Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Little Nell.1988 MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering— DATE: March 24, 1988 RE: Construction Management Plan, Little Nell Having reviewed the construction management plan narrative and drawings submitted by Warren Burke for the Little Nell Hotel, I would offer the following comments: 1. With regard to barricades and pedestrian protection; a. The temporary construction staging and parking area on Durant should utilize temporary barricades, lighted pedestals and flagging to prevent pedestrians and vehicles from entering the area. b. The construction fence in Spring Street should be at least two more feet to the west to provide for two -way traffic accommodating trucks. 2. Public vehicle circulation - Note item 1.b. above. Also, the temporary staging on Durant should not exceed twenty feet from the curb line. The contractor shall further be responsible for delivering all existing street signs and posts to the Streets Department and place necessary signs for No Parking or Permit Parking areas. 3. Excavation access and large truck circulation is acceptable as presented in a letter dated March 22, 1988, from Warren Burke subject to amendment to indicate that trucks exiting to the west will utilize Aspen Street instead of Monarch as shown. Staging adjacent to the site is acceptable subject to comment number 2 above. 4. Disposal of demolition debris at the dump is acceptable as are tentative arrangements for disposal of excavated material. 5. Delivery and storage of construction materials and equipment would appear adequate, again subject to limitations in the storage area on Durant. 6. The construction management plan indicates that contractor parking will be limited to Durant. I am concerned, however, that the location of the field office on the southeast corner of the property will attract vehicles to that area. I would require Page 2 March 24, 1988 Construction Management Plan, Little Nell that we review the field office location, perhaps placing it in the staging area on Durant and utilize the southeast corner for material or equipment storage. 7. Proposed working hours for trucks and heavy equipment are 7:00 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The hours meet the requirements of Municipal Code Section 16 -3 -(6) however, we would support, in view of the routing of trucks through lodge and residential areas, that normal hours be 8 :00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with a later start on Saturdays. In addition, no on -site equipment may be started or warmed up prior to 7:00 a.m. 8. The contractor shall be responsible for the continuous maintenance and repair of fence, sign and barricade systems. 9. Utility relocations remaining for completion include the Holy Cross electric lines and additional work on the Little Nell well. Easements that may need to be vacated and /or relocated include City easements at book 196, page 522 (alley, block 102), book 187, page 101 (southeast corner), book 192, page 296 (waterline) and the extension of vacated Hunter Street, as well as a sewer easement at book 257, page 365. 10. The limits of excavation and extent of shoring are acceptable as are the schedules. Heavy truck traffic for excavation must be complete by June 20 as represented. JH /co /Memo56.88 cc: Chuck Roth Warren Burke Jim Wilson Bill Drueding C • ,f_ -e HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Kane FROM: John Cottle DATE: 25 December 1985 RE: Little Neils Base Facility; FAR calculations Attached please find the FAR calculations broken out by floor level, dated 12- 25 -85. Areas included in the FAR calculations are shown with diagonal hatchings; as we have discussed, we have made the 14 following assumptions in the calculations: 1. Areas are calculated only within the CC Zone. 2. Areas are calculated according to the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Section 24.3.7(e). 3. Levels 12, 22, and 32 include exterior decks (contrary to Section 24.3.7(e)(11) to insure that FAR calculations at this stage of design are conservative. st s 210 SOUTH GALENA SUITE 24 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 303.92542867 Q \ il O �I° 3 W • / ?m 4 , .. i . s° i pff .ii ev` +� ‘• v iti:jj 0 _ it \ \ \\ \ III!' I II Q III; i \ \ \ \\ k \.�„ :I Ilil t,i i \ \\ \\ N'T ii, .,, 1 , il�i II' �` -.A A� Iq� .\\ \ \ .1•;i' '' \`‘ d, ' : a •\\`• \\< \\T." \\ N, , \ ,, , \ .,. ..,‘ ,. , / N \ ,\1\, \_\\ \ \ . • \\\\ ' • \ • ''' , .„-:),___•_-• .. /„..,.. _•\\ \ \\•-•.,.... ... „,, - \ J.-±-______:--,__ _ C .4# \\.\\, '\'\\. IIIIN , '.. A / 4 \ i I I ii tit fill at \ WO - - - - .,:' ri a . — 1 1 N' Nil 0 > N fl u / . N L- \ \\ \,,\ ' / \\�.,, \ ,\ \\,,. \. CC 0 \ v A A\ W \ \ \\\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ • 7 \ •, • pp v v \\''• v \ � \ , \ \ v \ \ ; ` \ : . \ \ \\ \ / -,- / AM ON Note , , , - • ' ®/ �. s4 a o a 5 N: 0 J ►.• UJ S IL �1 y 1 JLI $ a • N I T I . .. -� - -- • • • i,p iI I i \ \ . P . \ i \ I II. \ / m \ \\ \\ \ \\ ' ` \\\\ i 4 \ \ \\ \ \, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ � \ \\\\,\ \,\ \, Y Y .\ \ \\ \\\ \\ \ \ ‘‘‘,,\\ \ \\ \ \\\ \ - -\ \ \ \ \ \ / t: Ir _ nm omia _ 1 — -- ,Z a 0 11110.11011 3 � / J F � / > - N \/ ►1 y N I I 1 .� I at i 6' r _ 1 - I / !.i`' Iii � 1'I i a 1 zz • ,I , � x`1 4. E0 )1 1 1 I li E i s a, 'I - .. a I • II i En No I. • I — ii . ... • . , a . I • r -- I I,, o ; �- - - - - i � I 1 : : . . / I _ : c; . . . . . . / • . \ \\ M \I :. " :\ e t `, /// i ,‘ \:‘ :-\ : \ T" \ I ll \ \\- 41 ' —I I , ' / 0\ z r / iI • e\ \ ° \ \ I a I a l .\ \\ \ \\ \\ 1ri N I \ a s ♦ \\\ \\ \\ i . i• \7) [ \ II -r I I J a0 I \ 1 - \ � W ! • Irlt Ist -,,'. 1 (___ 7 /' ; gi -.a �,�j:.. '.. I/ >. • "j 3 3) rii,g — 44 AI iI I u A 3 /,6b � � � � o.rr.v_, _ MEMORANDUM 'e c.,td .4.1.1-L- 1D61 ,, te_DJ- .L7eLt;- 5 , 0t te t o 1_1 a vn f . c.—L kS I c i ir _, L , t-e-g TO: Bill Dreuding, Zoning Enforcement Officer l,,,,vah FROM: Cindy Houben,Planning Office / ