF THE DESIGN RELIES ON ALIGNMENTS AND HOLD DIMENSIONS AS WELL AS POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO FIELD CONDITION AND TRADE COORDINATION. ALL WORK MUST BE CHAULKED AND LAID OUT BY THE GC PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISCREPANCIES MUST BE RECTIFIED BY THE GC AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SPOT ELEVATIONS: ALL NOTED ELEVATIONS ARE RELATIVE TO THE SPOT ELEVATION FOR THAT LEVEL. x AFRE - ABOVE FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION x BFRE - BELOW FLOOR REFERENCE ELEVATION c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018AS NOTED 1 SCALE: 1" = 15'-0" LEVEL 3 - TYPICAL UNIT PLAN LODGE 7.5'15'0 30' 2 SCALE: 1" = 15'-0" LEVEL 3 - TYPICAL UNIT PLAN FREE MARKET P146VI.A. c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018AS NOTED 10'20'0 40' 2 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" LODGE - WEST ELEVATION 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" LODGE - EAST ELEVATIONP147 VI.A. c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018AS NOTED 10'20'0 40' 2 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" FREE MARKET - WEST ELEVATION 1 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" FREE MARKET - EAST ELEVATIONP148 VI.A. c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 2018AS NOTED 10'20'0 40' 1a SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" FREE MARKET - SOUTH ELEVATION1bSCALE: 1" = 20'-0" LODGE - SOUTH ELEVATION 2a SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" LODGE - NORTH ELEVATION2bSCALE: 1" = 20'-0" FREE MARKET - NORTH ELEVATION 3 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" MUSEUM - NORTH ELEVATION 4 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" FREE MARKET - WEST ELEVATION 5 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" MUSEUM - EAST ELEVATION 6 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" MUSEUM - SOUTH ELEVATION P149VI.A. LEVEL 1 - 7967.33' LEVEL 4 - 8001.67' LEVEL 3 - 7090.67' LEVEL 2 - 7979.67' PARKING 1- 7942.25' LEVEL 5 - 8012.67' ROOF - 8023.66' LEVEL 4 EL. 8001.67' LEVEL 5 EL. 8012.67' LEVEL 2 EL. 7979.67' LEVEL 3 EL. 7990.67' LEVEL 1 EL. 7967.33' MEZZANINE EL. 7954.25' PARKING LEVEL 1 EL. 7942.25' LOADING EL. 7926.25'PROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINEROOF EL. 8023.66' T.O. FLOOR EL. 7956' T.O.FLOOR EL. 7947' T.O. PLATE EL. 7965' T.O.FLOOR EL. 7921.5' T.O.SIDE WALK EL. 7936.5' T.O.SLAB EL. 7943.75' SKI LIFT BEYOND LEVEL 6 EL. 8025.33' LEVEL 5 EL. 8014.33' LEVEL 4 EL. 8003.33' LEVEL 2 EL. 7981.33' LEVEL 3 EL. 7992.33' LEVEL 1 EL. 7967.33' PARKING LEVEL 1 EL. 7942.25' T.O. ROOF EL. 8036.33' LOADING EL. 7926.25' T.O ROOF (S) EL. 7978.21' LEVEL 2 (S) EL. 7957.13' LEVEL 3 (S) EL. 7966.04' T.O. SLAB EL. 7947.5' MEZZANINE EL. 7954.75'PROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINET.O. SLAB EL. 7926.25' T.O. SLAB EL. 7943.75'c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 20181 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" WEST SECTION: LODGE 2 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" EAST SECTION: FREE MARKET AS NOTED 10'20'0 40'P150VI.A. LEVEL 1 - 7967.33' LEVEL 4 - 8001.67' LEVEL 3 - 7090.67' LEVEL 2 - 7979.67' PARKING 1- 7942.25' LEVEL 5 - 8012.67' ROOF - 8023.66' LEVEL 4 EL. 8001.67' LEVEL 5 EL. 8012.67' LEVEL 2 EL. 7979.67' LEVEL 3 EL. 7990.67' LEVEL 1 EL. 7967.33' MEZZANINE EL. 7954.25' PARKING LEVEL 1 EL. 7942.25' LOADING EL. 7926.25'PROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINEROOF EL. 8023.66' T.O. FLOOR EL. 7956' T.O.FLOOR EL. 7947' T.O. PLATE EL. 7965' T.O.FLOOR EL. 7921.5' T.O.SIDE WALK EL. 7936.5' T.O.SLAB EL. 7943.75' SKI LIFT BEYOND LEVEL 6 EL. 8025.33' LEVEL 5 EL. 8014.33' LEVEL 4 EL. 8003.33' LEVEL 2 EL. 7981.33' LEVEL 3 EL. 7992.33' LEVEL 1 EL. 7967.33' PARKING LEVEL 1 EL. 7942.25' T.O. ROOF EL. 8036.33' LOADING EL. 7926.25' T.O ROOF (S) EL. 7978.21' LEVEL 2 (S) EL. 7957.13' LEVEL 3 (S) EL. 7966.04' T.O. SLAB EL. 7947.5' MEZZANINE EL. 7954.75'PROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINET.O. SLAB EL. 7926.25' T.O. SLAB EL. 7943.75'c Guerin Glass Architects, P.C. 20181 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" WEST SECTION: LODGE 2 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" EAST SECTION: FREE MARKET AS NOTED 10'20'0 40'P151VI.A. RECEPTION #: 585785, 01/10/2012 at ORDINANCE N0.28 09:46:33 AM, SERIES OF 2011) 1 OF 37, R $191.00 Doc Code ORDINANCE Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, REZONING APPROVAL, FINAL TIMESHARE APPROVAL, GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPROVALS, APPROVAL OF RIGHT -OF -WAY VACATIONS, APPROVAL OF ASSOCIATED LAND USE REVIEWS, AND AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LIFT ONE LODGE SUBDIVISION/PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 233 GILBERT STREET, 710 SOUTH ASPEN STREET, 720 SOUTH ASPEN STREET, WILLOUGHBY PARK AND LIFT ONE PARK, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2735- 131 - 168 -51, 2735 -131- 210 -01, 2735 -131- 210 -02, 2735 -131- 198 -51, 2735 - 131 - 190 -01 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD (the Application) from Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge — Aspen, LLC (Applicant), represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, and with consent from the City of Aspen and the Historical Society of Aspen, for the following land use review approvals: Final Planned Unit Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445. Final Timeshare, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.590. Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.480. Amendment to the Zone District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310. Growth Management Review — Replacement of Existing Commercial and Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. Growth Management Review — Replacement of Demolished Multi - Family Units, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. Growth Management Review — Incentive Lodge Development, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. Growth Management Review — Essential Public Facility, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. Growth Management Review — Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470. Special Review for Average Lodge Unit Size: An application for Special Review to consider the average lodge unit size, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.430. Conditional Use for Restaurant and Bar, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.425. Conditional Use for Dormitory Units, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.425. Mountain View Plane Review, pursuant to Section 26.435.050. Condominiumization, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.090. Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 1 of 37P152 VI.A. Commercial Design Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412. Right -of -Way Vacations, pursuant to C.R.S. 43 -2 -303 for certain streets, easements, and alleyways within the project site. Extended Vested Rights, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.308, for a 10 -year period. and, WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application — November 24, 2006, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the subject Properties are commonly known as Willoughby Park, Lift One Park, 233 Gilbert Street, 710 South Aspen Street, and 720 South Aspen Street, City of Aspen, Colorado, and as more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto; and, WHEREAS, the Application for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD proposes: On Lot 1— Lift One Lodge: A multi -story structure consisting of 22 timeshare lodging units divided into one - eighth 1 /8) interests with a total of 176 owner interests. With "lock -off" capability, the 22 units represent a total of 84 keys. 5 free - market residential units. A sub -grade parking garage with no more than 155 parking spaces, 50 of which dedicated for public use as replacement of lost parking on South Aspen Street and the current Willoughby Park surface parking. 105 spaces are for lodge, commercial, residential, dormitory, and other uses associated with the lodge. Subgrade utility infrastructure including a ground- source heat system. A public restaurant and apres ski area. Fitness facilities. Lodge guest facilities. Public access and ski easements. Ski area operations On Lot 2 — Skiers Chalet Steakhouse: A relocated and rehabilitated Skier Chalet Steakhouse building containing housing for 16 employees in 8 dormitory -style units. Subgrade utility infrastructure including a ground- source heat system. On Lot 3 — Lift One Park: A public park. One lift tower of the historic Lift One apparatus. Underground parking (part of the subsurface parking garage on Lot 1) Subgrade foundations and structural support systems, and utility infrastructure including a ground- source heat system. Public access and ski easements. Ski area operations Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 2 of 37P153 VI.A. j On Lot 4 — Willoughby Park: A public park. A relocated and rehabilitated Skier Chalet Lodge and pool house buildings containing Historical Society Museum. The historic Lift One terminal and wheelhouse. A skier drop off area. Underground utility systems, inclusive of a ground- source heat system Public access and easements Ski area operations and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development, and Section 26.590, Timeshare Development, a Conceptual approval must be granted by the Aspen City Council Prior to Final Review and was granted by the Aspen City Council via Resolution No. 52, Series of 2009; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.415.070.D., Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development, of the Land Use Code, Final approval may be granted by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) at a duly noticed public hearing and was granted for the review of Willoughby Park, Lift 1 Park, and Skier's Chalet Steakhouse by the HPC on November 10, 2006, via Resolution No 14, Series of 2010, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire Protection District, Environmental Health Department, Parks Department, Parking Department , Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Public Works Department, and the Transportation Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; andppand, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, of the Land Use Code, a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is required and a recommendation for approval by the board was provided at their March 2, 2011, regular meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Final PUD and Final Timeshare and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Final PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.310 of the Land Use Code, an amendment to the Official Zone District Map (Rezoning) may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 3 of 37P154 VI.A. WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.590 of the Land Use Code, Final Timeshare approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and Section 26.304.060.B.4, Modification of Review Procedures, all other necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of review, was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Application during multiple public hearings in which the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission ; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on June 7, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing, considered the Application, received presentation from the Applicant including information in Power Point and physical model forms, considered the comments and recommendations of the Community Development Director, considered comments and recommendations of other members of City staff, considered comments and suggestions offered by members of the public, considered questions and responses by staff or the Applicant, considered comments and discussion by Commission members, and continued the public hearing to June 14, 2011, June 21, 2011, July 5, 2011, July 19, 2011, August 2, 2011, August 2, 2011, and August 23, 2011 at which hearings additional presentations, recommendations, information, questions and answers, public comments and suggestions, and Commission discussion occurred; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on August 23, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Application, found the Project meeting or exceeding all applicable development review standards, and recommended City Council approve the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD Application and all necessary land use reviews, as identified herein, by a four to three (4 -3) vote, with the recommended conditions of approval listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the streets, alleyways and easements to be vacated by this Ordinance, as identified in Section 1.2, which are adjacent to land owned by the Applicant, are not owned in fee by the City, are no longer necessary for any public purpose and, as of this determination, will no longer be in use for public purposes. Furthermore, the Aspen City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to vacate the streets, alleyways and easements identified in Section 1.2 in furtherance of the public benefits associated with the development proposal approved hereby, including the private land areas to be dedicated or devoted to public purposes and community benefits. This Ordinance constitutes a vacation ordinance as described and required by the provisions of C.R.S. 43- 2- 303(1)(a). The vacations shall be effective upon recordation of the plat as described in Section 1.2; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, opened a duly Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 4 of 37P155 VI.A. noticed public hearing, considered the Application, received presentation from the Applicant including information in Power Point and physical model forms, considered the comments and recommendations of the Community Development Director, considered comments and recommendations from other members of City staff and referral agencies, considered comments and recommendations of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, considered comments and suggestions offered by members of the public, considered question responses by staff and the Applicant, considered comments and discussion by fellow Council members; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceedsptYPpp all applicable development standards of all applicable land use reviews, as identified herein, with conditions, and that the approval is consistent with the goals and elements of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, as follows: The Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD Final Planned Unit Development is hereby granted all necessary land use approvals including Subdivision approval, Rezoning approval, Final Timeshare approval, Growth Management approvals, approval of all associated land use reviews cited herein. The vacation of the streets, alleyways and easements as described in Section 1.2 pursuant to C.R.S. 43- 2- 302(1)(a) is hereby approved and a Development Order for a Site Specific Development Plan for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD, subject to conditions of approval listed herein is hereby issued. Section 1: Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD Plat, Street Alleyway and Easement Vacation Plat, & Final PUD Plans Within one year following the date of final approval by the City Council, the record owners of the underlying lands shall prepare and submit a Subdivision Plat, Street Alleyway and Easement Vacation Plat, and Final 'PUD Plans for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD to be reviewed to ensure each item and condition of approval is documented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, and the City Attorney prior to final signatures by the Mayor and recordation. 1.1 A Subdivision Plat that subdivides the land into the following parcels, as depicted on the Proposed Subdivision Map, attached as Exhibit B. Lift One Subdivision/PUD Lot 1: Lift One Lodge Lift One Subdivision/PUD Lot 2: Skiers Chalet Steak House Lift One Subdivision/PUD Lot 3: Lift One Park Lift One Subdivision/PUD Lot 4: Willoughby Park & Ski Museum The Subdivision Plat shall grant certain perpetual easements as follows: a. A easement to the Aspen Skiing Company, the City of Aspen, and the Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge — Aspen, LLC, or successors and assigns, through Lots 1, 3, and 4 for purposes of constructing, operating, and maintaining a surface lift and other associated improvements necessary for uploading skiers from Willoughby Park to a point south of Lot 1 such that a skier could access Lift lA or a relocated Lift 1A. Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 5 of 37P156 VI.A. 1 b. An easement granted to the Aspen Skiing Company, the City of Aspen, and the Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge — Aspen, LLC, or successors and assigns, through Lots 1, 3, and 4 for purposes of constructing, operating, and maintaining a skiing corridor and associated improvements and operations necessary for skiing, including creating and maintaining acceptable snow surface conditions for skiing. c. A perpetual public pedestrian access easement through the center portion of Lot 1 proximate to the auto court and through the southerly portion of Lot 2 allowing access to and from South Aspen Street, Lift One Park, and Willoughby Park. d. A perpetual public recreation, access, and maintenance easement through Lots 1, 3, and 4, including those sections of former Gilbert and Hill Street public rights -of -way directly north and south of Lift One Park, allowing continuous access from Willoughby Park through Lift One Park and through the portion of Lot 1 directly south of Lift One Park. e. A perpetual subsurface easement beneath Lot 3, Lift One Park, and a portion of the Gilbert Street right -of -way for the use and benefit of the Lift One Lodge Project for purposes of constructing, accessing, operating, using, and maintaining a below grade parking garage and other lodge facilities, foundations and structural support systems, and utility infrastructure including a ground source heat system. f. A perpetual subsurface easement beneath Lots 1 and 3 for the use and benefit of the general public for purposes of accessing and using portions of the parking garage allocated for public use and subject to reasonable restrictions, limitations, and usage fees as outlined in the Lift One Lodge Parking Garage Operations Plan, as may be amended from time to time. g. A six -foot wide "no- build" and maintenance easement on the surface of the property along the east and west property boundaries of Lot 3 and along the western property boundary of Lot 4 for the purposes of accommodating sufficient fire protection and fire code compliance for the proposed improvements on Lot 1 and Lot 2 and to accommodate the periodic maintenance of same. h. A perpetual snow storage easement along the western edge of Lots 1, 2, and 4 for the purposes of accommodating snow storage from street plowing. The easement is only needed in locations where the planting buffer between the street curb and the sidewalk is located on private property. 1.2 A Street, Alleyway and Easement Vacation/Dedication Plat that accomplishes the following changes to public rights -of -way as depicted on the Proposed Street Vacation/Dedication Map, attached as Exhibit C: a. Vacation of the eastern 37.5 feet of South Aspen Street from the centerline of the Hill Street right -of -way north to the southern edge of the Deane Street right -of -way. b. Dedication to public right -of -way an area within the northwest portion of Lot 4, Willoughby Park, associated with the proposed turn- around and drop -off area at the corner of South Aspen and Deane Street. The final design and exact dimensions of this dedication shall be as depicted and described in the Subdivision Plat. c. Vacation of the northern 25 feet of Hill Street east of the South Aspen Street right -of- way to the eastern boundary of the Eames Addition. That portion of vacated Hill Street Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 6 of 37P157 VI.A. 3r abutting proposed Lot 3 shall be conveyed by the City of Aspen to the Applicant to be incorporated into proposed Lot 1. d. Vacation of the remaining dedicated portions of the alleyway of Block 9, Eames Addition. e. Vacation of a Utility and Alleyway Easement encumbering the eastern 10 feet of Lot 2 Block 9, Eames Addition, recorded at Book 203, Page 375. f. Vacation or extinguishment of an easement for skiing purposes assigned to the City of Aspen in connection with the conveyance of Lift One Park which affects Parcel B g. Vacation of Gilbert Street from the eastern edge of the South Aspen Street right -of -way east to a line extending south from the boundary between Lots 11 and 12 of Block 8 and connecting to the boundary between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 9, Eames Addition. h. Vacation of Juan Street east of the South Aspen Street right -of -way to the eastern boundary of the Eames Addition. i. Vacation of the alleyway of Block 8, Eames Addition. That portion of the vacated alleyway abutting proposed Lot 1 shall be conveyed by the Applicant to the City to be incorporated into proposed Lot 4. j. Vacation of the alleyway of Block 7, Eames Addition. k. Vacation or extinguishment of an easement for skiing purposes assigned to the City by the Aspen Skiing Company in connection with the conveyance of Lift One Park which affects a portion of Parcel B (part of proposed Lot 1). 1.3 A Final PUD Development Plan Set that includes: a. An illustrative site plan showing the layout of planned improvements as depicted in attached Exhibit D. b. An architectural character plan showing the massing, fenestration, and materials of each building as generally depicted in attached Exhibit E. c. Dimensioned drawings of all buildings proposed within the project showing dimensions for all zoning parameters in graphic and tabular format. Project dimensions approved for the project are as described in Exhibit F. Heights of building shall be in substantial conformance with those depicted in attached Exhibit G. d. An exterior lighting plan meeting the City's outdoor lighting limitations. e. Illustrative plans for the reconstruction of South Aspen Street and for that section of Deane Street right -of -way between the South Aspen Street and South Monarch Street. The Plan shall be coordinated with the City of Aspen Community Development, Parks, and Engineering Departments. All of the $250,000 allocated to Deane Street improvements by Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2005 (the Chart House contribution) shall be allocated by the City for the design and implementation of these improvements. The skier drop off area planned for the intersection of Deane and South Aspen Streets shall be Option 2 of Exhibit 4 of the civil plan supplemental to the application submitted May 5, 2011, prepared by SGM Engineering and attached hereto as Exhibit H. The design for South Aspen Street north of Deane Street shall be Option 2 of Exhibit 2 of the civil plan supplemental to the application submitted May 5, 2011, prepared by SGM Engineering and attached hereto as Exhibit H. Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 7 of 37P158 VI.A. f. A Master Utility Plan including profiles and sections acceptable to the City Engineer and the City of Aspen Utilities Department. Some modification of the proposed location of dry utilities may be necessary to avoid over digging of adjacent properties and to avoid access lids within sidewalks. g. A Drainage Plan and report that complies with the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan. Pursuant to review by the City Engineer, the initial drainage concept appears to comply. In addition to site drainage, the project will have to address street drainage. The project proposes to change the hydraulics and capacity of Aspen Street's drainage system. Therefore, the project will be required to install curb, gutter and other drainage control features (such as inlets and piping) on both sides of the street. Also see infrastructure investment recapture provisions of sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.) Because the enhanced sanding method for maintaining Aspen street in winter months will have negative impacts on street runoff water quality, the City Engineer will require additional water quality mitigation efforts that comply with the Urban Runoff Management Plan. The project will need to provide plans for water quality treatment of Aspen Street runoff. The proposed island off of Deane Street and the bulb outs on South Aspen Street may be potential locations for water quality improvements as determined acceptable by the City Engineer and City of Aspen Parks Department. h. An Interpolated Natural Grade Plan. i. A Tree Removal and Mitigation Plan. j. A Landscape Plan for each of the four lots. The landscape plans should be reviewed and approved by The Parks Department with a required signature on the Landscape sheets. To the extent practical, planting strips within the right -of -way should provide 5 feet or more in width between the back of curb and the edge of the sidewalk. Planting strips should be designed with 4 feet of good quality topsoil and growing media. The Applicant will be required to use structural soils where a non - compacted continuous root zone cannot be provided. These soils will be required within the City rights -of -way and/or as may be required on the private property. Structural Soils are applicable in situations where tree rooting potential is insufficient in designated planter areas adjacent to sidewalks. Spacing and type of tree must be coordinated with the Parks Department. Sidewalks shall be designed and built in a manner that reduces the impact to existing trees and roots systems. All sidewalks located within the drip line of trees to be saved shall be built on grade in a manner that allows for the sub -grade prep and sidewalk to float over the roots preventing any excavation into the soil. All work in protection zones is to be accomplished by handwork only, without machines. Plantings within the City right-of- way must be approved by the City Parks Department. All plantings along the edge of private property and the City ROW should be of size and species which will not require major maintenance, pruning, or trimming due to over growth. Tree lighting electrical conduits must comply with City of Aspen standards; The landscape plans shall include provision of irrigation connections that provide adequate pressure and coverage, for landscaped areas of the right -of -way and the two public parks. The City shall be provided adequate access to maintain and control irrigation of the two public parks. The Development Agreement shall address Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page8of37P159 VI.A. maintenance, control, and responsibilities for the irrigation for these two parks to the satisfaction of the Parks Department. k. A plan for a stub and manifold for an additional zone of the sidewalk snowmelt system to accommodate a future snowmelt system for that section of South Aspen Street between Durant Street and Deane Street acceptable to the City Engineer. Section 2: Rezoning Contemporaneously with and effective upon the recording of the Subdivision and Street Vacation Plats the Lots within this Subdivision, as described above and reflected in the Subdivision Plat, shall be zoned as follows: Lot 1: Lodge, Planned Unit Development (L -PUD) Lot 2: Lodge, Planned Unit Development, Historic (L- PUD -H) Lot 3: Public, Planned Unit Development, Historic (P- PUD -H) Lot 4: Public, Planned Unit Development, Historic (P- PUD -H) Section 3: Development Agreement Contemporaneously with the recording of the Subdivision and Street Vacation Plats, the record owners of the lands within the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD shall prepare, execute and record a Development Agreement meeting the requirements of Section 26.445.070.0 to be reviewed to ensure each item and condition of approval is documented to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, and the City Attorney prior to final signatures by the Mayor and recordation. The Development Agreement shall set forth a description of the proposed improvements and obligations of the parties, including the following: 3.1 The reconstruction of South Aspen Street, Deane Street., and associated sidewalks, curbing and drainage improvements as depicted in the Final PUD Plans. The Development Agreement shall include a provision that the City shall require that in the event property owners adjacent to improved portions of South Aspen Street seek improvements to their property such property owners shall be responsible for their prorata share of the cost of the improvements associated with this section and such costs shall be reimbursed to the Applicant prior to the adjacent property owner receiving their building permit. The prorata share shall be further defined in the Development Agreement but generally will be based upon linear feet of frontage along South Aspen Street as compared to the total amount of property frontage along South Aspen Street. The City of Aspen as owner of property along South Aspen Street shall not be subject to this reimbursement as their prorata share shall be borne by the Applicant. The reconstruction shall include implementation of the initial infrastructure needed to add a snowmelt system for South Aspen Street between Durant Street and Deane Street consisting of a stub and manifold within the sidewalk snowmelt system allowing for a future zone to be added at the discretion of the City. 3.2 The installation and/or relocation of all utilities depicted and described in the Master Utility Plan of the Final PUD Plans. The Development Agreement shall include a provision that the City shall . require that in the event property owners adjacent to improved portions of South Aspen Street seek improvements to their property such property owners shall be responsible Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page9of37P160 VI.A. 1' for their prorata share of the cost of the improvements associated with this section and such costs shall be reimbursed to the Applicant prior to the adjacent property owner receiving their building permit. The prorata share shall be further defined in the Development Agreement but generally will be based upon linear feet of frontage along South Aspen Street as compared to the total amount of property frontage along South Aspen Street. The City of Aspen as owner of property along South Aspen Street shall not be subject to this reimbursement as their prorata share shall be borne by the Applicant. 3.3 The installation of all drainage facilities depicted and described on the Drainage Plan of the Final PUD Plans. The Development Agreement shall include a provision that the City shall require that in the event property owners adjacent to improved portions of. South Aspen Street seek improvements to their property such property owners shall be responsible for their prorata share of the cost of the improvements associated with this section and such costs shall be reimbursed to the Applicant prior to the adjacent property owner receiving their building permit. The prorata share shall be further defined in the Development Agreement but generally will be based upon linear feet of frontage along South Aspen Street as compared to the total amount of property frontage along South Aspen Street. The City of Aspen as owner of property along South Aspen Street shall not be subject to this reimbursement as their prorata share shall be borne by the Applicant. 3.4 Identification of all public improvements to be subject to Section 3.15 Financial Assurance and Performance Bond. This shall include provision of $62,000 for purchase and outfitting a sanding truck for the City of Aspen dedicated for South Aspen Street winter maintenance and a lump sum payment of $20,000 for the annual provision of special sanding material. 3.5 An agreement to provide a public locker facility. The facility shall have a mix of 40 day lockers, 50 seasonal lockers and 40 shoe cubbies all in no less than 900 square feet with direct access to the ski corridor as represented in the Final PUD Application. The seasonal lockers shall be made available to the general public free of charge on a seasonal basis via a valley -wide lottery and daily lockers and cubbies on a first come, first served basis. The seasonal locker rental agreements shall prohibit assignment and subrental. 3.6 An agreement to provide a dedicated maintenance /storage facility of up to 290 square feet within the parking garage for the use by the City of Aspen Parks Department for the storage of maintenance vehicles used for maintenance of parks facilities located within the central area of Aspen. 3.7 A Modified Historical Society Ski Museum Lease Agreement between the Historical Society and the City of Aspen is contemplated, with approval from the City Attorney's Office and the Parks Department. The lease agreement will be modified to include an operations plan clearly indentifying and describing the leased areas within Willoughby Park and general . operating characteristics of the museum including typical operation, special events, outdoor uses, outdoor displays /exhibits, permitting responsibilities, and maintenance responsibilities of the grounds. The operations plan shall describe public access to the museum, and limits thereto, and provide flexibility for insignificant changes from time to time. The operations plan shall recognize and permit public access to all exterior areas of Willoughby Park, excluding exterior areas restricted for safety, security, or similar considerations, and shall permit pedestrian and skiing access in and through these exterior areas. The operations plan shall specify expectations and responsibilities regarding Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 10 of 37P161 VI.A. maintenance of improvements and the grounds, including irrigation, and shall include enforcement provisions and remedies. The operations plan shall permit occasional changes to the operating characteristics of the property and the responsibilities of the parties by approval of the City Manager and the Historical Society Director. If the Manager and thePPtYgYg Director cannot agree, the changes shall be forwarded to the Aspen City Council for resolution. Failure to agree on an operations plan shall not unreasonably restrict the Applicant from proceeding with fmalizing other required documents or proceeding with other aspects of the development plans. If necessary, this provision may be amended to be finalized prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on the museum building located in Willoughby Park. 3.8 A Skiing & Snow Surface Conditioning and Maintenance Agreement between the Applicant and the City of Aspen to regularly groom and maintain the snow conditions in the surface lift corridor from Willoughby Park to the Lift 1A terminal. The agreement shall allow a third party operator to provide this service. This agreement may include operational provisions and usage limitations for safety and functional reasons. This agreement shall not prohibit the making, moving, spreading, and grooming of this area and preparing of an artificial snow base in the ski and surface lift corridor in accord with typical annual snowmaking, terrain opening logistics, and mountain operations. 3.9 A final Transportation Management Plan, approved by the Transportation Director. The conceptual plan is acceptable, as outlined in the April 2011, TDA Traffic Analysis in theppPpY TDM section on pages 22 and 23. The following changes are required: a. Provision of a Lift One Lodge Garage Operations Plan for the 50 public parking spaces including pricing, entry /exit technology, residential permit distribution and monitoring, carpool parking distribution and monitoring, enforcement and special event usage. Staff 11 requests the designated parking spaces for carshare and carpool uses be combined to a pool of 11 TDM- related parking spaces that can be utilized for either use as determined appropriate by the City Parking Director every two years during the first 10 years. For example these spaces could become 3 carshare spaces and eight carpool spaces or whichever combination is deemed appropriate at that time. b. A reporting requirement every two years for the first 10 years to include garage usage trends and TDM program participation. At each two -year cycle, elements of the Plan may be changed as needed and as acceptable to the City Transportation Director and the Applicant. 3.10 Timeshare and Transfer Disclosure Documents. An agreement to incorporate the requirements and restrictions of the City's Timeshare Regulations into the final timeshare instruments, including State requirements, provisions for reserve funds for ongoing maintenance, prohibited practices and uses, limits on marketing techniques, a prohibition against long -term storage of owner vehicles, and prohibitions on offering non -Aspen gifts within a marketing plan. Real estate transfer documents shall include disclosure of the future construction, operation, and maintenance of a surface lift uploading skiers from Willoughby Park to a point south of Lot 1 through the easement described in Section 1.1.a, above, and in the recorded Subdivision Plat. Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 11 of 37P162 VI.A. p Real estate transfer documents shall include disclosure of the future construction, operation, and maintenance of a skiing corridor and associated improvements and operations necessary for skiing, including creating and maintaining acceptable snow surface conditions for skiing through the easement described in Section 1.1.b, above, and in the recorded Subdivision Plat. Real estate transfer documents shall include disclosure of the public rental requirement for time spans not utilized by owners as cited below in section 3.12 and as included in the Condominium Declaration. 3.11 Occupancy report. After the third and fifth years of lodge operation the Applicant shall be required to provide an occupancy report. The report shall include occupancy rates by month, season, and year and by type of occupant (i.e. owner or general public). This report shall be submitted to the Community Development Director and shall be made available to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. 3.12 A public rental requirement assuring that unused lodge rooms will be available to the general public at market rates so as to encourage their rental. Such rental requirement shall be documented in the Lift One Lodge Condominium Declaration and shall contain a provision that this requirement cannot be eliminated from the Condominium Declaration without approval from the City of Aspen City Council. 3.13 A plan for dormitory operations, including the following: a. A statement by the Applicant that the deed restriction and subsequent rental rate restrictions are being provided voluntarily by the Applicant. b. The template lease for the on -site dormitory units must be reviewed by APCHA along with the initial rental amount as it is not stated in the Guidelines. Once the rental amount is set and stated in the recorded deed restriction, the rent may increase annually by the lesser of 3% or the Consumer Price Index, as such index is stated in the APCHA Guidelines. c. The dormitory units, must be rented to qualified employees within Pitkin County and must be qualified through APCHA prior to occupancy. If the owner is unable to fill the units with employees of the development, then the units shall be leased to other qualified employees. The owner must provide signed leases to APCHA within five days of both parties' signatures. The leases shall be for at least a six -month period of time. d. The owner /operator of the dormitory units must provide and maintain the following amenities for use by the tenants: a common laundry facility in the basement area; eight reserved parking spaces within the Lift One Lodge parking garage; sixteen storage units one for each resident) in the basement area; a fully functional kitchen and common area. e. The ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the dormitory units. f. Paid memberships to the car -to -go program for dormitory residents for the first 5 years of operation of Lift One Lodge. 3.14 An Employee Generation Audit and Reconciliation. The Applicant shall agree to submit an employee generation audit two years after operations have commenced and reconcile any difference in actual additional employees and mitigated employees. The agreement shall require mitigation of additional employees be provided through the provision of housing units within the Urban Growth Boundary including "buy- downs ", the provision of cash -in- Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 12 of 37P163 VI.A. lieu at the rate" applicable on the date of payment, the provision of employee mitigation credits for extinguishment, or a combination thereof. The Applicant shall agree that the City may revoke the Certificate of Occupancy for Lift One Lodge as a remedy if after proper notice and remedy to cure the Applicant fails to provide required additional mitigation within a reasonable timeframe or other such remedies as identified in the Development Agreement. Credit for actual additional employees being less than mitigated shall be reconciled by City issuance of employee mitigation credits in the amount of overage. 3.15 Financial Assurances & Performance Bond. The Development Agreement shall include the Applicant's commitment and agreement that before a Building Permit is issued for the Lift One Lodge on Lot #1, the Applicant shall provide to the Community Development Director and the City Attorney for review and approval satisfactory evidence that the Applicant has in place sufficient financing to accomplish and complete the construction of the development, including all public improvements required under the Development Agreement and covered by the Building Permit. Such financing may include, without limitation, a construction loan from an institutional lender or lenders and equity capital investments from the Applicant and/or third party investors. Supporting cost estimates for all improvements covered by the requested Building Permit shall be prepared by the Applicant's General Contractor. The Applicant shall further commit and agree that before a Building Permit is issued for the Lift One Lodge on Lot 1, the Applicant shall provide to the Community Development Director and the City Attorney for review a copy of a Performance and Payment Bond issued or committed to be issued to the Applicant's General Contractor by an institutional surety company. The Performance and Payment Bond shall name the Applicant as the beneficiary or insured thereunder to grant them a direct right of action under the Performance and Payment Bond in order to construct or finish public improvements, and to complete the construction of the improvements covered by the Bond. Separately, the Applicant shall provide the City of Aspen with an assignment of its rights under the Performance and Payment Bond. 3.16 Site Protection Fund. The Development Agreement shall include the Applicant's commitment and agreement that before a Building Permit is issued for the Lift One Lodge on Lot 1, the Applicant will deposit with a title company ( "Escrow Agent ") the sum of $100,000 in the form of cash or wired funds (the "Escrow Funds ") and will execute an Escrow Agreement and Instructions with the Escrow Agent which recites and agrees as follows: In the event construction work on Lift One Lodge on Lot #1 shall cease for sixty (60) days or longer (`work stoppage') without a cure of such work stoppage after fifteen days (15) days notice by the City and such work stoppage not being a result of any event of force majeure, prior to a final inspection by the City of the work authorized by the Foundation/Structural Frame Permit on the Project, then the City in its discretion may draw upon the Escrow Funds from time to time as needed for purposes of protecting and securing the Project site and improvements from damage by the elements and/or from trespass by unauthorized persons, and for purposes of improving the Project site to a safe condition such that it does not become an attractive nuisance or otherwise pose a threat to neighbors or other persons. The Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 13 of 37P164 VI.A. Escrow Funds or any remaining balance thereof shall be returned to the Applicant upon completion by the City of a final inspection of the work authorized by the Foundation/Structural Frame Permit on the Project. The City shall be a named third party beneficiary of the Escrow Agreement with the express right and authority to enforce the same from time to time. 3.17 Cross - References. The Development Agreement shall include cross - references to recorded plats, easements, agreements, and PUD plan sets as described herein. 3.18 Tramway Variance. Documentation of the State Tramway Board variance provided for the surface lift. Section 4: Growth Management and Affordable Housing Obligations 4.1 Reconstruction Credits. City Council Resolution No. 52, Series 2009 confirmed the following reconstruction credits have been verified by the City of Aspen and shall be credited towards the Growth Management Quota System allotment and affordable housing requirements of the Lift One Lodge Project. a. A total of 38 lodging reconstruction credits consisting of 20 lodge units in the former Holland House Lodge; 10 lodge units in the former Skiers Chalet Lodge; and 8 lodge units in the former Skiers Chalet Steak House are credited towards the Lift One Lodge Project's lodging GMQS allotment request. The 38 reconstruction credits equate to 76 lodging pillows for allotment purposes. b. One free market residential reconstruction credit from the former Holland House Lodge is credited towards the Lift One Lodge Project's free market residential GMQS allotment request. c. A commercial reconstruction credit of 2,429 square feet of net leasable area from the Skiers Chalet Steak House is credited towards the Lift One Lodge Project's commercial GMQS allotment request. 4.2 Growth Management Allotments. The following growth management allotments are granted to the Lift One Lodge Project: a. 46 lodging bedrooms = 92 lodging pillows. Added to the reconstruction credits, the project represents 84 lodging bedrooms or 168 pillows. b. 4 free market residential allotments. Together with the reconstruction credits, the project contains 5 free - market residences. c. 2,834 square feet of net leasable commercial space. Added to the reconstruction credit of 2,429 square feet, the project contains approximately 5,263 square feet of commercial net leasable space. The project's commercial net leasable area is preliminary in nature and based on an assumed ratio of net leasable to gross square footage of 85 percent. Minor adjustments to the final net leasable figure may occur. d. 8 units of affordable housing situated in a dormitory -style building on Lot 2 and housing 16 employees. The building contains approximately 3,184 square feet of floor area plus additional basement space. Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 14 of 37P165 VI.A. e. An essential public facility - the ski museum owned and operated by the Aspen Historical Society, a not - for - profit organization. The building and former pool house contains approximately 4,400 square feet of floor area with additional basement space. 4.3 Lift One Lodge Employee Generation. The Applicant has committed to provide affordable housing mitigation for 100 percent of the net additional employees generated by the lodging project. This exceeds the 60% requirement. The Project's employee generation is as follows: Employee Mitigation Generation Requirement FTEs)FTEs) The Lift One Lodge Project contains 84 lodge bedrooms and has a reconstruction credit of 38 bedrooms. The 23.0 6.9 Project's 46 net new lodge bedrooms are expected to generate 23 employees. The Project will contain 5,263 square feet of net leasable commercial space of which 2,429 is a reconstruction credit from the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse. The Project's 8.77 2.63 additional net leasable commercial space of 2,834 square feet is expected to generate 8.77 employees. The Project will contain 5 free - market residences, one of which is a reconstruction credit from the former Holland House. The City does not have `employee generation'3.35 3.35 requirements for residences, but does have inclusionary requirements and replacement requirements.The Project's four new free market residences require housing for 2.1 employees. The replacement unit requires housing for 1.25 employees. Additional employees generated 35.12 Minimum mitigation required 12.88 Mitigation required at 100%35.12 4.4 Lift One Lodge Employee Housing Requirement. A total of 35.12 additional employees are expected to be generated by the Lift One Lodge project and the applicant has represented a commitment to mitigate 100% of this impact. The applicant is providing on -site dormitory units for 16 employees. The additional mitigation of 19.12 FTE's must be provided through the provision of housing units within the Urban Growth Boundary including "buy- downs ", the provision of cash -in -lieu at the rate applicable on the date of payment, the provision of employee mitigation credits for extinguishment, or a combination thereof, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Lift One Lodge. The provision of cash -in -lieu for more Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 15 of 37P166 VI.A. than a fraction of an FTE shall be subject to an additional review and approval by City Council. Off -site for -sale units shall be transferred according to the APCHA Guidelines. Off -site rental units shall be available to all qualified employees in Pitkin County, although the applicant shall maintain the right to place qualified employees of the Lift One Lodge. 4.5 Ski Museum Employee Housing Requirement. The Community Development Director finds the Museum meeting the defmition of an Essential Public Facility (a facility which serves an essential public purpose is available for use or benefit of the general public and serves the needs of the community). The Aspen Historical Society is a not - for -profit organization with a mission of enriching the community through preserving and communicating Aspen's remarkable history. They are supported through donations, limited fee services, and the Aspen Historic Park and Recreation District property tax. The facility is proposed to serve educational needs of the community and will be for the use and benefit of the general public. The employee needs for the museum are expected to be handled through existing staffing with minimal additional demand. In light of the project's overall commitment to affordable housing and the significance of preserving and enhancing the Aspen's skiing legacy, the employee housing requirements of the Museum are waived. Section 5: Building Permit Submission Requirements In addition to the standard submission requirements for a building permit, the Applicant shall submit the following: a. A signed copy of the Final HPC Resolution, the final City Council Ordinance and the Development Agreement granting land use approvals. b. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the Final HPC Resolution, the final City Council Ordinance, and the Development Agreement have been read and understood. c. A tree removal plan and a tree protection plan. (See Section 10) d. Detailed civil plans for the reconstruction of South Aspen Street, Deane Street, and associated sidewalks, curbing and drainage improvements as depicted in the Final PUD Plans. e. Detail civil plans for the installation and/or relocation of all utilities depicted and described in the Master Utility Plan of the Final PUD Plans f. Detail civil plans for the installation of all drainage facilities depicted and described on the Drainage Plan of the Final PUD Plans; g. A signage plan for approval by the Community Development, Parking, and Engineering Departments signing both sides of Aspen Street as No Parking Fire Lane; signing the public parking spaces within the turn- around as Emergency and Official Vehicles Only; and specifying location of sign receivers to be placed during construction. Final verbiage for the signs may be different, as determined by said departments. The City shall manage the public rights -of -way and all parking therein to achieve public policy objectives, which shall not prescribe or preclude public parking. The City may change the physical Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 16 of 37P167 VI.A. layout, applicable policy, posted signage, or operational practices of the parking at its sole discretion on a temporary or permanent basis. Implementation of certain public parking allowances and restrictions does not guarantee against or preclude future changes to those allowances and restrictions on a temporary or permanent basis. h. Ground Stability monitoring report as defined in Section 9. Section 6: Building Permit Issuance Requirements In addition to the standard requirements for issuance of a building permit, the following conditions must be met prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and school lands dedication fees applicable and per the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit submission, payable upon issuance of the full building permit. b. The Applicant shall provide sufficient evidence of financing and a performance bond, as required in Section 3.15. c. The Applicant shall provide site protection escrow funds, as required in Section 3.16. d. The Applicant shall provide $150,000 towards the relocation costs of the Willoughby Volleyball Courts. This is in addition to Parks Impact Fees. This requirement must be fulfilled in conjunction with the first building permit for Lot 4 — the Ski Museum, including an Access/Infrastructure permit, and shall represent the complete obligation of the Applicant regarding volleyball relocation. The funds shall be placed in a separate account within the City of Aspen Parks Department so as to assure their use for volleyball court replacement. e. The design for Lift One Lodge shall be compliant with projected mudflow impacts and recommended design accommodations as identified in the mudflow and debris study prepared by the Applicant and reviewed by the City of Aspen Engineering Department. f. Lift One Lodge shall be designed to a . "highrise" standard for fire protection and be acceptable to the Fire Marshall and as described in the May 13, 2011, Hughes Associates letter. g. The final application represented that the Lift One Lodge will meet specific energy performance measures and commitments equivalent to LEED Gold certification. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the Lift One Lodge, sufficient evidence, such as an acceptance of the project registration and a LEED Design Review that indicates the appropriate points are "anticipated" or "pending ", demonstrating the project has been designed to meet this standard shall be presented to the Chief Building Official for acceptance. In case the LEED process has changed prior to submittal, the Chief Building Official shall determine the equivalent requirement for documenting progress toward LEED Gold certification. h. The installation of vegetative protection fencing as required by Section 10. i. Payment of ACSD connection fees per Section 11. Section 7: Construction Management Plan Requirements A construction management plan must be submitted to the City Engineer in conjunction with the first building permit application within the project (excluding permits for repairs and upkeep of Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 17 of 37P168 VI.A. existing buildings). The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. If the project is bifurcated into phases, a CMP for each phase will be required. The plan shall describe management of: parking, staging/encroachments, truck and construction traffic during peak traffic and seasonal periods, noise, dust, erosion/sediment pollution, and emergency access during construction. Any Construction Management Plan for work within the project shall accommodate the annual Winternational event operations to the satisfaction of the local FIS event coordinator and the Aspen Skiing Company. This may include work stoppage on event days. Section 8: Measurements Height. Due to the nature of this site and consistent with the approach taken in the review of this project, the maximum height for development within this project, shall be calculated and depicted in the building permit submission as the maximum distance possible measured vertically from interpolated natural grade to the highest point or structure within a vertical plane. Architectural and mechanical appurtenances including but not limited to elevator overruns, mechanical equipment, antennas, chimneys, flues, vents, trellises, or similar structures shall be depicted and not extend over ten (10) feet above the specified maximum height limit and be limited to areas fifteen (15) or more feet from the outermost wall edges. Lot Area. For the purposes of calculating Floor Area Ratio of development on Lots 1, 2, and 4, the areas of the vacated rights -of -way shall not be deducted from Lot Area. Floor Area. Due to the nature of this site and consistent with the approach taken in the review of this project, floor area shall be calculated as that floor space within the surrounding exterior walls as measured from the outside face of the nominal structure. For any story that is partially above and partially below interpolated natural grade, only the floor space above the point at which interpolated natural grade crosses the subfloor elevation of that story shall be counted towards floor area. The floor area tabulation shall include a separate measurement for decks, balconies, exterior stairways, gazebos, porches, and similar features. Areas exempt from the calculation of Floor Area shall be those areas identified in the Land Use Code in effect on the day of initial application — November 24, 2006, as applicable to this project. There is no limitation for at -grade landscape terraces. Reversion to Current Code. The above provisions for measuring improvements shall be in effect . through the vested period or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building, plus six months, whichever is later. Upon reversion, all built improvements and dimensions thereof shall be considered conforming. Subsequent improvements shall be measured according to the method in effect at the time of building permit submission for such improvement. Section 9: Ground Stability Monitoring In order to ensure the development does not exacerbate ground movement, the existing inclinometer shall continue to be maintained by the Applicant with bi -annual readings taken through issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Lift One Lodge. The Building Permit application shall include a report on the readings and a subsequent report is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 18 of 37P169 VI.A. 3 Section 10: Tree Permits and Protection Requirements Tree removal permits are required prior to issuance of a building permit for any demolition or significant site work. The City will issue a removal permit for the large spruce tree located on the corner of Gilbert and S. Aspen Streets. Please contact the City Forester at 429 -2026. Mitigation for removals must be met by paying cash in lieu, planting on site, or a combination of both, pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of the City Municipal Code. A tree protection plan indicating the drip lines of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site shall be included in the building permit application for any demolition or significant site work. The plan shall indicate the location of protective zones for approval by the City Forester and prohibit excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, and access over or through the zone by foot or vehicle. The plan shall include provision of six inches of mulch within each protection zone. The plan shall include irrigation of the protected vegetation throughout the entire length of the construction. The contractor must supply water to the trees at a rate which is appropriate for proper health. Due to the proximity and nature of the excavations, the protective zones will be required to be twice the width of the drip lines. Excavations within the protection zones shall be minimized and must utilize vertical excavation only, with no over digging. These excavations must be soil stabilized in a manner that prevents over excavation of the site. This will require a one sided pour for all foundation walls located within these protection zones. Areas of roots cutting shall require burlap protection to cover over the cut roots and additional watering in order to keep the soil and burlap moist along the cutting edge. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the protective zone edge for each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. This fence must be installed and inspected by the City Forester or his/her designee prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition or significant site work. The protective fencing and vegetation protection protocols shall remain in place through -out the construction period or as otherwise allowed to be removed by the City Forester. Section 11: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications,li which are on file at the District office. Since an upgraded main sanitary sewer line will be required to serve this new development, a "Line Relocation Request" and a "Collection System Agreement" will be required, both of which are ACSD Board of Director's action items. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. A wastewater flow study is required for this project to be funded by the Applicant. The Applicant's engineer must provide the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. If the study projects flows exceeding the planned reserve capacity of the existing collection system or treatment system, an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system constraint, the treatment capacity constraint, or both constraints. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Ordinance 28, Series 2011. Page 19 of 37P170 VI.A. If the study projects flows exceeding the existing capacity of the current collection system or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. In this case, the District will fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for a larger line). The District will not approve a recapture provisions. The final design must provide enough room for all utilities in the re- design of Aspen street to accommodate the main sanitary sewer line relocation according to ACSD specifications. ACSD will administer and construct the proposed new main sanitary sewer line in Aspen Street at the developer's expense. The main sanitary sewer line relocation will have to be extended approximately an additional 200 feet to the south to accommodate the upper traffic circle in Aspen Street, the Ski Company's on mountain sewer line, and the service line for the Shadow Mountain Condominiums. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines (3) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements and prior to all soil stabilization activities. On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. Below grade development will require installation of a pumping system. Plumbing plans for the pool and spa areas require approval of the drain size by the district. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) including trench drains for the entrances to underground parking garages. Oil and Grease interceptors are required for all new and remodeled food processing establishments. Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities. The elevator drains must also be plumbed to the o/s interceptor. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to a building permit application. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Amendments to the above requirements agreed to in writing by the Applicant and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District shall supersede the sanitation requirements listed herein. Section 12: Requirements for Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on Lift One Lodge Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for Lift One Lodge, the following conditions must be met: a. Completion of the improvements to Deane Street as described in the Final Plat, PUD Plans and Development Agreement. An additional surety at twice the remaining estimated costs of improvements may be accepted by the City to address timing issues related to seasonal construction or other practical issues. Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 20 of 37P171 VI.A. b. Approval and filing of a deed restriction for the affordable housing units located in the Skier Chalet Steakhouse building. c. Voluntary transfer of 1 /10 of one percent undivided interest in the dormitory units on Lot 2 to the City of Aspen to the extent determined necessary by the City Attorney. d. Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the affordable housing units located in the Skier Chalet Steakhouse building. e. Completion of the Ski Museum building located on Lot 4 to a "white box" or "shell" level of finish. This shall be met either through issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building or by completion of all structural, utility, grading/drainage, access /egress, ADA, fire protection, and fenestration improvements covered by the building permit and all exterior improvements required by the final HPC approval for the Ski Museum. f. Provision of employee housing for 19.12 FTE's through the provision of housing units within the Urban Growth Boundary including "buy- downs ", the provision of cash -in -lieu at the rate applicable on the date of payment, the provision of employee mitigation credits for extinguishment, or a combination thereof. g. Provision of $600,000 to be held in escrow by the City of Aspen for the eventual planned installation of a surface ski lift (a.k.a. platter lift) with an expected terminal facility located in Willoughby Park adjacent to the Skier's Chalet Steakhouse on Lot 2 and taking skiers uphill to the existing or relocated Lift 1A terminal. This $600,000 shall be held in a separate account that is specifically earmarked for a planned surface lift connecting Willoughby Park and Lift 1A, as presented in the application. In the event that there is not a surface lift installed within 5 years of the Certificate of Occupancy of the Lift One Lodge, upon agreement between the City Council and the Applicant, such funds may be made available for contribution to an alternative means of transporting skiers from Willoughby Park to Lift 1 A. h. The final application represented that the Lift One Lodge will meet specific energy performance measures and commitments equivalent to LEED Gold certification. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Lift One Lodge, a final tabulation certified by the Project Architect and a Commissioning Report will be submitted that verifies each of the components that were a part of the LEED Design Review noted in Section 6 were completed as a part of the project. This tabulation shall be presented to the Chief Building Official for acceptance. i. Provision of $62,000 to the City for a sanding truck dedicated for winter maintenance of South Aspen Street and a lump sum payment of $20,000 for future sanding materials that are unique to the site. Section 13: Willoughby Park, Lift One Park, & Volleyball The Parks Department and The City of Aspen appreciate the Applicant's commitment to contribute $150,000 towards the relocation costs of the Willoughby Volleyball Courts. Payment of this shall represent the complete obligation of the Applicant regarding volleyball relocation. The City will decommission the volleyball court on Willoughby Park prior to or upon issuance of an Access /Infrastructure permit for Lot 4. Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 21 of 37P172 VI.A. Section 14: Environmental Health Department The State of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement and pool designs. Section 15: Water Department The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. UtilityppqY placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 16: Outdoor Spaces Outdoor terraces, balconies, decks, trellised areas, and the pool deck may have umbrellas, canopies, awnings, trellises, fans, portable or integrated heating elements, and similar devices to facilitate comfort and use of these exterior spaces. These spaces shall not be enclosed with temporary or permanent walls /windows or otherwise enclosed as interior conditioned space without an amendment to this approval. Section 17: Public Restaurant and Ayres Ski Deck The final application has represented and provided assurance that the entirety of the restaurant located on level 3 and a portion of the apres ski deck located on level 4 will be accessible to the general public and will not be an owners -only amenity. This does not prohibit the applicant or operator from limiting public access from time to time in the normal course of business. This obligation shall be memorialized in the Development Agreement. Any changes that limit the public's access to the publicly accessible portions of this amenity (i.e. an owners -only or similarly restricted amenity) shall require a substantial amendment of the PUD. Section 18: Skiers Chalet Steakhouse and Lodge Buildings Prior to redevelopment, the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse (a designated historic landmark) and the Skiers Chalet Lodge (proposed for re -use) shall be maintained in a reasonable state of repair by its owner. Periodic access shall be afforded the City's Historic Preservation staff to view the condition of the buildings and to conduct follow up visits to ensure that the resources are not becoming damaged through neglect. The Skiers Chalet Lodge and Skiers Chalet Steakhouse may continue to be utilized, including necessary upgrades, as housing for working residents prior to relocation and redevelopment of the buildings. The continued temporary use as housing shall not affect a change in use in the properties and shall not be subject to the City's Housing Replacement Program. All building and fire codes must be met. Relocation and rehabilitation of these two structures and the old lift one stanchion within Lift One Park shall be according to the allowances and limitations of the final Historic Preservation Commission approvals. Upon fmal installation of the original Lift 1 stanchion within Lift One Park, the official zone district map shall be amended to reflect Lot 3 of the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD and this relocated structure as a designated historic landmark. Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 22 of 37P173 VI.A. Upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the relocated Skiers Chalet Steakhouse (the dormitory), the official zone district map shall be amended to reflect Lot 2 of the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD and this relocated structure as a designated historic landmark. Upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the relocated Skiers Chalet Lodge (the ski museum), the official zone district map shall be amended to reflect Lot 4 of the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD and this relocated structure as a designated historic landmark. Section 19: Development of Surface Lift Approved The proposed future development, construction, operation, and maintenance of a surface lift a.k.a. platter lift) through Lots 1, 3, and 4 and other associated improvements necessary for uploading skiers from Willoughby Park to a point south of Lot 1 such that a skier could access Lift 1A or a relocated Lift 1A is hereby approved subject to a final review by the Community Development Director for sighting of stanchions, sighting of other necessary apparatus, sighting for safe alignment with Lift 1A, confirmation of approval from the State Tramway Board, and the required reviews by the Historic Preservation Officer and the Building Department for issuance of any permits required for its construction. Section 20: Condominiumization Approved Condominiumization of units, including the parking spaces, to define separate ownership interests within a Lot of the Lift One Lodge Subdivision/PUD is hereby approved by the City of Aspen, subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current (at the time of condo plat submission) plat requirements of the City's Community Development Department. Section 21: Amendments Conversion of fractional lodge units to whole ownership residential units or non - fractional lodge units shall require a substantial amendment. The conversion of whole ownership residential units to fractional lodge units may be approved administratively. Section 22: Representations Preserved All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 23: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site - specific development plan vested for a period of five (5) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly submit all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within one year of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 1 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site - specific development 1 plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 23 of 37P174 VI.A. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of five (5) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Lift One Lodge Subdivision/Planned Unit Development located on property commonly known as 233 Gilbert Street, 710 South Aspen Street, 720 South Aspen Street, Willoughby Park, and Lift One Park, City of Aspen, Pitkin County Colorado, as more fully described in City of Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 24: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 25: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 26: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 27: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 26 day of September, 2011, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, City hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 28: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 24 of 37P175 VI.A. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12 day of September 2011. Attest: 4 4KathrynS.1, C ty ' erk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 14 day of November, 2011. Attest: Kathryn S. lc i, City Clerk ichae C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: n orcester, City Attorney ExhibitA — Property Descriptions Exhibit B — Proposed Subdivision Map Exhibit C — Proposed Street Vacation/Dedication Map Exhibit D — Proposed Illustrative Site Plan Exhibit E — Proposed Architectural Character Plan Exhibit F — Proposed Dimensional Allowances and Limitations Exhibit G — Proposed Heights Exhibit H — Design for Deane Street Skier Drop -off & South Aspen Street Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 25 of 37P176 VI.A. Exhibit A Legal Descriptions The subject property is generally located on the east side of South Aspen Street south of Deane Street. The subject property consists of five parcels and the rights of way to be vacated in connection with this Application described as follows: Parcel A is legally described as Lots 1, 2, 13, and 14, Block 9 of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, including the portion of the vacated alley between Lots 1 and 14 and the west 20 feet of Lots 2 and 13. Parcel A is the former site of the Holland House Lodge, which was demolished in 2008. Parcel B is legally described as Lots 4 and 11, less the west twenty -two feet thereof, and Lots 5 through 10, Block 9 of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, including the portion of the vacated alley between said Lots. Parcel B is currently the site of the Skiers Chalet Lodge. Parcel C is legally described as Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 8 of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen. Parcel C is located adjacent to South Aspen Street on the north side of Gilbert Street. Parcel is currently the site of the Skiers Chalet Steak House. Parcel D is legally described as Lots 3 and 12, and the west 22 feet of Lots 4 and 11, Block 9 of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, including a portion of the undeveloped alley between said lots. Parcel D is commonly known as Lift One Park and is owned by the City of Aspen, who has consented to the application. Parcel E is legally described as Lots 1 through 14, Block 7 and Lots 1 through 3, .Block 8 of the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, including the undeveloped portion of Juan Street between Blocks 7 and 8 and the undeveloped alley within Blocks 7 and 8. Parcel E is . commonly known as Willoughby Park and is owned by the City of Aspen, who has consented to the application, and is leased in whole to the Aspen Historical Society, who has consented to the application. The following is a summary of the street vacations and dedications associated with the Lift 1 Lodge proposal: Vacation of the eastern 37.5 feet of the South Aspen Street right -of -way from the centerline of the Hill Street right -of -way north to the southern edge of the Deane Street right -of -way. Dedication to public right -of -way an area within the northwest portion of the proposed Lot 4, Willoughby Park, associated with the proposed turn- around and drop -off area at the comer of South Aspen and Deane Streets. The final design and exact dimensions of this dedication shall be as depicted and described in the Subdivision Plat. Vacation of the northern 25 feet of Hill Street east of the centerline of South Aspen Street to the eastern boundary of the Eames Addition. That portion of vacated Hill Street abutting proposed Lot 3 shall be conveyed by the City of Aspen to the Applicant to be incorporated into proposed Lot 1. Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page26of37P177 VI.A. Vacation of the remaining dedicated portions of the alleyway of Block 9, Eames Addition. Vacation of a Utility and Alleyway Easement encumbering the eastern 10 feet of Lot 2 Block 9, Eames Addition, recorded at Book 203, Page 375. Vacation of Gilbert Street right-of-way from the eastern edge of the South Aspen StreetgYgP right -of -way east to a line extending south from the boundary between Lots 11 and 12 of Block 8 and connecting to the boundary between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 9, Eames Addition. Vacation of the Juan Street right-of-way east of the South Aspen Street right -of -way toYp the eastern boundary of the Eames Addition. Vacation of the alleyway of Block 8, Eames Addition. That portion of the vacated alleyway abutting proposed Lot 1 shall be conveyed by the Applicant to the City to be incorporated into proposed Lot 4. Vacation of the alleyway of Block 7, Eames Addition. Vacation or extinguishment of an easement for skiing purposes assigned to the City by- the Aspen Skiing Company in connection with the conveyance of Lift One Park which affects a portion of Parcel B (part of proposed Lot 1). Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 27 of 37P178 VI.A. Exhibit B Proposed Subdivision Map Z R. it 1 a EE __ O t a- z I 1i\ o u t 0 a. y ti a d y i o d a H I d \u c O m W 1332:118 I WWf1S dq9 a` e. 2 2Y • 1 W tg cn U I I 4:10s \ 1/4311V j J j J 01 E c I I I\E 133a1S11IH I PI i 1 o a I IF=No gal o cz I 1 z L L I a 0 1 I W W W W013a1S1a3a11020OOJZ 1 IW K 0 N W i1 Z z 11 W1 d z I r i H I o. 1.3321.1.S NVflf I — I 0 id oa. mo J I2..iz W LL G W W I J 'Z a 2 r S A Z a I 0W z I B I 13381S 3NY30 il W W l J I H • .NOb Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 28 of 37P179 VI.A. Exhibit C Proposed Street Vacation/Dedication Map ir ,1 CI. 3d = ,2 -alC02 i 0 I i ii •g : cn i i 8 a) Z5 bA i 00 i 11 1 •1 1 i e i ii ii I i g 1 1 cD i - . IN i i x • r= s 0 1 2 2 2 2 . 1 1 , i . 0 :5 ..................... 1 i i ! I'llat.E;1! 11 Itri 11/ / / ,:„4,r 44: 1 r Lj t.a:71 •,. i af... ...1;:,. ....c.,,, 41sT: e,§ i 51 51 •:-422::.,,,,,jli1i s q I i GRAM STKET c -..-. 1 it 1 il 5 i i- i, 1 t i .Olaf: Pd i Emalti-Eal..vuip N .a 1 !1 i1i 7 L'7•44,L.:414i i r eilit ' 1 i11aii Viltat,.. giV42:7 ....a ,, br.4 i e ,? [1401%7015 .. :OA LiVrd ,,1 II 1 I p 01,15 ,,,.i i a g Iiqfpii-z. 1 I I 1 CallEIMUT EE 1 te E e 1 i L h II i fm, il.1 i 1 a L:,P, M . Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 29 of 37P180 VI.A. Exhibit D Illustrative Plan s PSI p,_r,.. ilk:ii max. Iii'Tr1 ? 1 . L 1 i_. r L „,._,_ 1 O I rib, ra LO s, . W 2 rr , 111 1 17-1AI i ' \ aa rrsr MPPr l l s' il?- - _ - : -5.- 1 I''1 ( p Y 1 I I \ 4' erL 411 s : i I 1,,,, 441 snwr ow Corr I hi scrrrN is .. • Mei 1 T= -- N.' 7 i Jo,.xrr arn.r i i 1J LIF`O Stibdivi ILLUSTRP Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 30 of 37P181 VI.A. Exhibit E Approved Architecture r rte r q-,::1 M .2 i 'i Vie. ' ! ; ..: . sg IF r is f ft s or tiolAga, w . West Elevation of West Win i Alliillii 0-:, - ,,,, I.,....., - ,,,, ,,, . ,...,,,,..,....,, _.,,4 4 ., I. iii;zis , O Vice of Lodge from southwest it 1 1 1 1 ii 11 1 e . ,If- 7.N. d Ill Representative Architectural Floor Plan of Lodge Unit and Lock -Offs Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 31 of 37P182 VI.A. Exhibit F Approved Dimensions Dimensional Requirement Proposed Standard Lodge Zone District Requirements Lift One Lodge, Lot 1 Minimum Lot Size 41,258 sq. ft.3,000 sq. ft. Lot Area for Density 19,296 Site Specific Lot Area for Floor Area 38,954 Site Specific Lodge Unit Density Standard 537 sq. ft. of lot area per unit See Note Below* Minimum Lot Area per 3,859 sq. ft.3,000 sq. ft. dwelling Unit (free market) Minimum Required Lot Area 19,296 sq. ft.15,000 sq. ft.sq. ft.) Minimum Lot Width 265 ft.30 ft. Minimum Front Yard Setback East Wing: 1 ft.5 West Wing: 4 ft. East Wing North: 1 ft. East Wing South: 1 ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 West Wing North: 2 ft. West Wing South: 3 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback East Wing: 12 ft.5 West Wing: 1 ft. Maximum Height Per height plan as represented Sloped Roofs: 38 Ft. in Exhibit G Flat Roofs: 42 Ft. Floor Area Ratio" Lodge Units: 1.16:1, or Lodge Units: 2:1, or 75,848 Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 32 of 37P183 VI.A. Dimensional Requirement Proposed Standard Lodge Zone District Requirements 45,129 sq. ft.sq. ft. Commercial Uses: 0.15:1, or Commercial Uses: 0.25:1, or 5,698 sq. ft.9,481 sq. ft. Non -Unit Space: 0.31:1, or Non -Unit Space: 0.5:1, or 12,206 sq. ft.18,962 sq. ft. Free Market Residential Free Market Residential Units: 17% of total lodge Units: 25 %, or 19,252 floor area, or 13,108 sq. ft. Total: 2.5:1 or 97,385 sq. ft. Total: 1.95 or 76,141 sq.ft. Pedestrian Amenity Space No Requirement*No Requirement Lodge Units: 42 Spaces Lodge Units: 0.5 Spaces/Unit Commercial Uses: 6 Spaces Commercial Uses: 1 Space /1,000 Sq. Ft. Net Free Market Residential: 5 Leasable Spaces Residential Uses: 1 Project Parking*Affordable Housing Units: 8 Space/Unit Spaces Public Parking: 50 Spaces Lodge Members: 44 Spaces Other: 8 Spaces Skiers Chalet Steak House Affordable Housing, Lot 2 Minimum Lot Size 3,562 sq. ft.Established via PUD Lot Area for Density None See Note Below Lot Area for Floor Area 3,562 See Note Below Minimum Lot Area per 445 sq. ft. (8 Units)Established via PUD Dwelling Unit Minimum Lot Width 95 ft.Established via PUD Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 33 of 37P184 VI.A. Dimensional Requirement Proposed Standard Lodge Zone District Requirements Minimum Front Yard Setback 5 ft.Established via PUD Minimum Side Yard Setback North Side Yard: 10 ft. Established via PUD South Side Yard: 30 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback None Established via PUD Maximum Height 33 ft.Established via PUD 0.89:1, or 3,184 sq. ft.Established via PUD Floor Area ratio Pedestrian Amenity Space Remainder of lot Established via PUD Aspen Historical Society Museum and Willoughby Park, Lot 4 Minimum Lot Size 41,918 sq. ft.Established via PUD Minimum Lot Width 190 ft.Established via PUD Minimum Front Yard Setback 50 ft.Established via PUD Minimum Side Yard Setback East Side Yard: 20 ft. Established via PUD West Side Yard: 125 ft. Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 ft.Established via PUD Maximum Height 31 ft.Established via PUD' 0.10:1, or 4,400 sq. ft.*Established via PUD Floor Area ratio Pedestrian Amenity Space Remainder of lot Established via PUD li Notes: Lodge Unit Size Standard: The Applicant is requesting a Special Review for the average lodge unit size. Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 34 of 37P185 VI.A. Dimensional Requirement Proposed Standard Lodge Zone District Requirements Floor Area Ratio, Lots 1, 2 and 4: For the purposes of calculating a Floor Area Ratio on 1 Lots 1, 2, and 4 that more accurately represents the numerical relationship between land area and floor area, the area of vacated rights of way have not been deducted from Lot Area. This calculation is not intended to modify the definition of Lot Area as set forth in the Land Use Code. Pedestrian Amenity: This site is outside of the area requiring pedestrian amenity space. Project Parking: The project parking section of this table reflects the entire project, not just Lot 1. Maximum Height: The heights for the Skiers Chalet Steakhouse Affordable Housing and Aspen Historical Society are taken from the ridge of the roof Floor Area Ratio, Lot 4: This includes both the Museum and pool house. Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 35 of 37P186 VI.A. Exhibit G Height Representations 42.00 ft 7- 56.00ft 7-- 46.90ft 43.90 ft 37.00 ft/c r 4 .20 ft I 1 ir I rIfI Heights: West Wing 38 .50 ft 39.50 ft 44.40 ft 40 ft i-k f-I1Pig1 I 1:• -- ig ! IN 1!!37.75 f# I ,43.50 ftm 1 ace ii - _ - 7 mil LI.. ...1-::........-----i r emu:+ ll gym. .t ,111 Heights: East Wing Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 36 of 37P187 VI.A. Exhibit H Skier Drop Off Area Deane Street & So. Aspen St. 1 1 I 1 I. I COA TYPICAL h 30" Ce 5 1 CQq SPILL DETACHED 5'I I I TYPE CSC SIDEWALK sync ki 1 T _. ,..., _,..):.r) '1CckZ .... Q () 1.2 J).9' - - -?S' h DO NOT i SOH 5. 4 a ASPEN i - al - -29.5 u Mk.. STREET f ATTACHED GRAPHIC SCALE I sioE&x 0 SO W 1C, I a FEET , 1 inch - 30 ft ObN 1 B w. 6n+ 9+war, 5u 200 7°"l'"o ns SCHM ( GORDON 1 MEYERr G .c*.000 9„aas, Coonporc a eo 970) ws 100+ FAX ro701 9 {s 594e UR Coe aOdQI 16'ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS AIM C0. ro7 FA. OAA:0 01925-0727 Revision DE E7dM0[- Guw64 CO 1970; 64 5355 1 Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011. Page 37 of 37P188 VI.A. Wed, Dec 14, 2011 20:33:48 ff 7007130 0 Y' 64 s - , (( Ad Ticket #5 t( iC'II Acct: 1013028 Name: Aspen (LEGALS) City of Phone: (970)920 -5064 Address: 130 S Galena St E -Mail: Client: Caller: Kathryn Koch Cit Aspen Receipt State: CO Zip: 81611 Ad Name: 7007130A Original Id: 7003536 Editions: 8ATW /8ATI/Class: 0990 Start: 09/18/11 Stop: 09/18/11 Color:Issue 1 Copyline: atw Ordinance #28 Rep: AT Legals LEGAL NOTICE Lines:19 ORDINANCE #Y28, 2011, PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance *28. Series of 2011. was adopted on Depth:1.first reading at the City Council meeting Septem- 1 ber 12. 2011. This ordinance. if adopted. will ap- Columns:prove Lift One Lodge final PUD and timeshare re- Discount:0.00 view. uled for S26n20this 11 at 5 PM. City Commission:0.00 hall. 130 South Galena. Net:0.00 To see the entire text. go to the city's legal notice 0.00 website Tax:http://www.aspetwitkin.comIDepanments Total 9.61 I Legal- Notices! If you would like a copy FAXed or e- mailed to you. I Payment 9.61 1 call the city clerk's office. 429 -2686. Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on Septem- ber 18.2011. [70071301 Ad shown is not actual print size P189 VI.A. V0 9 a 0 CPO n G O C O' m O G 0- rn p 7 O rpo ' O ti i.. w ng n G to F. n ro w w • G 7 C p 7 cn r" O w n a n o n° n w o e • n I' i'1. Cn Q' n w rko G 0r0 C) n _' nc. a n N' a a z. , C C a R9 r2w1 v' cH cn O T a rn r v r X 0, Q 7 p' in ^ rn i-r O O w O n N O O G C a" .,,..< r L, n1 Era O w t ro w , o w n 0 ' rn rt ^ O b o ° ro 0 Q- , p E n n+ ro r 0 n WM xi C w n' r' 0 n a h' B n m Q O ry O n a ? 0 n C C • n G O w b u a • Ip 11. Q' O n < n n G ' ' C y --yII r- r . y b rt n h n n n ` C O Ern O. N w Zr, N 2 n , = n .- a r o n rt IM C w w c v, N v, `- n ' rn o n n O i- 1 O O C n Ujfl n ti w a ' D < rt • k a' C 5 w n r. MN 6 6' C . 0 ' 6 0c. O T '- n ' O w r- r a n O w ' L7 O O z kJ Et, OD n 9, o... a CS O n O. 5 O m Z n n 0 n • r', n S G" ' G O n r n ' B rt 0- w 0. C Cr0 I-° P° G w 0" O O r ho F ' , . a n ro rt CP rt O_ r G a N o tri a n F+ h at G t ` 0 0111111///// // /, 3LdLS.... 41i // o _ n: r., 10 z a a A m dn t r t mf A oam 4 0, / n / / mN n01 " ° 4 " m a c " mSm`- mm> Z3. gAi aoo z D O m 0=.. 9 _ I 8=F V om; OCn m 3 m et5 3 3 - n3 aiO aD • n m- Ny °y 9mm£ Oaf Z J o n mmg ' 3 m 1m m P190VI.A. P191 VI.A. P192 VI.A. P193 VI.A. P194 VI.A. P195VI.A. P196VI.A. P197VI.A. P198VI.A. P199VI.A. P200VI.A. P201VI.A. P202VI.A. P203VI.A. P204VI.A. P205VI.A. P206VI.A. P207VI.A. P208VI.A. P209VI.A. P210VI.A. P211VI.A. P212VI.A. P213VI.A. P214VI.A. P215VI.A. P216VI.A. P217VI.A. P218VI.A. P219VI.A. P220VI.A. RECEPTION#: 647282, R: $23.00, D: 80.00 DOC CODE: RESOLUTION Pg 1 of 3, 0 5/1 01201 8 at 01:55:08 PM Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION NO. 71 Series of 2018) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF THE VESTED RIGHTS GRANTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 28, SERIES 2011 FOR THE LIFT ONE LODGE SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1-4 OF THE LIFT ONE SUBDIVISION/PUD, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED MARCH 2013 AT RECEPTION NO. 597438, COUNTY OF PITKIN, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-131-01-800, 2735-131-01-001, 2735-131-01-002, 2735-131-01-801 WHEREAS,The Community Development Department received an application from Lift One Lodge Aspen LLC, represented by Sunny Vann, of Vann and.Associates, LLC, requesting approval of a three (3) year extension of vested rights for The Lift One Lodge Subdivision and Planned Development pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 90, Series 2017; and, WHEREAS, City Council approved Resolution No. 90, Series of 2017, granting approval of a one (1) year extension to vested rights, set to expire November 28, 2019; and, WHEREAS,The Community Development Department received an application from Lift One Lodge Aspen LLC, represented by Sunny Vann, of Vann and Associates, LLC, requesting approval of a three (3) year extension of vested rights for The Lift One Lodge Subdivision and Planned Development pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 41, Series 2015; and, WHEREAS, City Council approved Resolution No. 41, Series of 2015, granting approval of a two (2) year extension to vested rights, set to expire November 28, 2018; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the requested three (3) year extension of vested rights for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision and Planned Development under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the extension of vested rights proposal meets or exceeds all applicable land use standards and that the approval of the extension of vested rights proposal meets regulatory requirements; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Page ] of 3 Resolution No. 71 (Series of 2018) P221 VI.A. Section 1: The Aspen City Council does hereby approve an extension of vested rights for two (2) years, to expire on November 28, 2021, conditioned on the following: 1. The statutory vested property right shall not preclude the applications of regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and all adopted impact fees. The developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes and impact fees that are in effect at the time of building permit, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. . 2. All conditions from Ordinance 28, Series of 2011 and Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 2. Series of 2016 shall remain in effect. Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set for the herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3• The Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5• A duly noticed public hearing on the Resolution was held on the 30th day of April, 2018 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved by a three to zero (3-0) vote on this 30`h day of April 2018. Approved as to form:Approv d as to content: James R. True, City Attorney Steven S adron, Mayor Page 2 of 3 Resolution No. 71 (Series of 2018) P222 VI.A. At t: n inda Manning, City CI k Page 3 of 3 Resolution No. 71 (Series of 2018) P223 VI.A. 210 E. Hyman, Suite 202 • Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-5050 • www.apcha.org Lift One Lodge Employee Housing Mitigation ReferralLift One Lodge Employee Housing Mitigation ReferralLift One Lodge Employee Housing Mitigation ReferralLift One Lodge Employee Housing Mitigation Referral Page 1 LAND USE REFERRAL LAND USE REFERRAL LAND USE REFERRAL LAND USE REFERRAL MEMORANDUMMEMORANDUMMEMORANDUMMEMORANDUM TO:TO:TO:TO: Ben Anderson, Community Development Department Planner FROM:FROM:FROM:FROM: APCHA Board of Directors THRU:THRU:THRU:THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director DATE:DATE:DATE:DATE: October 4, 2018 RE:RE:RE:RE: Lift One LodgeLift One LodgeLift One LodgeLift One Lodge Employee Housing Mitigation ReferralEmployee Housing Mitigation ReferralEmployee Housing Mitigation ReferralEmployee Housing Mitigation Referral ISSUEISSUEISSUEISSUE Lift One Lodge Aspen, LLC, is seeking approval for a major amendment to its existing approvals for the Lift One Lodge Subdivision and Planned Development (PD). The City of Aspen Community Development seeks a recommendation from the APCHA Board of Directors about what type of employee housing mitigation should be required for this project. BACKGROUNDBACKGROUNDBACKGROUNDBACKGROUND The Lift One Lodge project was originally reviewed by APCHA in 2011 and subsequently approved by the City of Aspen with vested rights expiring in 2021. The original approval required employee housing mitigation for 100% of employee generation. This was determined through negotiation and not a requirement of the Land Use Code. The employee housing mitigation formulas in 2011 calculated mitigation for 35.12 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs). The housing mitigation for 35.12 FTEs was to be provided two ways: 1. 16 FTEs housed in eight (8) dormitory units onsite in a renovated Skier Chalet Steakhouse; and 2. 19.12 FTEs mitigated through Cash-in-Lieu or “buy down” of offsite free market units. The original project also considered employee housing mitigation for the relocated Skier Chalet. The new location for the Skier Chalet in Willoughby Park would house a ski museum owned and operated by the Aspen Historical Society. This building was deemed an “Essential Public Facility.” Aspen City Council waived the housing mitigation requirements for the ski museum under Essential Public Facilities, as it has the discretion to do so. In 2016, an Amendment to the Planned Development was approved that among other things reconfigured the internal programming of the lodge building. The result was an increase to Commercial Net Leasable area of more than 18,000 square feet. At the time, this increase of commercial floor area required an additional 55.84 FTE of employee mitigation - also at the 100% rate. This brought total mitigation for the project to 90.96 FTEs and added Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits (Housing Credits) as another way to meet mitigation requirements. P224 VI.A. Amendment to Redevelopment of the Lift One Lodge Page 2 An administrative determination by Community Development clarified that this mitigation would be required at Category 4 which is consistent with current code. The APCHA Board reviewed the amended Planned Development at their regular meeting held February 17, 2016, and recommended approval for 100% mitigation on the condition that if it was not feasible to provide additional onsite employee housing, then prior to building permit approval the applicant would subject the type of mitigation to discussion and approval by the APCHA Board. Finally, in addition to APCHA, Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, and Open Space and Trails Board will be reviewing and providing recommendations to Aspen City Council on different elements of the project. Aspen voters are expected to decide on the Lift One Corridor Project as a whole, including Gorsuch Haus, Lift One Lodge, and Willoughby Park, sometime early next year. DISCUSSIONDISCUSSIONDISCUSSIONDISCUSSION Employee Housing Mitigation – Amount and Type The original approval included employee housing mitigation using a combination of onsite units, Housing Credits, offsite units, and cash-in-lieu. The applicant committed to providing 100% mitigation, rather than the percent required by code. Because this is a major amendment to the proposed project, Community Development will have to recalculate the amount of employee housing generation and mitigation. As of today, the amount of employee housing mitigation has not been finalized. The question before the APCHA Board, however, is not the amount of mitigation, but the type. Community Development supports the use of Housing Credits and offsite units in meeting the balance of the housing mitigation requirements. Under the existing approvals, the option of cash-in-lieu is allowed. The applicant may also request City Council to approve cash-in-lieu. Under the APCHA Employee Housing Guidelines (Part III, Section 4), affordable employee housing mitigation is prioritized in the following order: 1. Onsite deed restricted housing constructed or converted next to or attached to the proposed development. 2. Offsite deed restricted housing constructed or converted at a separate location within the Aspen core subject to approval by APCHA. A single offsite deed restricted unit in an otherwise free-market housing complex shall not be approved. 3. Use of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits (Housing Credits). 4. APCHA approved buy-down units. 5. Payment-in-Lieu (Cash-in-Lieu) to the City of Aspen or payment of an Impact Fee to Pitkin County; or land-in-lieu by conveyance of vacant property to the City or to APCHA, permitted on a case by case basis. There are no criteria in the APCHA Guidelines for the Board to evaluate when weighing a request to deviate or depart from the priority list of employee housing mitigation. In staff’s opinion, the P225 VI.A. Amendment to Redevelopment of the Lift One Lodge Page 3 burden is on an applicant to justify any deviation or departure. The Board is not obligated to recommend anything other than established standards. However, given the scope and location of this project it could consider exceptions at the applicant’s request and justification. Skier Chalet Steakhouse and one onsite unit in east building of Lift One Lodge Under the original approval, 16 FTEs were to be housed in eight dormitory onsite units. Under the amended proposal, the building will be relocated and repurposed allowing for the space to be used for a restaurant/bar rather than dormitory-style employee housing units. The new proposal also calls for providing one onsite, one-bedroom, employee housing unit with 791 square foot of Net Livable Area in the east building of Lift One Lodge. This would be part of a free-market residential building with six free-market housing units satisfying 1.75 FTEs of required mitigation. Typically, both Community Development and APCHA give preference to onsite units in meeting mitigation requirements. In this case the proposed amendment reduces the onsite FTE mitigation from 16 FTE to 1.75 FTE. Community Development would not generally support such a reduction in onsite housing units but could at this time for two reasons. First, the Skiers’ Chalet Steakhouse will be in very close proximity (less than 50 feet) from the proposed lift location. As one of the main desired outcomes of the larger project is to re-vitalize this historic portal to Aspen Mountain, the proposed use as a restaurant and bar will add to the efforts to activate Willoughby Park and the reconfigured ski portal. Second, the proposed dormitory-style units while contributing to the overall need for employee housing, are not a preferred housing configuration in the land use code and perhaps could be better designed offsite without the constraints of this site and in this building. Ski Museum as an Essential Public Facility According to Community Development, the Skiers’ Chalet is shared by the Aspen Historical Society and Aspen Skiing Company to provide space for Skier Services and Ski Patrol, along with the Ski Museum. The square footage used by Aspen Skiing Company is considered net leasable square footage and has been included in the calculation of mitigation for the project. The square footage in the building that will be programmed by the Aspen Historical Society is proposed to remain as Essential Public Facility. Community Development supports continuing the ski museum as an Essential Public Facility and recommends that employee housing mitigation be waived at this time, but that an employee audit be conducted in the future (e.g. at 5 or 10 years out) to determine if employee housing mitigation will be required. The APCHA and Community Development would be required to work together to conduct an employee audit. CONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONCONCLUSION The APCHA Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting held October 3, 2018 and recommend the following: P226 VI.A. Amendment to Redevelopment of the Lift One Lodge Page 4 1. Ski Museum: The Ski Museum be recognized as an Essential Public Facility, allowing the square footage of the building to be excluded in the calculation for housing mitigation; however, that an employee audit be conducted in the future (e.g., at 5 or 10 years out from Certificate of Occupancy) to determine if employee housing mitigation should be required. 2. Employee Housing Mitigation: Under the APCHA Employee Housing Guidelines) Part III, Section 4), affordable employee housing mitigation is prioritized in the following order: a. Onsite deed restricted housing constructed or converted next to or attached to the proposed development. b. Offsite deed restricted housing constructed or converted at a separate location within the Aspen core subject to approval by APCHA. A single offsite deed restricted unit in an otherwise free-market housing complex shall not be approved. c. Use of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits (Housing Credits). d. APCHA approved buy-down units. e. Payment-in-Lieu (Cash-in-Lieu) to the City of Aspen or payment of an Impact Fee to Pitkin County; or land-in-lieu by conveyance of vacant property to the City or to APCHA, permitted on a case by case basis. The APCHA Board expressed their disappointment with the loss of the 8 on-site dormitory units in exchange for one on-site one-bedroom and recommended that the on-site unit be used as a rental for an employee of the Lodge. The APCHA Board recommended the following methods to satisfy the required employee housing mitigation: a. Onsite deed restricted housing constructed or converted next to or attached to the proposed development. b. Offsite deed restricted housing constructed or converted at a separate location within the Aspen core subject to approval by APCHA. A single offsite deed restricted unit in an otherwise free-market housing complex shall not be approved. c. Use of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits (Housing Credits). d. APCHA approved buy-down units. The APCHA Board does not support the use of payment-in-lieu for employee housing mitigation. P227 VI.A. P228VI.A. Depiction of interpolated grade - established using 1957 topography P229VI.A. Approved Building –Maximum Height –from Interpolated Grade –47 ft, 5 in Proposed Building Interpolated Grade - Finished Grade East Building P230VI.A. Approved Building –Maximum Height –from Interpolated Grade –47 ft, 5 in Proposed Building Interpolated Grade -Proposed Finished Grade Existing Approval East Building P231VI.A. Approved Building –Maximum Height –from Interpolated Grade –53 ft, 3 in, Finished Grade –56 ft, 10 in Proposed Building Interpolated Grade - Finished Grade West Building P232VI.A. Approved Building –Maximum Height –from Interpolated Grade –53 ft, 3 in, Finished Grade –56 ft, 10 in Proposed Building Interpolated Grade Proposed Finished Grade Existing Approval West Building P233VI.A. Identifies highest points on building P234VI.A. P235VI.A. P236VI.A. P237VI.A. P238VI.A. Lift One Lodge - Employee Housing Mitigation FTEs generated mitigation rate mitigation required Lodge Units 104 keys (proposed) - 38 keys (credit) = 66 keys/bedrooms 66 x .6 = 39.6 Average Unit Size = 519sf (.19 x .25 = .0475 + .40 = .4475)39.6 0.4475 17.72 Free Market Units 18,831 - 586 (HH FM unit) = 18,245 Net Livable 18245 / 400 = 45.61 45.61 0.3 13.68 Commercial (total commercial net leasable - 18,626 sf) (elevations that depict floor relationship to grade need to be verified) Steakhouse Loading 1904 sf /1000 x 4.7 x .75 = 8.95 Parking 1 1096 sf / 1000 x 4.7 = 5.15 Level 1 1005 sf /1000 x 4.7 x .75 = 3.54 subtotal: 17.64 Credit - existing 2429 /1000 x 4.7 = 11.41 17.64 - 11.41 = 6.23 6.23 0.65 4.05 2429 / 1000 x 4.7 x .18 (2018) = 2.05 11.42 0.18 2.05 West Building Parking 1 3791sf / 1000 x 4.7 x .75 = 13.36 Mezzanine 7063 / 1000 x 4.7 = 33.20 Level 1 221 / 1000 x 4.7 x .75 = .78 subtotal: 47.33 47.33 0.4475 21.8 Aspen Ski Co. Skier Services and Patrol 2500 sf / 1000 x 4.7 = 11.75 Credit - existing 2340sf / 1000 x 4.7 = 11.00 11.75 - 11 = .75 0.75 0.65 0.49 2340 / 1000 x 4.7 = 11 11 0.18 1.98 TOTAL 161.94 0.3814 61.77 FTE 100%38.1% Aspen Historical Society Essential Public Facility Approximately 7,300 square feet 0 Exhibit J Lift One Lodge - Employee Housing Mitigation Calculation Estimate P239 VI.A. EXHIBIT a 9 From: Jeannine Stickle To: James Marcus(jmarcuszg(damail.com);Kelly McNicholas(kelly.mcnicholas(@amail.com);Rally Duoos (rallyduoos(akomail.com);Ruth Carver(ruthac48(nlamail.com); Ryan Walterscheid(rwalterscheid(a)yahoo.com); Scott Marcoux(scott(a)snnauidance.com);Skippy Mesirow(ski ppy.mesirow(cDgmail.com);spencer,mckniaht (spencer.mcknight(a)gmail.com);Teraissa McGovern(teraissa.mcgovem(alamail.com) Cc: Ben Anderson;Jennifer Phelan Subject: FW: Lift 1A Date: Thursday,October 11,2018 9:17:38 AM Attachments: image001.Dna Please see below for public comment on the Lift One Corridor project. B. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager City Clerk 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970-429-2686 www.cityofaspen.com B B B From: Hilton Goldreich <hgoldreich@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 10, 2018 4:04 PM To:Jeannine Stickle<jeannine.stickle@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Lift 1A Ucar Jeannine. I am writing this email to express my concerns regarding the relocation of Lift 1A and the ski museum. I am a resident at Southpoint condominiums and my unit is on the ground floor directly opposite the historic Lift 1A. I am excited to have the new Lift 1 A come down closer to Dean street and support the plan to relocate the lift, however, I have several concerns: 1. One of the Southpoint residents was told verbally by the developer at the Open House event at the Limelight, that if a bike lane was built on Dean street, a 3ft retaining wall would need to be constructed to level the street to accommodate the bike lane. This is very concerning because it would make our ground floor unit a garden level unit and would very much detract from our open ground floor patio. A sidewalk has already been constructed taking away several feet of open space in front of our patio and having a 3 ft retaining wall would really hinder the openness and sight lines from our patio and put our patio several feet below the street . One question is why a bike lane would even be considered for a short street like Dean street, because it wouldn't really go anywhere. 2. The underground parking entrance has been relocated on the new plan to Dean street, which raises several concerns. Dean street is a small street which will be used a lot for pedestrians accessing the ski lift and will have a lot more foot traffic than Aspen street. The car traffic will be significantly increased with all the traffic from Lift One Lodge including service vehicles as well as guests of the Lodge and skiers being dropped off. We believe that the entrance should remain on Aspen street because it would be much safer for pedestrians entering the ski lift area and makes much more sense from a traffic flow standpoint. It also seems that entering and exiting from an entrance on Aspen street would be a lot easier than from Dean Street. 3. 1 am also concerned with the Ski Museum being moved closer to Dean street from its approved location on the original plans. This will eliminate an area for visitors to gather in front of the museum, block sight lines for South Point residents and block the sun shining on Dean street and cause icy conditions for cars and pedestrians. As a resident of the City of Aspen and South Point, I believe the proposed changes regarding the comments above should not be approved. These proposed changes, are not in the best interest of the residents of Aspen. Sincerely, Hilton Goldreich Hilton Goldreich, DDS, MS, PA Specialist in Invisalign and Braces for Children,Teens and Adults Diplomate,American Board of Orthodontics www,planobraces.com www.facebook.com/planobraces a u The documents in this e-mail transmission may contain confidential health information that is privileged and legally protected from disclosure by federal law,the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act(HIPAA).This information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, disclosing, distributing, copying, acting upon or otherwise using the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete. From: Nicole Henning To: Ben Anderson;Amy Simon;Andrea Bryan;Bob BI ich;Gretchen Greenwood;Jeffrey Halfertv;Nicole Henning;Nora Berko;Richard T.Lai;Roger Mover;Sarah Yoon;Scott Kendrick;Sheri Sanzone;Willis Pember Subject: FW:South Point-Re:Lift One Lodge,3 of 5,Application to amend Ordinance 28,Series of 2011 Date: Thursday,October 11,2018 9:22:32 AM From:The Romero Group<galen(@aspenreal.com> Date:October 9,2018 at 7:07:41 PM MDT To: info@Umnrentals.com Subject: South Point- Re: Lift One Lodge, 3 of 5, Application to amend Ordinance 28, Series of 2011 Reply-To:galen(u�aspenreal.com pear South Point Owners, Regarding the Renderings which start on page 78 of the application(CLICK HERE) The site plan for their application shows the Ski Museum building being moved from its originally approved location north to Dean St with"skier milling and mazing"areas behind it.This will affect the views from many of our units.This will create shade and more ice on Dean St.Keeping this building in its originally approved location would provide for a "gathering place"in front of the building and easier access to the lift for pedestrians. In addition to the 6' bike land and 2' separator strip,the proposed site plan now has a 6' wide sidewalk running the entire length of Dean St in the right of way on our side of the street.This would require us to relocate our dumpster,but I'm not sure where we would put it.The proposed plan also has a sidewalk on the south side of Dean St.Dean St.would be much more pedestrian friendly without the Lift One Lodge garage entrance and there wouldn't be a need for a continuous sidewalk on our side of the street. Thank you, Galen Bright President&Treasurer South Point Condominium Association 205 E. Durant Avenue,Unit 3D Aspen,CO 81611 Email: galen .aspenreal.com CELL:970-379-3877 The Romero Group I Physical: 208 Midland Avenue, Mailing: PO Box 4100, Basalt, CO 81621 Unsubscribe info(cbUmnrentals.com Update Profile I About our service provider Sent by galen(tbaspenreal.com in collaboration with MARILYN& MARC SILVERMAN 205 EAST DURANT AVENUE,#2D ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 (970)920 4312 October 15, 2018 Ms. Cindy Klob City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Klob: As avid skiers, frequent regular visitors and owners of Aspen properties since the late 1960's,we appreciate Aspen's rich history and support the redevelopment of the Lift 1/Willoughby Park area. As current residents in the Southpoint Condominiums we have deep concerns, however, about several elements in the recently filed application amending Ordinance#28, Series of 2011 for the development of the Lift One Lodge. We recognize the major benefits of this important project, but when considering these significant changes, including the repositioning and resizing of several structures,we believe it is imperative that you seek to minimize the adverse impacts on the surrounding area. In particular, we believe that you should consider the following three items: 1) The substantial increase in the proposed scale/density(#units & floor area)of the project concerns us. In particular,the repositioning closer to Dean Street of the Skier's Chalet Lodge,the Steakhouse,the Historic Lift structures and the substantial elongation southward of the Lodge's west building together will further disturb the Mountain view and adds to the visual congestion on Dean Street. ➢ The photo-renderings in the application looking southward are very misleading about the visual impacts of these changes to the site plan. The vertical dimension looks disproportionately reduced while the foreground depth appears increased and the adjacent structures omitted to create an illusory impression of openness. ➢ The new Ski Museum(Skier's Chalet Lodge)building should be returned to its originally-planned location. Placing the Ski Museum closer to Dean Street as more recently proposed will reduce the natural light on Dean Street, increasing street and sidewalk icing problems, and eliminates an open-space for people to gather in front of the Ski Museum. 2) The entrance/exit to the garage should remain in its prior location on South Aspen Street. The prior approved plans for the Lift One Lodge provided for the entrance to the underground parking garage to be on South Aspen Street, adjacent to the entrance to the Lodge. That location provides a logical and efficient flow of traffic into and out of the garage. Ms.Cindy Klob October 15,2018 Page 2 of 2 The proposal to move the garage entrance/exit from South Aspen Street to Dean Street would route all garage traffic onto Dean Street, requiring traffic from the Lodge to the garage to travel north along Aspen Street,then east on Dean Street to the entrance. Traffic exiting the garage and returning to the Lodge will then need to make three left turns across two-way intersections at Monarch, Durant and Aspen. This flow unnecessarily lengthens driving times and distance for that traffic, increasing congestion, pollution,noise, and making this area much less attractive for pedestrians. Moving the location of the garage entrance to Dean Street forces pedestrians to cross what will be a significant stream of traffic(a vehicle every other minute according to the developers own traffic impact analysis). With a width only seventy percent as wide as South Aspen Street and a downhill side grade, Dean Street just isn't large enough to safely and efficiently handle this additional traffic load. 3) The area of Dean Street at the base of the new lift should be an attractive gathering point, as it is to the east below Gondola Plaza.. Traffic flow on Dean Street should be restricted due to its narrower right of way and close proximity to the base of the new lift. Many skiers will enter this area on foot from downtown and will have to cross Dean St.to access the lift area.That method of access should be pedestrian-friendly! Aspen has been struggling with this area for years. Let's not allow our excitement for the important project to rush us to make changes that are not consistent with the long- term interests of Aspen, its residents and guests. We have only one chance to get this right. Sincerely, Attachment cc: Southpoint Homeowners Association 11 October 2018 City of Aspen Aspen Planning&Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Sir/Madam Re: Lift One Lodge Application for Major Amendment—Submission to City of Aspen I refer to the Lift One Lodge Application for Major Amendment. Our family own, and frequently reside, in an Aspen Mountain Townhomes (AMT) condominium located at 623 S. Monarch St Aspen (corner Gilbert St). Our home faces west on Gilbert St, adjoining the new Dolinsek Park, and directly adjacent the Skiers Chalet on Gilbert St. We are now aware of the amended plans in relation to the proposed Lift One East building, and raise the following issues/questions for the City's review and response: PROPOSED LIFT TO DEAN ST: We have been, and remain, proponents of a ski lift down to Dean Street and thoughtful activation of the Shadow Mountain precinct. NOTIFICATION/S: To the best of our knowledge, neither we, nor the AMT HOA, have been formally notified - or consulted -about the proposed amendments to the development application which will significantly impact our property, and neighbouring properties. Could the City please clarify the notification process, including dates and methods of notification? SAFETY: We have three (3) school-age children, as do other residents in Gilbert Street and the neighbouring area. It would be patently unsafe to introduce two-way traffic, or further increase traffic volumes in any way, along Gilbert St, which is already a narrow thoroughfare and potentially dangerous for both drivers and pedestrians. The AMT entryways each open directly onto Gilbert St.There is no kerb or space for a footpath, nor any capacity for official parking. During the winter period,the street becomes 1 even more narrow-and slippery—with the bank up of snow on both sides of the road abutting the properties that front Gilbert St. We currently experience significant traffic issues whenever mail/trash/service vehicles are double parked (notwithstanding that there is no official parking) as Gilbert St is physically too narrow for vehicles to pass safely. We have personally observed altercations between frustrated vehicle drivers. We have also observed large vehicles having to reverse back up the street posing safety issues for drivers and pedestrians alike. If two-way traffic was to be introduced on Gilbert St, the ability for pedestrians to walk safely along the street will be further compromised. It is noted that during the winter period, Gilbert St is used frequently by skiers, including families with children, accessing Lift 1A carrying ski equipment or otherwise seeking to cross town.The addition of two-way traffic would make it extremely difficult for pedestrians to use Gilbert St as a safe thoroughfare because of the heightened traffic flow. We also note that often during the winter period there are slipping vehicle incidents on the corner of Gilbert and Monarch Streets due to the steepness of the grade. Gilbert St has been constructed for light, one way traffic, with no ability to widen the road or otherwise accommodate any additional traffic, and is actively shared with residents and pedestrians. Gilbert St is not suitable for two-way traffic. TRAFFIC STUDY: Is there or will there be a traffic study? NOISE: The quiet enjoyment of residents fronting Gilbert St, and in the surrounding area, would be severely impacted by a dramatic increase in service, tourist and "drop off" vehicles trying to negotiate or reverse out of what is already a very narrow street and unsuitable for two way traffic. It is anticipated that the traffic flow would be constant—both day and night—and result in a significant increase in noise not only from vehicles but exiting passengers. Is there or will there be a noise/acoustic study of the proposed amendments? VIEW CORRIDORS: The amended proposal for the Lift One East building -spanning Gilbert St and seemingly to abut the new Dolinsek park-would effectively destroy critical views of Shadow Mountain to the west, and a new building upon a public road would impact Aspen Mountain views from the Dolinsek Park. 2 In our case, our views from our property towards Shadow Mountain would be destroyed and replaced by a private development built across a public road. SOLAR ACCESS/VIEW STUDY: Is there or will there be a solar access/view study on the impact of the proposed amendments on the new Dolinsek Park and existing residents? PREVIOUS ASSURANCES: In the past my dealings with the City or others involved in the proposed development I have received assurances that any new building on Gilbert St will not be any higher or aligned closer to Gilbert St than the Skiers Chalet building which is proposed to be moved. I am happy to supply names of the relevant City representatives which I have been in direct contact with regarding the proposed development to date. LEGALITY: I have concerns about the legality of the notification and amendment process to date. I am concerned that the City in its eagerness to get the lift down to Dean St will make concessions such as the proposed construction on public land and ignore issues raised. PROPOSE: I ask that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City reject any change to the bulk, scale and siting of the East Lift One building and reject the proposed two-way usage of Gilbert St or any increase in vehicular traffic along Gilbert St (emergency and public authority vehicles being the exception). I would be happy to discuss any of the above with the City and my contact details are set out below. Regards, John Gilmour 623A S. Monarch St, Aspen CO 81611 Email: j�ilmour@huntin�daleproperties.com.au Cell: +61414 400 000 3 City of Aspen Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Commission, This letter relates to the proposed changes to the previously-approved Lift One Lodge project. I am the owner of Unit B at the Aspen Mountain Townhomes located at 623 S. Monarch Street- I've owned live different residences in Aspen over the last twenty plus years, have witnessed many changes in town during that time. and while I am encouraged by the redevelopment of the properties on Aspen Street, there is one element of the project that is very dangerous. The Applicant is now proposing to convert very narrow and one-way Gilbert Street into a two-way street_ It also appears that Gilbert Street will become a main access for the Lift One Lodge Property —not to mention a convenient drop off point for skiers socking to avoid congestion at the bottom of the new Lift 1. This dangerous and intrusive modification to the t ift One Lodge development plan should be unacceptable to the Planning & Zoning Commission. When discussing their proposals for the project. The Lift One Lodge developers trumpet many of the exciting results, but fail to speak to this important safety issue. Given its narrow width, it is unclear how it is even possible for Gilbert Street to accommodate two-way tralfc Our home, and most others on the street end their front stairs directly onto the edge of the street. As a member of the public, I am very concemed by this potential safety issue. and as a homeowner on Gilbert Street I am troubled by the potential for this use of Gilbert Street to take away my quiet enjoyment of my property. Gilbert Street is very narrow and there are no swales or right of ways on either side of the street that would allow for it to be expanded for two way traffic. It is a seldom travelled street because of its narrow width. Even as a one lane street there is no place for homeowners and pedestrians to walk except in the middle of the road. An attempt to increase traffic here will create a significant public safety fmiard on Gilbert StrccL It will also create a very dangerous intersection at Monarch and Gilbert as cars will be required to back out into the intersection it a car is exiting from Gilbert onto Monarch, creating a strong potential for accidents on Monarch from the cars traveling up and down this street So, in addition to creating a public safety issue on Gilbert, Monarch will also become much less safe as the intersection will see increased traffic. The safety issue becomes worse with any accumulation of snow or ioc due to the steep grade of Monarch Street. The other issue I would like to rase is the developer's request to move the East Lodge to a new position that would take away a view corridor up the mountain that has been in existence for decades. This now placement is drastically different Ulan that presc ritcd in previously approved development plans. In closing I would request that the Commission add sbpulabons to any approval that would deny the conversion of Gilbert Street to a two way street. (which is a physical impossibility given the size limitations), and also that the Cast Lodqe loci moved back to its original position preserving the long standing view corridor for the neighborhood. Thank you for considodrng my letter. Regards. I ' J)1415 Scr too�&, ( S_ v N r 'b From: Jeannine Stickle To: James Marcus(jmarcuszo(a@omail.com);Kelly McNicholas(kellv.mcnicholas(a)omail.com); Rally Dum) (rallvduoos(a@(imail.com);Ruth Carver Uuthac48(a@gmail.com);Ryan Walterscheid(rwalterscheid(a@vahoo.com); Scott Marcoux(scott(a@sr nouidance.com);Skioov Mesirow(ski oov.mesirow(a@gmail.com);soencer.mckniaht (soencer.mckniaht(a)amail.com);Teraissa McGovern(teraissa.mcaovem(ogmail.com) Cc: Ben Anderson;Jennifer Phelan Subject: Public Comment for Lift One Corridor Project FW:Lift One Lodge Plan Date: Monday,October 15,2018 3:01:24 PM Please see below. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager City Clerk 130 South Galena St. Aspen,CO 81611 p:970-429-2686 www.cityofaspen.com -----Original Message----- From:Robert Barnes<rmarvinbarnes@gmail.com> Sent:Monday,October 15,2018 2:22 PM To:Jeannine Stickle<jeannine.stickle@cityofaspen.com> Subject:Lift One Lodge Plan To Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, We're writing concerning the Commission's review of the Lift One Lodge Plan. While we enthusiastically support construction of the new lift and the relocation of the lift down the mountain,we have serious concerns about one aspect of the plan. Although it is not completely clear from the plan,it appears the Lift One Lodge is seeking to locate the entrance to their underground parking garage off of Dean Street rather than offAspen Street as set forth in their original plan. That change will route all Lodge traffic,including service vehicles for the Lodge,onto Dean Street. That street is simply not large enough to safely handle the traffic load. Many skiers will enter the new lift area by foot from downtown and will have to cross Dean St.to access the new lift. That method of access should be pedestrian-friendly. Moving the garage access to Dean St.as now proposed, will require those pedestrians to cross what will be a significant stream of traffic to get to the new lift. We believe the area around Dean St.should be an attractive gathering point for skiers,similar to the other end of Dean St.at the Gondola Plaza. This new plan takes what should be a beautiful area around the new lift and make it unsightly and a traffic mess. The new proposal will also significantly increase traffic on other streets in the neighborhood. All traffic from the Lodge to the new garage will now have to travel North along Aspen St.,then East on Dean St.to the garage entrance. Traffic from the new garage back to the Lodge will then need to go East on Dean,North on Monarch, West on Durant and back South on Aspen St. This traffic pattern unnecessarily routes all that traffic onto Dean, Monarch and Durant Streets. It significantly lengthens the travel for that traffic,at the cost of additional time and fuel;will increase congestion,car fumes and noise and will generally be unsafe and very pedestrian unfriendly. We respectfully request that the Commission reject the proposed change to-the location of the garage entrance and require the developer to move the garage entrance back to the front of the Lodge on Aspen St.as originally planned. This new lift should be safe and attractive for all residents of Aspen and should not just be for the benefit of the developers of Lift One Lodge. Robert Barnes Karen Bisset From: Jeannine Stickle To: James Marcus(imarcuszo(a)amail.com);Kelly McNicholas(kelly.mcnicholas()omail.com);Rally Dur) (rallvduops(a)amail.com);Ruth Carver(ruthac48(a)amail.com);Ryan Walterscheid(rwalterscheid(a)vahoo.com); = Marcoux(scott(a)srmauidance.com);Skiopy Mesirow(ski ppy.mesirow(&amail.com);spencer.mckniaht (spencer.mcknight(a)omail.com);Teraissa McGovern(teraissa.mcgovem(a)gmail.com) Cc: Ben Anderson;Jennifer Phelan Subject: Public Comment for Lift One Corridor Project FW:South Point-Re:Lift One Lodge,3 of 5,Application to amend Ordinance 28,Series of 2011 Date: Thursday,October 11,2018 9:35:53 AM Attachments: imaae001.pna Please see below for the third of three emails sent from Marissa Lasky. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager City Clerk 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970-429-2686 www.cityofaspen.com 8 in, In From: Marissa Lasky<info@ mnlakes.net> Sent:Wednesday, October 10, 2018 4:10 PM To:City Clerk<Clerk@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Fwd:South Point-Re: Lift One Lodge, 3 of 5,Application to amend Ordinance 28,Series of 2011 Email number 3 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From:The Romero Group<galen anaspenreal.com> Date:October 9, 2018 at 7:07:41 PM MDT To: info(@Umnrentals.com Subject:South Point-Re: Lift One Lodge,3 of 5,Application to amend Ordinance 28, Series of 2011 Reply-To:galenPaspenreal.com Dear South Point Owners, Regarding the Renderings which start on page 78 ofthe application(CLICK HERE) The site plan for their application shows the Ski Museum building being moved from its originally approved location north to Dean St with"skier milling and mazing"areas behind it.This will affect the views from many of our units.This will create shade and more ice on Dean St.Keeping this building in its originally approved location would provide for a "gathering place"in front of the building and easier access to the lift for pedestrians. In addition to the.6' bike land and 2' separator strip,the proposed site plan now has a 6' wide sidewalk running the entire length of Dean St in the right of way on our side of the street.This would require us to relocate our dumpster,but I'm not sure where we would put it.The proposed plan also has a sidewalk on the south side of Dean St.Dean St.would be much more pedestrian friendly without the Lift One Lodge garage entrance and there wouldn't be a need for a continuous sidewalk on our side of the street. Thank you, Galen Bright President&Treasurer South Point Condominium Association 205 E.Durant Avenue,Unit 3D Aspen,CO 81611 Email: galen .asnenreal.com CELL:970-379-3877 The Romero Group I Physical: 208 Midland Avenue, Mailing: PO Box 4100, Basalt, CO 81621 Unsubscribe info(cbUmnrentals.com Update Profile I About our service provider Sent by oalen(cbaspenreal.com in collaboration with Try it free today From: Jeannine Stickle To: James Marcus(imarcuszg(algmail.com);Kelly McNicholas(kelly.mcnicholas(a)amail.com); Rally Duoos (rallvduoos(algmail.com);Ruth Carver(ruthac48(@gmail.com);Ryan Walterscheid(rwalterscheid(a)yahoo.com); Scott Marcoux(scottc@srmouidance.com);Skippy Mesirow(skiRRy.mesirow(algmail.com);soencer.mcknight (spencer.mckniaht(n)gmail.com);Teraissa McGovern(teraissa.mcgovern(algmail.com) Cc: Ben Anderson;Jennifer Phelan Subject: Public Comment for Lift One Corridor Project FW:South Point Objections to proposed Lift One Development changes Date: Monday,October 15,2018 4:16:19 PM Attachments: image001.1)ng Please see below. � A r'ITY!)F ASPD-' Jeannine Stickle Records Manager City Clerk 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970-429-2686 www.cityofaspen.com in 1 From: Don R.Averitt<averittd@swbel1.net> Sent: Monday,October 15, 2018 3:30 PM To:Jeannine Stickle<jeannine.stickle@cityofaspen.com>; Public Comment <PublicComment@cityofaspen.com>;cindy.klob@cityofaspen.com Cc:Galen Bright<galen @aspenreal.com>; Marissa Lasky<laskyco@mnlakes.net> Subject:South Point Objections to proposed Lift One Development changes Aspen Planning and Zoning, We strongly object to relocating and substantially rebuilding the very large,three story structure that is Skier Chalet-styled for the Museum. This building is NOT on the Historic Preservation List and NOT a historically significant structure. If rebuilt, it should be in the original site plan location,the very extreme southeast corner of Willoughby Park area sand volleyball courts(adjacent to the Dolinsek tract). It should be away from Dean Street and not blocking our view planes and sunshine we've had for over 40 years from our building to Aspen Mountain. If located almost at the curb of Dean St., it would shadow impact Dean Street and South Point,which will create unsafe icing conditions on this small and already shaded street and community and reduce or eliminate any sunshine in that area already receiving limited sun in winter due to Shadow Mountain. If a structure needs to be moved, it should comply with current zoning height restrictions and should be set back far from the street to not creat shadow effects to Dean and to the longtime residents of South Point Condominiums.The City of Aspen has long supported preservation of sunlight in developments by stepping back structures and adding setback requirements, as many cities rightly do to achieve this. We think a compromise can be reached to tuck this"Museum" structure back at the far corner of the current sand volleyball courts and not have such impact on public space and private residents and not add to dangerous icing conditions on streets. We support the new location of the Lift IA ski lift and encourage good and responsible redevelopment of the Shadow Mountain/Lift One area to add vibrancy and entice the World Cup races back to Aspen. However, we DO NOT support what would essentially be rebuilding a large 3 story structure, in contradiction of current zoning policy, banning 3 story structure in the core, and place it almost at curbside of what's now open space and surface parking along Dean Street at Willoughby Park. If the Historic Association feels they really need a ski Museum at the base of Aspen Mountain,and if the Ski Co. and Brown developers can co-use this structure,to make it economically viable, it does NOT need to be located where it will shadow over Dean Street-a street that already has reduced winter sunlight due to Shadow Mountain- and create dangerous icing conditions to the very narrow and small street. We also strongly oppose relocating the underground parking ingress and egress from Aspen Street-where is makes the most sense to be located-anywhere along Dean street. We join in South Point HOA support for the following points: —We enthusiastically support the location of a new Lift I as proposed in the latest plans for the area. We believe it is terrific for all of Aspen and for the neighborhood. — We are concerned, however,that the developer of Lift One Lodge is using the town's excitement for the project to make some significant changes from the original plan that are clearly not in the best interests of Aspen or the neighborhood and its full-time and part-time residents and guests. —We believe that the placement of the Ski Museum should be returned to its originally- planned location near the site of the Dolinsek property and volleyball court. Putting the Ski Museum right next to Dean St. as provided in the latest plan adds to visual congestion along Dean St.,reduces natural light on Dean St.,which can lead to icing problems for pedestrians, and eliminates green space and/or a place for people to gather in front of the Ski Museum. —Moving the Ski Museum to Dean St. also needlessly blocks the sight lines for residents of South Point,a along-established view plane of the historic Lift One. —The original plan for the Lift One Lodge provided for the entrance to the underground parking garage to be on Aspen St., adjacent to the entrance to the Lodge. That location provides a logical and efficient flow of traffic into and out of the garage. We strongly believe that is where the entrance to the garage should remain. —The Lodge's developer's latest plan moves the entrance to the parking garage from Aspen St.to Dean St. We believe this change is a significant mistake for several reasons: The change will route all garage traffic onto Dean St. That street simply isn't large enough to safely and efficiently handle the additional traffic load. Many skiers will enter the area on foot from downtown and will have to cross Dean St. to access the lift area.That method of access should be pedestrian-friendly. Moving the location of the garage entrance will force pedestrians to cross what will be a significant stream of traffic. This area of Dean St.,at the base of the new Lift 1 A should be an attractive gathering point for pedestrians, similar to the other end of Dean St. at the Gondola Plaza, And as such be an attractive OPEN SPACE for gathering, meeting and going on to board the new lift, similar to Gondola Plaza. —The alternative now proposed by the developer will cause all traffic from the Lodge to the garage to travel North along Aspen St. and then East along Dean St.to the garage entrance. Traffic exiting the garage and returning to the Lodge will then need to travel East on Dean St.,North on Monarch, West on Durant and then South on Aspen St. back to the Lodge. This traffic pattern unnecessarily routes all those vehicles onto Dean St., Monarch St. and Durant St. It would lengthen travel for that traffic, at the cost of additional time and fuel; increase congestion, car fumes and noise along those streets; and make the area very unfriendly to pedestrians. —It is clearly more efficient and safer for the Lift One Lodge garage traffic to remain on Aspen St. as originally planned. —The developer has said that the reason for the change is to reduce the slope of entry into the garage. The purported benefit of such a drastic change is greatly outweighed by its many significant negatives. -Adding a 6' wide bike lane with a 2' separator strip along the north side of Dean St is unnecessary as it does not go anywhere, it reduces and confuses an already narrow and small street. The handful of bikers riding to Lift 1 A need to get to the lift on the south side of Dean St, not to the other end of Dean St. This additional 8' in width would require further mitigation to decrease the slope across the street. During the recent Open House event at the Limelight the developer verbally proposed to one of our owners that a 3' retaining wall be built along the South Point side of the street(this is not included in their application).This would basically change our ground floor units into garden level units. - The proposed site plan now has a 6' wide sidewalk running the entire length of Dean St in the right of way on our side of the street and endangering a gorgeous 40' tall blue spruce tree. This would also require us to relocate our dumpster of some 40 years without any good second location option other than Aspen Street-the entrance to the new Lift One area. The proposed plan also has a sidewalk on the south side of Dean St. This section of Dean St would be much more pedestrian friendly without the Lift One Lodge garage entrance and there wouldn't be a need for a continuous sidewalk on the north side of the street. Again, Dean is a very narrow street. —These proposed changes by the developer should be rejected. We have only one chance to get this right.Aspen has been struggling with this area for years. Let's not allow the developer to use the City's excitement for the project to justify important changes that are clearly not in the best interests of the overall project or to Aspen and its residents and guests. WE STRONGLY URGE YOU TO RELOCATE THE"MUSEUM"TO THE ORIGINAL SOUTHEAST CORNER, IN LINE WITH THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN.AND LOCATE PARKING INGRESS/EGRESS TO SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE BACK TO THE MUCH LARGER ASPEN STREET. Sincerely, Barbara and Don Averitt 205 E. Durant Street, Apartment 2B Aspen, CO 81611 214-502-9070 averittd swbell.net From: Jeannine Stickle To: James Marcus jmarcuszo(aamail.com);Kelly McNicholas(kelly.mcnicholas(cbamail.com);Rally Dupp� (rallyduops(d)gmail.com);Ruth Carver(ruthac4K)amail.com);Ryan Walterscheid(rwalterscheid(o)vahoo.com); Scott Marcoux(scott(d)srmguidance.com);SkiRRy Mesirow(ski py.mesirow(d)gmaiLcoml;soencer.mcknioht (spencer.mckniaht(o)amail.coml;Teraissa McGovern(teraissa.mcaovern(a)gmail.com) Cc: Ben Anderson;Jennifer Phelan Subject: Public Comment on Lift One Corridor Project FW: Lift One Lodge and Related Issues Date: Monday,October 15,2018 8:50:01 AM Please see below Jeannine Stickle Records Manager City Clerk 130 South Galena St. Aspen,CO 81611 p:970-429-2686 www.cityofaspen.com -----Original Message----- From:Evan Trestman<trestmanlaw@aol.com> Sent:Monday,October 15,2018 8:42 AM To:Jeannine Stickle<jeannine.stickle@cityofaspen.com> Subject:Lift One Lodge and Related Issues Dear Ms.Stickle: I would very much appreciate your presenting this email to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Members of the City Council for the City of Aspen. I am a resident and owner of Unit 3A in the South Point Condominiums in Aspen. While I support the the plan to move a new Lift 1 A to Dean Street,I am vehemently opposed to locating the proposed parking garage and Ski Museum to a Dean Street location! If the Ski Museum is not moved farther back up Aspen Mountain,my sight lines and livability will be seriously adversely affected! Furthermore,locating the museum and parking garage on Dean Street will create horrible and unnecessary traffic,congestion,and safety issues! I respectfully recommend that the parking garage be located at its original proposed location up Aspen Street. Thank you,the Planning and Zoning Commission,and the City Council for your important consideration of my positions regarding this most important matter to me! Sincerely, Evan F.Trestman (504)432-2500 Sent from my iPad From: Jeannine Stickle To: James Marcus(imarcuszg(a)gmail.com); Kelly McNicholas(kelly.mcnicholas(o)gmail.com);Rally Dupos (rallyduops(E)amail.com);Ruth Carver(ruthac48(a)amail.com);Ryan Walterscheid(rwalterscheid()avahoo.com); Scott Marcoux(scottansrmauidance.com);Skiooy Mesirow(ski ppy.mesirow(u)amail.com);soencer.mckniaht (spencer.mcknight(u)gmail.com);Teraissa McGovern(teraissa.mcoovern(algmail.com) Cc: Ben Anderson;Jennifer Phelan Subject: Public Comment on Lift One Corridor Project FW:Lift One Lodge and Related Issues Date: Monday,October 15,2018 8:50:02 AM Please see below Jeannine Stickle Records Manager City Clerk 130 South Galena St. Aspen,CO 81611 p:970-429-2686 www.cityofaspen.com -----Original Message----- From:Evan Trestman<trestmanlaw@aol.com> Sent:Monday,October 15,2018 8:42 AM To:Jeannine Stickle<jeannine.stickle@cityofaspen.com> Subject:Lift One Lodge and Related Issues Dear Ms.Stickle: I would very much appreciate your presenting this email to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Members of the City Council for the City of Aspen. I am a resident and owner of Unit 3A in the South Point Condominiums in Aspen. While I support the the plan to move a new Lift 1 A to Dean Street,I am vehemently opposed to locating the proposed parking garage and Ski Museum to a Dean Street location! If the Ski Museum is not moved farther back up Aspen Mountain,my sight lines and livability will be seriously adversely affected! Furthermore,locating the museum and parking garage on Dean Street will create horrible and unnecessary traffic,congestion,and safety issues! I respectfully recommend that the parking garage be located at its original proposed location up Aspen Street. Thank you,the Planning and Zoning Commission,and the City Council for your important consideration of my positions regarding this most important matter to me! Sincerely, Evan F.Trestman (504)432-2500 Sent from my iPad From: Jeannine Stickle To: James Marcus(jmarcuszo(o)amail.com);Kelly McNicholas(kelly.mcnicholas(@amail.com);Rally DuR2s (rallydupps(Q)amail.com);Ruth Carver(ruthac48(i)amail.com);Ryan Walterscheid(rwalterscheidlalvahoo.com); Scott Marcoux(scott(a)snnguidance.com);Skippy Mesirow lskiooy.mesirow(a)amail.com);soencer.mckniaht (spencer.mcknight(a)gmail.com);Teraissa McGovern(teraissa.mcaovem(u)amail.com) Cc: Jennifer Phelan;Ben Anderson Subject: Public Comment on Lift One Corridor Project FW:Lift One Plan Date: Friday,October 12,2018 8:26:37 AM Attachments: image001.ona Hi all, Please see below. 40,`�� CITY OF ASPEN Jeannine Stickle Records Manager City Clerk 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970-429-2686 www.cityofaspen.com 93 © @ From:Cindy michael <cindy94010@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, October 11, 2018 6:43 PM To:Jeannine Stickle<jeannine.stickle@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Lift One Plan We were very excited to see the ORIGINAL plans to relocate Lift 1A. We feel this will be a positive and energizing development for Aspen and the neighborhood. However,we do not support the significant changes to the original plan that the developer has recently proposed. We feel these newly proposed changes to the original plan will consequently act as a detriment to the neighborhood. The entrance to the underground garage for the Lift One Lodge should remain on Aspen St.as stated in the original plan. This is a logical location for the efficient flow of traffic. The proposal of relocating this garage entrance onto Dean St.is problematic in that all garage traffic would be routed onto Dean St.which is not wide enough to safely and efficiently accommodate the pedestrians and the traffic demands. Many skiers will enter the lift area on foot from downtown and have to cross Dean St.to access the area. This must be a pedestrian safe zone. Thus, Dean St.is not the right location for the entrance of the Lift Lodge Garage. We do not support this change from the original plan. Dean St.should be a pedestrian friendly continuation of the central downtown area. This provides for a much better flow similar in feel to the Gondola Plaza which serves as a refuge for congregation for the Aspen community and guests. Please return to the original plan which would be a celebrated and superior plan for the town's citizens and guests. Thank you, Art and Cindy Michael Southpoint 3-1 From: Jeannine Stickle To: James Marcus(imarcuszo(a)amail.com);Kelly McNicholas(kelly.mcnicholas(a)amail.com);Rally Dupos (rallvduRRs(akamail.com);Ruth Carver(ruthac48(&gmail.com);Ryan Walterscheid(rwalterscheid(olyahoo.com); Scott Marcoux(scott(a)srrnguidance.com);Skiooy Mesirow(skiooy.mesirow(a)amail.com);spencer.mckniaht (soencer.mcknight(a)gmail.com);Teraissa McGovern(teraissa.mcaovern@gmail.com) Cc: Ben Anderson;Jennifer Phelan Subject: Public Comment on Lift One Corridor Project FW:New plans for lift 1A Date: Monday,October 15,2018 3:03:22 PM Attachments: image002.ona Please see below. /���► 2% 'or► CITY OF ASPEN Jeannine Stickle Records Manager City Clerk 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970-429-2686 www.cityofaspen.com 9 © in From:Steve Gorski<steveg@al-arcorp.com> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 2:31 PM To: 'cindy.klob@cityofaspen.com' <cindy.klob@cityofaspen.com> Cc: Public Comment<PublicComment@cityofaspen.com> Subject: New plans for lift 1A Cindy, I own a condo off Durant street in Aspen (South Point). I am writing you to please reconsider some of the changes to the original plans for lift 1A. By moving the entrance (of the parking garage) to Dean St. instead of Aspen street I feel is a big mistake. I do support the plans for the new lift. However I feel Dean street simply is not large enough to safely and efficiently handle the additional traffic load if the entrance of the parking garage is moved from Aspen St. to Dean St. It is clearly more efficient and safer for the Lift one Lodge garage to remain on Aspen street as originally planned. Please think of the traffic pattern itself. Many skiers will enter the area on foot from downtown will have to cross Dean St. to access the lift. Moving the location of the garage entrance will force pedestrians to cross a steady stream of traffic. It is also my understanding that the new plan has 6' wide sidewalk running the entire length of Dean Street. This change would require us to relocate our dumpster — But where? This section of Dean Street would be much more pedestrian friendly without the Lift One Lodge garage entrance being relocated. It is also my understanding that the developer proposed to add a 3' retaining wall along the South Point side of the street. I do not believe this was included in their original plans. I urge you to please think about the above points and stick to the original plans. Thank You, Steve Gorski From: Jeannine Stickle To: James Marcus(imarcusm(obamail.com);Kelly McNicholas(kelly.mcnicholas(a)amail.com);Rally Duops (rallydupos(algmail.com);Ruth Carver(ruthac48Ca1amail.com);Ryan Walterscheid(rwalterscheidCalvahoo.com); Scott Marcoux(scott(a)srmouidance.com);Skioov Mesirow(ski DDy.mesirow(a)gmail.corn spencer.mckniaht (soencer.mcknightrulgmail.com);Teraissa McGovern(teraissa.mcaovem(clamail.com) Cc: Ben Anderson;Jennifer Phelan Subject: Public Comment on Lift One Corridor Project FW: Notes about LIft1A Date: Tuesday,October 16,2018 8:33:01 AM Attachments: imaae001.ono Hi All, Another past-deadline arrival. 4k► �/rMY► CITY OFASPEN Jeannine Stickle Records Manager City Clerk 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970-429-2686 www.cityofaspen.com 93 C3 @ From: Elizabeth Goldreich <elizabethgoldreich@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 9:56 PM To:Jeannine Stickle<jeannine.stickle@cityofaspen.com>; Public Comment <PublicComment@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Notes about Llft1A To City of Aspen Officials: As an owner of a ground floor unit at Southpoint condominiums, a proponent of development and a lover of all things Aspen, I am writing to you about the proposed plans along Dean and Aspen Street. Our first-floor unit will be directly impacted by all the changes taking place in the Lift 1A project. We sit directly opposite the original artifact and are the proud neighbors of the brand new sidewalk. We are excited to see the Lift come closer to town, however, there are a few proposed changes that raise a red flag. There does not seem to be a seamless concept of bringing the pedestrian influence seen near The St. Regis and Hyatt down to where the Lift will be located. In fact, there is talk of a bike lane and a retaining wall. If Dean is to be a pedestrian-friendly environment, a continuous passage from the Gondola and a safe environment, it seems that this plan is counterintuitive. In addition, the inclusion of a retaining wall will change the scope of our first-floor walk out units to garden level property which will negatively impact our home value as well as our view and ease of ingress/egress. The parking garage access on Dean Street also impacts the pedestrian qualities associated with the new lift. Continuous traffic along Dean Street seems inappropriate in an area where a pedestrian mall, ski musem and ski lift will be present. Aspen Street is the logical choice for enhanced traffic due to the walk being steep and pedestrian traffic low. To move so much activity to Dean Street while also encouraging pedestrian traffic seems counterproductive. In the original plan, the Ski Museum is moved to the current volleyball court. Now there is a discussion of moving the structure to the building line on Dean Street. The density this creates with a small street, a building with no buffer from the street, increased traffic and little room for pedestrian flow creates an environment that is not in-line with the other pedestrian-friendly areas of town. Please consider making some significant changes to the proposed building plan to avoid some of these pitfalls. Sincerely, Liz Goldreich 205 East Dean #1D Liz Goldreich direct: 214-405-7437 From: Jeannine Stickle To: James Marcus(imarcuszo(a)amail.com); Kelly McNicholas(kelly.mcnicholas(algmail.com); Rally Duoos (rallvduoDs(a)amail.com);Ruth Carver(ruthac48(a)gmail.com);Ryan Walterscheid(rwalterscheid((Dvahoo.com); Scott Marcoux(scott(u)srmouidance.com);Skioov Mesirow(ski opv.mesirow(a)amaiLcoml;soencer.mcknight (soencer.mcknight(algmail.com);Teraissa McGovern(teraissa.mcgovem(@gmail.com) Cc: Ben Anderson;Jennifer Phelan Subject: Public Comment on Lift One Corridor Project FW: Planning and Zoning Commission Lift One Lodge Application to Amend Date: Monday,October 15,2018 8:37:53 AM Attachments: image001.ong Please see below. 8 Jeannine Stickle Records Manager City Clerk 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970-429-2686 www.cilyofaspen.com 8 9 Jul From:John Paterson <johnpaterson4@me.com> Sent:Sunday, October 14, 2018 3:55 PM To:Jeannine Stickle<jeannine.stickle@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Planning and Zoning Commission Lift One Lodge Application to Amend Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members I am writing to you regarding the proposal from Lift One Lodge to amend the current approvals for for the development works in and around the Lift 1 area. I am a unit owner in South Point Condominium complex, Unit 2A, located on the corner of E Durant Ave and Aspen Street and bordered at the south by Dean Street. I am also a board member of the HOA for South Point Condominiums. I am very excited about the planned re-development of this area and I support the plans to relocate Lift 1A to the new proposed location based on Scenario 7. However I am concerned about the relocation of the garage entrance for Lift One Lodge to Dean Street. The original location for the garage entrance was on Aspen Street which is the logical location for the entrance when considering traffic flow in and out of the underground garage. I strongly believe that the garage entrance should remain located on Aspen Street as per the original approvals. The proposal submitted to Council by Lift One Lodge has the entrance relocated to Dean Street which I believe is a mistake for a number of reasons: • Dean Street is not large enough to accomodate the additional traffic that will undoubtably flow into and out of the underground garage • Traffic congestion in and around E Durant Ave,Aspen Street, Monarch Street will increase especially during morning peak times with vehicles attempting to enter and exit the underground garage.This increase in traffic congestion will not only effect the neighborhood but it will also have flow on impacts on the flow of traffic in and out of Aspen including RAFTA buses • Given that Dean Street is short the traffic congestion will bank back along Dean Street, onto Aspen Street and then back to the E Durant Ave/Aspen Street intersection which will have major impacts on traffic flow to and from Aspen • Dean Street is a very short street which does not really go anywhere, it terminates at one end at St Regis and at the other end at Aspen Street, it is predominately a pedestrian access way, by introducing more vehicles onto Dean Street there is an increased risk of pedestrian and vehicle interactions • The skier drop off proposed on Dean Street coupled with the additional traffic flow to the underground garage entrance will also add to the additional traffic congestion as well as an increased risk with skier and vehicle interactions • With all deliveries for Lift One Lodge also being directed to the underground garage entrance via Dean Street there will be additional pressure on traffic and more congestion will result As it can be seen from the above points moving the underground garage entrance to Dean Street has significant negative impacts on the area not to mention the potential risk to pedestrians using Dean Street to access the new lift location. Lift One Lodge note some benefits for itself to relocating the underground garage entrance to Dean Street however it is evident to me that the negatives for the city and immediate surrounding area, some of which are noted above,far out weight the potential benefits to the developer. I also believe that the placement of the Ski Museum should be returned to its original approved location near the site of the Dolinsek property and volleyball court for the reasons outlined below: • With the Ski Museum right on Dean Street there may be a reduction in natural light leading to a visual congestion as well as potential icing problems for vehicles and pedestrians • With the other proposed changes to Dean Street the will be no space available for people to gather in front of the Ski Museum • The proposed location directly impacts the sight lines for residents and guests of South Point The addition of a 6' bike lane and 2' separator strip is unnecessary as Dean Street essentially goes no where.This additional width required for Dean Street will also require significant road re-levelling due to the cross fall currently on Dean Street. During the recent Open House at Limelight the developer when asked about this matter mentioned that a 3' high retaining wall might be required along the South Point side of Dean Street.This would effectively turn our ground floor units into garden level units. The developer has also proposed changes to the sidewalks in the area with a side walk running down both sides of the street.This will have a massive impact on the location for South Points' dumpster. With the underground garage entrance proposed new location on Dean Street there is a potential increase risk in vehicle/pedestrian interactions. These proposed changes should be rejected and the location of the underground garage entrance should be returned to its approved location on Aspen Street. This area of Aspen is in need of a facelift and has been talked about for as long as I have been a part of Aspen (over 20 years).The City has a great opportunity to improve this area and make it one of the focal points for Aspen. But we only get one chance to get it right for the current and future residents and guests who will visit Aspen. The development of this area is an exciting time for Aspen but clearly the proposed changes to Lift One Lodge's current approvals do not have Aspen's,the residents or guests best interests front and foremost. Kind Regards John Paterson iohnpaterson4(@me.com 205 E Durant Ave Apt 2A Aspen CO 81611 970 456 7119 From: Jeannine Stickle To: James Marcus(jmarcuszo(a)amail.com); Kelly McNicholas(kelly.mcnicholas(a)gmail.com); Rally Duoos (rallyduims(n)gmail.com);Ruth Carver(ruthac48(ogmail.com);Ryan Walterscheid(rwalterscheid(a)yahoo.com); Scott Marcoux(scott(osrmauidance.com);Skop Mesirow(skippv.mesirow(u)gmail.com);spencer.mckniaht (soencer,mcknight(a)omail.com);Teraissa McGovern(teraissa.mcgovern(a)amail.com) Cc: Ben Anderson;Jennifer Phelan Subject: Public Comment on Lift One Corridor Project FW:Planning and Zoning Commission Lift One Lodge Application to Amend Date: Monday,October 15,2018 8:37:53 AM Attachments: imaae001.ono Please see below. CITY OFASPEN Jeannine Stickle Records Manager City Clerk 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970-429-2686 www.cilyofaspen.com 91090 From:John Paterson <johnpaterson4@me.com> Sent:Sunday, October 14, 2018 3:55 PM To:Jeannine Stickle<jeannine.stickle@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Planning and Zoning Commission Lift One Lodge Application to Amend Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members I am writing to you regarding the proposal from Lift One Lodge to amend the current approvals for for the development works in and around the Lift 1 area. I am a unit owner in South Point Condominium complex, Unit 2A, located on the corner of E Durant Ave and Aspen Street and bordered at the south by Dean Street. I am also a board member of the HOA for South Point Condominiums. I am very excited about the planned re-development of this area and I support the plans to relocate Lift 1A to the new proposed location based on Scenario 7. However I am concerned about the relocation of the garage entrance for Lift One Lodge to Dean Street. The original location for the garage entrance was on Aspen Street which is the logical location for the entrance when considering traffic flow in and out of the underground garage. I strongly believe that the garage entrance should remain located on Aspen Street as per the original approvals. The proposal submitted to Council by Lift One Lodge has the entrance relocated to Dean Street which I believe is a mistake for a number of reasons: • Dean Street is not large enough to accomodate the additional traffic that will undoubtably flow into and out of the underground garage • Traffic congestion in and around E Durant Ave,Aspen Street, Monarch Street will increase especially during morning peak times with vehicles attempting to enter and exit the underground garage. This increase in traffic congestion will not only effect the neighborhood but it will also have flow on impacts on the flow of traffic in and out of Aspen including RAFTA buses • Given that Dean Street is short the traffic congestion will bank back along Dean Street, onto Aspen Street and then back to the E Durant Ave/Aspen Street intersection which will have major impacts on traffic flow to and from Aspen • Dean Street is a very short street which does not really go anywhere, it terminates at one end at St Regis and at the other end at Aspen Street, it is predominately a pedestrian access way, by introducing more vehicles onto Dean Street there is an increased risk of pedestrian and vehicle interactions • The skier drop off proposed on Dean Street coupled with the additional traffic flow to the underground garage entrance will also add to the additional traffic congestion as well as an increased risk with skier and vehicle interactions • With all deliveries for Lift One Lodge also being directed to the underground garage entrance via Dean Street there will be additional pressure on traffic and more congestion will result As it can be seen from the above points moving the underground garage entrance to Dean Street has significant negative impacts on the area not to mention the potential risk to pedestrians using Dean Street to access the new lift location. Lift One Lodge note some benefits for itself to relocating the underground garage entrance to Dean Street however it is evident to me that the negatives for the city and immediate surrounding area, some of which are noted above,far out weight the potential benefits to the developer. I also believe that the placement of the Ski Museum should be returned to its original approved location near the site of the Dolinsek property and volleyball court for the reasons outlined below: • With the Ski Museum right on Dean Street there may be a reduction in natural light leading to a visual congestion as well as potential icing problems for vehicles and pedestrians • With the other proposed changes to Dean Street the will be no space available for people to gather in front of the Ski Museum • The proposed location directly impacts the sight lines for residents and guests of South Point The addition of a 6' bike lane and 2' separator strip is unnecessary as Dean Street essentially goes no where.This additional width required for Dean Street will also require significant road re-levelling due to the cross fall currently on Dean Street. During the recent Open House at Limelight the developer when asked about this matter mentioned that a 3' high retaining wall might be required along the South Point side of Dean Street.This would effectively turn our ground floor units into garden level units. The developer has also proposed changes to the sidewalks in the area with a side walk running down both sides of the street.This will have a massive impact on the location for South Points' dumpster. With the underground garage entrance proposed new location on Dean Street there is a potential increase risk in vehicle/pedestrian interactions. These proposed changes should be rejected and the location of the underground garage entrance should be returned to its approved location on Aspen Street. This area of Aspen is in need of a facelift and has been talked about for as long as I have been a part of Aspen (over 20 years).The City has a great opportunity to improve this area and make it one of the focal points for Aspen. But we only get one chance to get it right for the current and future residents and guests who will visit Aspen. The development of this area is an exciting time for Aspen but clearly the proposed changes to Lift One Lodge's current approvals do not have Aspen's,the residents or guests best interests front and foremost. Kind Regards John Paterson johnpaterson4(@me.com 205 E Durant Ave Apt 2A Aspen CO 81611 970 456 7119 From: Jeannine Stickle To: James Marcus(imarcuszo(a)amail.com);Kelly McNicholas(kellv.mcnicholas(a)amail.com);Rally Duoos (rallvduoos(alamail.com);Ruth Carver(ruthac48(aaamail.com);Ryan Walterscheid(rwalterscheiclONahoo.com);Scott Marcoux(scott(a)srmpuidance.com);Skiooy Mesirow(skiooy.mesirow(&amail.com);soencer.mckniaht (soencer.mckniaht(a)amail.com);Teraissa McGovern(teraissa.mcaovem(a)amail.com) Cc: Ben Anderson;Jennifer Phelan Subject: Public Comment on Lift One Corridor Project FW:South Point-Re:Lift One Lodge,1 of 5,Application to Amend Ordinance 28,Series of 2011 Date: Thursday,October 11,2018 9:30:43 AM Attachments: imaae001.Dna This is the first of three emails I'm forwarding from Marissa Lasky. Please see below. INK Jeannine Stickle Records Manager City Clerk 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970-429-2686 www.c*tyofaspen.com 8 �8 L® From: Marissa Lasky<info@mnlakes.net> Sent:Wednesday, October 10, 2018 4:09 PM To:City Clerk<Clerk@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Fwd: South Point- Re: Lift One Lodge, 1 of 5,Application to Amend Ordinance 28, Series of 2011 First of three emails I will forward . I am also a resident of Southpoint. I am attending all meetings I can make. Marissa Lasky 612-816-2122 Info(@ummtentals.com Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From:The Romero Group<galen(@aspenreal.com> Date: October 9, 2018 at 7:06:12 PM MDT To:info(@UmnrentaIs.com Subject:South Point-Re: Lift One Lodge, 1 of 5,Application to Amend Ordinance 28, Series of 2011 Reply-To:galen(@aspenreal.com L0 Dear South Point Owners, Please note that is the first of 5 emails on this subject. The Lift One Lodge has submitted their application to amend the approvals that they received under Ordinance 28 in 2011.This is a link to the entire 465 page application: https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/3460/Lift-One-Lodge--- Annlication I'll send a Summary of the application after this. Attached(CLICK HERE)are some highlighted sections from the application, including the code requirements and the developer's response to each requirement. I doubt we will be able to convince City Council to turn Dean St to pedestrian only but there are a number of argu vents from within their own application for keeping the garage entrance on Aspen St and within their own development. Notes regarding the highlighted sections of the application: From the main section of the application: • Pg. 22—"The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses...including but not limited to the effects of... excess traffic..." (and their answer below that... • Pg. 23—All delivery service through garage. • Pg. 25—"The purpose of Planned Development.... F. Promotes safe and convenient transit, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access and circulation." • Pg. 26—Growth Mgmt—"traffic control" • Pg. 39—Transportation and Parking Mgmt—"Improve the convenience,safety,and quality of experience for bicyclists and pedestrians on streets and trails"and "Develop a strategic plan that manages the supple of parking and reduces the adverse impacts of the automobile." • Pg. 39—Trip reduction measures • Pg.40—Parking Minimums—(they have reduced their own parking spaces from 113 to 59.That should help reduce the overall traffic flow in and out of the garage, but it seems like they might not have enough for themselves now) • Pg.46—(will their"valet parking program" use the 50 public parking spaces in the garage and the other public parking spaces on the street?) • Attachment 1, pages 3&7—confirmation that all parking,trash &delivery will be in the garage From Attachment 9a of the application: • Pg.4—(they have added a 6'wide bike lane with a 2'separator lane along the north side of Dean St.The developer is obviously trying to check all the boxes of the City code requirements. I bike almost every day but can't imagine ever using this lane since it doesn't go anywhere.The handful of bikers riding to Lift 1A need to get to the lift on the south side of Dean St, not to the other end of Dean St.This additional 8' in width would require further mitigation to decrease the slope across the street. During the Open House event at the Limelight last week the developer verbally proposed to one of our owners that a 3' retaining wall be built along the South Point side of the street.This would basically change our ground floor units into garden level units.) From Attachment I Oa of the application: • Trip Generation—(see highlights) From Attachment 14 of the application: • Cost Sharing—Pg. 3&4—Dean St—(Dancing Bear is contributing$290,000, Lift One Lodge$150,000, City balance of estimated $1.2M) More information after this. Thank you, Galen Bright President& Treasurer South Point Condominium Association 205 E. Durant Avenue, Unit 3D Aspen,CO 81611 Email: galen .aspenreal.com CELL:970-379-3877 The Romero Group I Physical: 208 Midland Avenue, Mailing: PO Box 4100, Basalt, CO 81621 Unsubscribe info(aUmnrentals.com Update Profile I About our service provider Sent by galenO)aspenreal.com in collaboration with IS Try it free today From: Jeannine Stickle To: James Marcus(imarcusza(u)amail.com);Kelly McNicholas(kellv.mcnicholas(u)amail.com);Rally DUDDS (rallvduoos(abamail.com);Ruth Carver(ruthac48(nbamail.com);Ryan Walterscheid(rwalterscheid(ubvahoo.com);a= Marcoux(scott(cbsrmauidance.com);Skiooy Mesirow(ski ooy.mesirow(&amail.com);soencer.mckniaht (soencer,mcknight(a)amail.com);Teraissa McGovern(teraissa.mcoovem(u)amail.com) Cc: Ben Anderson;Jennifer Phelan Subject: Public Comment on Lift One Corridor Project FW:South Point-Re:Lift One Lodge,2 of 5,Application to amend Ordinance 28,Series 2011 Date: Thursday,October 11,2018 9:33:59 AM Attachments: imaae001.ona This is the second of three emails about this project from Marissa Lasky. IN Jeannine Stickle Records Manager City Clerk 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970-429-2686 www.cityofaspen.com Ie Le From: Marissa Lasky<info@mnlakes.net> Sent:Wednesday, October 10, 2018 4:09 PM To:City Clerk<Clerk@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Fwd: South Point- Re: Lift One Lodge, 2 of 5,Application to amend Ordinance 28,Series 2011 Email number 2 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From:The Romero Group<galen(@asr)enreal.com> Date:October 9, 2018 at 7:06:52 PM MDT To: info(@Umnrentals.com Subject:South Point-Re: Lift One Lodge,2 of 5,Application to amend Ordinance 28,Series 2011 Reply-To:galenl@aspenreal.com J12— Dear Dear South Point Owners, Here is a Summary of the application:(CLICK HERE) Thank you. Galen Bright President& Treasurer South Point Condominium Association 205 E. Durant Avenue, Unit 3D Aspen,CO 81611 Email: gal en aspenreal.com CELL:970-379-3877 The Romero Group I Physical: 208 Midland Avenue, Mailing: PO Box 4100, Basalt, CO 81621 Unsubscribe info(U)Umnrentals.com Update Profile I About our service provider Sent by galen(d)aspenreal,com in collaboration with L Try it free today From: Jeannine Stickle To: James Marcus(imarcuszg(olamail.com);Kelly McNicholas(kellv.mcnicholas(a)omail.com);Rally Duops (rallydupps(a)gmail.com);Ruth Carver(ruthac48(u)gmail.com);Ryan Walterscheid(rwalterscheid(a)vahoo.com); Scott Marcoux(scott@)srmouidance.com);Skippy Mesirow(skioov.mesirow(algmail.com);spencer.mckniaht (spencer.mcknight(clgmail.com);Teraissa McGovern(teraissa.mcgovern(alamail.com) Cc: Ben Anderson;Jennifer Phelan Subject: Public Comment on Lift One Corridor Project FW:The Lift 1A Relocation Proposal and Development Date: Friday,October 12,2018 8:23:51 AM Attachments: imaae001.Dna Hi All, Please see below. /�% CITY OF ASPEN Jeannine Stickle Records Manager City Clerk 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970-429-2686 www.cityofaspen.com COS From: Patrick Hatcher<hphatcher@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, October 11, 2018 4:58 PM To:Jeannine Stickle<jeannine.stickle@cityofaspen.com> Subject:The Lift 1A Relocation Proposal and Development October 1 1 th, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Aspen City Hall 130 S Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: The Lift 1 A Relocation Proposal and Development Dear Commission, After giving this matter some thought, I wanted to write you to let you know that while I do wholeheartedly support the relocation of Lift 1 A I do have some concerns about the Lift One Lodge developer's plans. The neighborhood has a lot to be excited about this development as this area is in much need of infrastructure and a fresh look. My biggest concern is around the new plans to move the entrance of the underground parking lot to Dean Street. The original location on Aspen St was logical and provided the best experience for the people using the hotel and the general population. The new location creates a traffic nightmare that makes no sense. I work with the hospitality industry and the idea of having the valets drive to Dean Street to park the cars and then retrieve the cars and drive around to Durant and Aspen creates a lot of real problems. One,Aspen is,first and foremost, a pedestrian town and this traffic flow will certainly impede pedestrians going to and from the new lift,the hotel and the restaurants in the area. Valets are known for speed and service and this long,winding return route will be a challenge for them causing the customer to wait long periods. Or the valet will have to drive fast and probably ignore the two stop signs they will encounter returning the vehicles from the parking garage back to the hotel entrance. To me, this causes potential safety concerns, congestion, unnecessary pollution and driving.All of this would be eliminated if the entrance remains at the original Aspen St location. I have some other concerns and I have listed these below: 1) I don't understand why the Ski Museum is being moved from the original proposed location. I see the new location as causing issues with pedestrian traffic and, in winter, more issues with blocking sunlight and creating potential icy locations. 2) The proposed sidewalk should be on the south side of the Dean street. It makes a lot more sense than the north side as this is where the pedestrians going to the museum, the lifts,the restaurants, and the green spaces will need to be.The other side of the street doesn't really go anywhere. Finally, it feels like this sidewalk is on the north side only because of the entrance to the garage. Move the entrance back to Aspen St. and it makes all the sense in the world to put the sidewalk on the south side. For Aspen,this is an incredible opportunity to revitalize the other side of the mountain. It is important we get this right by looking at what is best for the community. We need to focus on making the area pedestrian friendly and reduce traffic congestion. Sincerely, Hugh Hatcher Southpoint 2E 303-641-8227 Baker&Hostetler LLP 1801 California Street Suite 4400 Deriver,Colorado 80202-2662 T 303.861.0600 F 303.861.7805 October 16,2018 www.bakedaw.com Eben P.Clark direct dial:303.764.4042 eclark@bakerlaw.com Via Hand Delivery &Electronic Mail City of Aspen,Planning&Zoning Commission c/o Jessica Garrow,Community Development Director 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Jessica.garrowftcityofaspen.com Re: Lift One Lodge, Major Amendment to Planned Development To the Members of Planning&Zoning Commission: My firm represents the Silver Shadow Condominium Association ("Silver Shadow") with regard to the above referenced application submitted by Lift One Lodge Aspen, LLC ("Developer"). The Silver Shadow Condominiums are directly to the east of the proposed Lift One Lodge timeshare lodge development("Development"). Developer has filed an application for Planned Development, Major Amendment, Project Review and other approvals for recent revisions to the previously approved planned development. Given the number and extent of the changes, City of Aspen Land Use Code ("Code") requires a new application,and a full review of the Development under the current Code. Silver Shadow has a number of concerns with this new application and the Development generally. These issues include the height, massing, and density of the Development's east building, and the effect of this configuration on views, access, and intensity of use in the neighborhood. In addition, Silver Shadow has concerns regarding congestion and circulation on Gilbert and South Monarch Streets, especially as it appears these streets will become attractive mountain access points for the public. The foregoing notwithstanding, Silver Shadow has been contacted by the Developer and the two parties are having positive communications regarding strategies to address Silver Shadow's concerns. Furthermore,as the Staff memorandum reflects,the details of the Project remain in flux, and there are areas where there are not final plans sufficient to Atlanta Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Costa Mesa Denver Houston Los Angeles New York Orlando Philadelphia Seattle Washington, DC October 16,2018 Page 2 evaluate the Development fully. Based on these facts,while Silver Shadow is not submitting formal objections at this time,Silver Shadow must reserve its right to object to aspects of the Project in the future, at public hearings or otherwise, and on any basis whether set forth in this letter or not. Silver Shadow thanks the Commission for reviewing this letter and for continuing to consider the concerns of Silver Shadow and its neighbors to the east of the Development. Sincerely, ,,��-�A�- a Eben P. Clark Counsel cc: Silver Shadow Homeowners 4838-0011-7880.1 From: Jeannine Stickle To: James Marcus(jmarcuszg(a)gmail.com);Kelly McNicholas(kellv.mcnicholas(a)gmail.com); Rally Duoos (rallydupps(@omail.com);Ruth Carver(ruthac48(a)amail.com);Ryan Walterscheid(rwalterscheid(awahoo.com); Scott Marcoux(scott(ulsrmauidance.com);Skioov Mesirow(skioov.mesirow(alamail.coml;soencer.mcknioht lsoencer.mckniaht(a)amail.com);Teraissa McGovern(teraissa.mcaovern(a)amail.com) Cc: Ben Anderson;Jennifer Phelan Subject: Public Comment for Lift One Corridor Project FW:South Point Objections to proposed Lift One Development changes Date: Monday,October 15,2018 4:16:19 PM Attachments: image001.ona Please see below. A f-ITY nF ASPEN Jeannine Stickle Records Manager City Clerk 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970-429-2686 www.cityofaspen.com 91 rn D From: Don R.Averitt<averittd@swbell.net> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 3:30 PM To:Jeannine Stickle<jeannine.stickle@cityofaspen.com>; Public Comment <PublicComment@cityofaspen.com>; cindy.klob@cityofaspen.com Cc: Galen Bright<galen@aspenreal.com>; Marissa Lasky<laskyco@mnlakes.net> Subject:South Point Objections to proposed Lift One Development changes Aspen Planning and Zoning, We strongly object to relocating and substantially rebuilding the very large,three story structure that is Skier Chalet-styled for the Museum. This building is NOT on the Historic Preservation List and NOT a historically significant structure. If rebuilt, it should be in the original site plan location, the very extreme southeast corner of Willoughby Park area sand volleyball courts(adjacent to the Dolinsek tract). It should be away from Dean Street and not blocking our view planes and sunshine we've had for over 40 years from our building to Aspen Mountain. If located almost at the curb of Dean St., it would shadow impact Dean Street and South Point,which will create unsafe icing conditions on this small and already shaded street and community and reduce or eliminate any sunshine in that area already receiving limited sun in winter due to Shadow Mountain. If a structure needs to be moved, it should comply with current zoning height restrictions and should be set back far from the street to not creat shadow effects to Dean and to the longtime residents of South Point Condominiums. The City of Aspen has long supported preservation of sunlight in developments by stepping back structures and adding setback requirements,as many cities rightly do to achieve this. We think a compromise can be reached to tuck this"Museum" structure back at the far corner of the current sand volleyball courts and not have such impact on public space and private residents and not add to dangerous icing conditions on streets. We support the new location of the Lift IA ski lift and encourage good and responsible redevelopment of the Shadow Mountain/Lift One area to add vibrancy and entice the World Cup races back to Aspen. However,we DO NOT support what would essentially be rebuilding a large 3 story structure, in contradiction of current zoning policy, banning 3 story structure in the core, and place it almost at curbside of what's now open space and surface parking along Dean Street at Willoughby Park. If the Historic Association feels they really need a ski Museum at the base of Aspen Mountain, and if the Ski Co. and Brown developers can co-use this structure,to make it economically viable, it does NOT need to be located where it will shadow over Dean Street- a street that already has reduced winter sunlight due to Shadow Mountain -and create dangerous icing conditions to the very narrow and small street. We also strongly oppose relocating the underground parking ingress and egress from Aspen Street-where is makes the most sense to be located -anywhere along Dean street. We join in South Point HOA support for the following points: —We enthusiastically support the location of a new Lift IA as proposed in the latest plans for the area. We believe it is terrific for all of Aspen and for the neighborhood. — We are concerned, however,that the developer of Lift One Lodge is using the town's excitement for the project to make some significant changes from the original plan that are clearly not in the best interests of Aspen or the neighborhood and its full-time and part-time residents and guests. —We believe that the placement of the Ski Museum should be returned to its originally- planned location near the site of the Dolinsek property and volleyball court. Putting the Ski Museum right next to Dean St. as provided in the latest plan adds to visual congestion along Dean St., reduces natural light on Dean St.,which can lead to icing problems for pedestrians, and eliminates green space and/or a place for people to gather in front of the Ski Museum. —Moving the Ski Museum to Dean St. also needlessly blocks the sight lines for residents of South Point, a along-established view plane of the historic Lift One. —The original plan for the Lift One Lodge provided for the entrance to the underground parking garage to be on Aspen St., adjacent to the entrance to the Lodge. That location provides a logical and efficient flow of traffic into and out of the garage. We strongly believe that is where the entrance to the garage should remain. —The Lodge's developer's latest plan moves the entrance to the parking garage from Aspen St. to Dean St. We believe this change is a significant mistake for several reasons: The change will route all garage traffic onto Dean St. That street simply isn't large enough to safely and efficiently handle the additional traffic load. Many skiers will enter the area on foot from downtown and will have to cross Dean St. to access the lift area. That method of access should be pedestrian-friendly. Moving the location of the garage entrance will force pedestrians to cross what will be a significant stream of traffic. This area of Dean St., at the base of the new Lift 1 A should be an attractive gathering point for pedestrians, similar to the other end of Dean St. at the Gondola Plaza, And as such be an attractive OPEN SPACE for gathering,meeting and going on to board the new lift, similar to Gondola Plaza. —The alternative now proposed by the developer will cause all traffic from the Lodge to the garage to travel North along Aspen St. and then East along Dean St.to the garage entrance. Traffic exiting the garage and returning to the Lodge will then need to travel East on Dean St.,North on Monarch, West on Durant and then South on Aspen St. back to the Lodge. This traffic pattern unnecessarily routes all those vehicles onto Dean St., Monarch St. and Durant St. It would lengthen travel for that traffic, at the cost of additional time and fuel; increase congestion, car fumes and noise along those streets; and make the area very unfriendly to pedestrians. —It is clearly more efficient and safer for the Lift One Lodge garage traffic to remain on Aspen St. as originally planned. —The developer has said that the reason for the change is to reduce the slope of entry into the garage. The purported benefit of such a drastic change is greatly outweighed by its many significant negatives. -Adding a 6' wide bike lane with a 2' separator strip along the north side of Dean St is unnecessary as it does not go anywhere, it reduces and confuses an already narrow and small street. The handful of bikers riding to Lift IA need to get to the lift on the south side of Dean St,not to the other end of Dean St. This additional 8' in width would require further mitigation to decrease the slope across the street. During the recent Open House event at the Limelight the developer verbally proposed to one of our owners that a 3' retaining wall be built along the South Point side of the street(this is not included in their application). This would basically change our ground floor units into garden level units. -The proposed site plan now has a 6' wide sidewalk running the entire length of Dean St in the right of way on our side of the street and endangering a gorgeous 40' tall blue spruce tree. This would also require us to relocate our dumpster of some 40 years without any good second location option other than Aspen Street-the entrance to the new Lift One area. The proposed plan also has a sidewalk on the south side of Dean St. This section of Dean St would be much more pedestrian friendly without the Lift One Lodge garage entrance and there wouldn't be a need for a continuous sidewalk on the north side of the street. Again, Dean is a very narrow street. —These proposed changes by the developer should be rejected. We have only one chance to get this right.Aspen has been struggling with this area for years. Let's not allow the developer to use the City's excitement for the project to justify important changes that are clearly not in the best interests of the overall project or to Aspen and its residents and guests. WE STRONGLY URGE YOU TO RELOCATE THE"MUSEUM"TO THE ORIGINAL SOUTHEAST CORNER, IN LINE WITH THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN. AND LOCATE PARKING INGRESS/EGRESS TO SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE BACK TO THE MUCH LARGER ASPEN STREET. Sincerely, Barbara and Don Averitt 205 E. Durant Street, Apartment 2B Aspen, CO 81611 214-502-9070 averittd swbell.net BALCOMB GREEN WATER LAW I REAL ESTATE I LITIGATION I BUSINESS ESTP 1953 September 28, 2018 City of Aspen Aspen Planning 8v Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Land Use Application to amend Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2011 (the "Application") submitted by Lift One Lodge Aspen LLC (the "Applicant") - Objection Letter Dear Commissioners: We represent Mr. Robert Scherer, the owner of two condominium units located at 237 and 239 Gilbert Street - known as the Cascade Condominiums. Mr. Scherer has lived at the Cascade Condominiums full-time for the last 19 years. Mr. Scherer objects to two aspects of the Application that violate a contract (the "Agreement") to which the Applicant is bound. Mr. Sherer entered into the Agreement in October of 2011 with the Applicant's predecessor in interest, Roaring Fork Mountain Lodge -Aspen, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The Agreement restricted the profile, height, and massing of the Lift One Lodge's "East Building" (as described in the Application), which the Applicant proposes to construct immediately adjacent to Mr. Scherer's home on Gilbert Street. The purposes of the Agreement were to protect the view plane westward down Gilbert Street and limit traffic on Gilbert Street, which is presently one-way and is more a narrow "alley" than a "street." The Agreement specifically "runs with the land," and binds all subsequent developers of the Lift One Lodge project, including the Applicant. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Applicant is required to "construct the [East Building] in general conformance with profile, height and massing shown on the elevation and site plan drawings dated October 10, 2011 and entitled `Site Plan and East Building East Elevation'..." The Site Plan and East Building East Elevation was attached as an exhibit to the Agreement and is re-attached to this letter as Attachment 1. It shows the front facade of the East Building in near alignment with the front facade of the Cascade Condominiums. This orientation preserves the open view plane down the former Gilbert Street right-of-way. ASPEN I BASALT I BUENA VISTA I GLENWOOD SPRINGS I LAMAR Post Office Box 5039 1 Buena Vista,Colorado 81211 1 800.836.5928 1 719.395.9280 1 BalcombGreen.com C Aspen P Z Commission B A L C O M B &GR E E N -� September 28,2018 WATER LAW I REAL ESTATE I LITIGATION I BUSINESS [STP 1953 In conformance with the Agreement, the site plan that Aspen City Council approved in 2016 (attached to this letter as Attachment 2) shows the East Building oriented in much the same manner. Attachment 2 also shows Gilbert Street terminating at the East Building's eastern lot line. The Applicant is now requesting changes to those aspects of the approved development plan. The proposed changes conflict with the terms and conditions of the Agreement and would establish potentially dangerous conditions on Gilbert Street. Specifically, the Applicant seeks the relocation of Lot 2, upon which a redesigned East Building would protrude out across the former Gilbert Street right-of-way. See Attachment 3. The redesigned East Building would obstruct the former Gilbert Street view plane with the full height and mass of the structure. See Attachment 4. The Applicant also seeks to reconfigure Gilbert Street from a narrow, one-way residential alleyway into a just as narrow] two-way street with a cul- de-sac/circle drive. Attachment 4, which depicts passenger vehicles in the cul- de-sac dropping off East Building residents and guests, makes it appear as if that is the intended use of Gilbert Street. Gilbert Street is too narrow to safely accommodate the two-way traffic that would be generated by such access. Objections On behalf of Mr. Scherer, we object to the current location of, configuration of, and access to the East Building. Accordingly, we request that the Planning and Zoning Commission delay approval of the Application until it's amended to: 1) Comply with the Agreement's profile, height, and massing requirements; and 2) Restrict vehicular access to the East Building via Gilbert Street to emergency vehicles only. The Applicant and Mr. Scherer are engaged in active discussions to resolve these issues without this Commission's intervention. Mr. Scherer will promptly withdraw these objections if the parties achieve a stipulation before the time comes for this Commission to make recommendations. Mr. Scherer, my colleague Luke Van Arsdale, and I plan to attend the public meeting on October 2nd and will be available to answer any questions the Commission may have relating to these objections. While we will be prepared to enter a public comment at that time, if (as appears likely) the public meeting is ASPEN I BASALT I BUENA VISTA ( GLENWOOD SPRINGS I LAMAR Post Office Box 5039 1 Buena Vista,Colorado 81211 1 800.836.5928 1 719.395.9280 1 BalcombGreen.com C B A L C O M B &GREEN Aspen P&Z Commission September 28,2018 WATER LAW I REAIESTATF I LITIGATION I BUSINESS EST! 1957 continued, we would prefer to withhold comment until the follow-up session. Doing so will give the parties more time to resolve these objections informally among themselves. Sincerely, J. Casey Martin Attorney Enc. JCM ASPEN I BASALT I BUENA VISTA I GLENWOOD SPRINGS I LAMAR Post Office Box 5039 1 Buena Vista,Colorado 81211 1 800.836.5928 1 719.395.9280 1 BalcombGreen.com Attachment 1 O C Co IL-y W �a 1 iT4 i r 1 "w Li 1� `• �• _ — 1, �.�,�•- _, __ �JI Si ILL Se{ N N O G. Attachment 2 LIFT ONE LODGE G LA i� 1 ' 9 RENDERED i SITE PLAN 1 1 R-101.00 Exhibit A (page 13 of 26) Attachment 3 LIFT ONE LODGE G j"rx- . Mr- LOT m... -77-7 r i C .ANS LOT i aT[ LEGEND - - L6TGNEPRGPERT—NWY .T.— �_ SITERETANNG—S ❑ HA.—S PA— E—TING TREES TJ RENAN SITE PLAN G-010.10 Attachment 4 LIFT ONE LODGE �00000l Ayi 010 ELEVATIONS A-302.00 • BALCOMB GREEN WATER LAW I REAL ESTATE I LITIGATION I BUSINESS ESTo 1953 October 2, 2018 City of Aspen Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Land Use Application to amend Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2011 (the "Application") submitted by Lift One Lodge Aspen LLC (the "Applicant") - Objection Letter Dear Commissioners: We represent the Homeowners' Association for the Aspen Mountain Townhomes (the "HOA") located at 623 S. Monarch Street in Aspen. The HOA engaged us to submit specific objections to the Application as submitted based on (1) safety and capacity issues related to the narrow one-way Gilbert Street access to the "East Building" (as described in the Application), and (2) the relocation of the East Building to a site that would obstruct the Aspen Mountain Townhomes'view westward down Gilbert Street toward Lift 1A. The Aspen Mountain Townhomes consist of three separate residential units at the corner of Monarch and Gilbert Streets. Each unit has a front entrance on Gilbert Street, which is an extremely narrow (approximately 15ft. wide) alleyway running one-way westward from S. Monarch Street to S. Aspen Street. Pursuant to the Application, a significant portion of the Gilbert Street right-of-way will be vacated by the City of Aspen as part of the Lift One Lodge development plan. The site plan for the Lift One Lodge approved by the Aspen City Council in 2016 (attached to this letter as Attachment 1) shows the front fagade of the East Building in general alignment with the front facade of the neighboring Cascade Condominiums (237 and 239 Gilbert Street). This configuration preserved the view plane westward along the former Gilbert Street right-of-way toward Lift lA (the "View Plane"). Attachment 1 also shows Gilbert Street terminating at the East Building's eastern lot line with grass and landscaping extending through the vacated right-of-way toward the new base area development. The Applicant is now requesting changes to the approved development plan that would obstruct the View Plane and establish potentially dangerous conditions on Gilbert Street. Specifically, the Application requests a relocated ASPEN I BASALT I BUENA VISTA I GLENWOOD SPRINGS I LAMAR Post Office Box 5039 1 Buena Vista,Colorado 81211 1 800.836.5928 1 719.395.9280 1 BalcombGreen.com WC Aspen P&Z Commission -� October 1,2018 WAIER LAW I REAL ESTATE I LITIGATION 1 BUSINESS ESTP 1953 Lot 3, upon which a redesigned East Building protrudes out across the former Gilbert Street right-of-way. See Attachment 2. The redesigned East Building not only obstructs the View Plane, but does so with the full height and mass of the structure. See Attachment 3. The Applicant also seeks to repurpose Gilbert Street from a narrow one- way residential alleyway into a just as narrow two-way street with a cul-de- sac/circle drive for residents and guests of the East Building. Tellingly, Attachment 3 depicts vehicles dropping off East Building residents and guests in the cul-de-sac. Gilbert Street cannot safely handle the increased two-way traffic that would be generated by public vehicular access to the East Building and the Lift One base area. Objections On behalf of the HOA, we object to the current location of, configuration of and Gilbert Street access to the East Building. Accordingly, we request that the Planning & Zoning Commission delay approval of the Application until the Applicant submits the following amendments: 1) the East Building must be redesigned or relocated to preserve the View Plane, and 2) any vehicular access to the East Building via Gilbert Street must be restricted to emergency vehicles only. My colleague Luke Van Arsdale and I plan to attend the public meeting on October 2nd. We will be available to make a brief presentation and answer any questions the Planning & Zoning Commission may have. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, J. Casey Martin Attorney Enc. JCM ASPEN I BASALT I BUENA VISTA I GLENWOOD SPRINGS I LAMAR Post Office Box 5039 1 Buena Vista.Colorado 81211 1 800.836.5928 1 719.395.9280 1 BalcombGreen.com Attachment 1 LIFT ONE LODGE mo`_- J { • — .. n. > W%—W 40 RENDERED + SRE PLAN �I 1 -R-101 CO Exhibit A (page 13 of 26) Attachment 2 LIFT ONE LODGE — ooR- � i 1 ���999 •y L0T7 � _ 1 , LCGEHO LFi JHE vRJVERTV E9UHWRv 6ETB/IXR Q SITE RET,NNG VYLLS ❑ H.RDSCMEv,W1G -TNJ TREES TJ RE4AN SITE PLAN G-010.10 Attachment 3 LIFT ONE LODGE 11 A L El AU M V �- a I,Mz y.�. ELEVATIONS AJ02.00 BALCOMB GREEN WATER LAW I REAL ESTATE I LITIGATION I BUSINESS ESTR 1953 October 2, 2018 City of Aspen Aspen Planning 8s Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Land Use Application to amend Ordinance No. 28, Series of 2011 (the "Application") submitted by Lift One Lodge Aspen LLC (the "Applicant") - Objection Letter Dear Commissioners: We represent the Homeowners' Association for the Aspen Mountain Townhomes (the "HOA") located at 623 S. Monarch Street in Aspen. The HOA engaged us to submit specific objections to the Application as submitted based on (1) safety and capacity issues related to the narrow one-way Gilbert Street access to the "East Building" (as described in the Application), and (2) the relocation of the East Building to a site that would obstruct the Aspen Mountain Townhomes' view westward down Gilbert Street toward Lift IA. The Aspen Mountain Townhomes consist of three separate residential units at the corner of Monarch and Gilbert Streets. Each unit has a front entrance on Gilbert Street, which is an extremely narrow (approximately 15ft. wide) alleyway running one-way westward from S. Monarch Street to S. Aspen Street. Pursuant to the Application, a significant portion of the Gilbert Street right-of-way will be vacated by the City of Aspen as part of the Lift One Lodge development plan. The site plan for the Lift One Lodge approved by the Aspen City Council in 2016 (attached to this letter as Attachment 1) shows the front fagade of the East Building in general alignment with the front facade of the neighboring Cascade Condominiums (237 and 239 Gilbert Street). This configuration preserved the view plane westward along the former Gilbert Street right-of-way toward Lift lA (the "View Plane"). Attachment 1 also shows Gilbert Street terminating at the East Building's eastern lot line with grass and landscaping extending through the vacated right-of-way toward the new base area development. The Applicant is now requesting changes to the approved development plan that would obstruct the View Plane and establish potentially dangerous conditions on Gilbert Street. Specifically, the Application requests a relocated ASPEN I BASALT I BUENA VISTA I GLENWOOD SPRINGS I LAMAR Post Office Box 5039 1 Buena Vista,Colorado 81211 1 800.836.5928 1 719.395.9280 1 BalcombGreen.com C B A L C O M B 3tG R E E N Aspen P&Z Commission October 1,2018 'NAI ER LAW I REAL IS TATE I LITIGATION I BUSINESS ISTD 1953 Lot 3, upon which a redesigned East Building protrudes out across the former Gilbert Street right-of-way. See Attachment 2. The redesigned East Building not only obstructs the View Plane, but does so with the full height and mass of the structure. See Attachment 3. The Applicant also seeks to repurpose Gilbert Street from a narrow one- way residential alleyway into a just as narrow two-way street with a cul-de- sac/circle drive for residents and guests of the East Building. Tellingly, Attachment 3 depicts vehicles dropping off East Building residents and guests in the cul-de-sac. Gilbert Street cannot safely handle the increased two-way traffic that would be generated by public vehicular access to the East Building and the Lift One base area. Objections On behalf of the HOA, we object to the current location of, configuration of and Gilbert Street access to the East Building. Accordingly, we request that the Planning 8v Zoning Commission delay approval of the Application until the Applicant submits the following amendments: 1) the East Building must be redesigned or relocated to preserve the View Plane, and 2) any vehicular access to the East Building via Gilbert Street must be restricted to emergency vehicles only. My colleague Luke Van Arsdale and I plan to attend the public meeting on October 2nd. We will be available to make a brief presentation and answer any questions the Planning 8s Zoning Commission may have. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, J. Casey Martin Attorney Enc. JCM ASPEN I BASALT I BUENA VISTA I GLENWOOD SPRINGS I LAMAR Post Office Box 5039 1 Buena Vista,Colorado 81211 1 800.836.5928 1 719.395.9280 1 BalcombGreen.com Attachment 1 LIFT ONE LODGE � .. _ . _ �- 2_ � p•I +� `sIp^ .{ r-rear. In V= �k sir 2 aaT<'" RENDERED fi SfTE PLAN 1 J i R-101.00 Exhibit A(page 13 of 26) Attachment 2 LIFT ONE LODGE G � .,. �%__- OO '..tom LOT3 -.._ �S(}b :,P• O � ,,.e.., C---• LOT) .. - LEGDO D LIG"i GNE PROPEPTv BOVRGARv .T.— � SRE RETAWNG VNLLS ❑ RARGSGPE P— U.1—TREES TJ RE4AW SITE PLAN G-010.10 Attachment 3 LIFT ONE LODGE ®DO�O�i oma= 1: .. ©C ©000 ELEVATIONS i AJ02.00 Permits — ❑ X File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help Jump 1 Q �L --AJ21 rfjL ---j -X� JA --r Cr F1ain Custom Fields Routing Status Fee Summary r_ctions Routing History r Permit t.,-pe Aspen Lanc Use Permit# CUC.2C18.A.SLU Vi Address 7CC l;J GILLESPIE ST Apt.,--suite o Cite ASPEN State C!7 zip 81FI o- X Permit Information Mas ter permit Routing queue aslul` Applied IC.1£;2018 `F z Project Status Fencing Approved Description +:.PPLICATIO14 FOR PDAMENDMENT(ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS) Issued Closed/Final Submitted JEFFREY H ';vpr DCRUFF 927 48€2 Clock Running Days C Expires 1C;11,,'2019 Submitted•ria I Onner Last name 1ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSIC First name 7CC1;J GILLESPIE ST ASPEN CO 81£11 Phone ( Address Applicant ❑+I Owner is applicant? ❑ Contractor is applicant? Last name +14..SPEN CENTER FOR PHYslc •• First name 7CC';d GILLESPIE ST ASPEN CO 81611 Phone i Cult* 11318 Address Email Lender Last name First name Phone ( Address AspenGold5(server) angelas 1 of 1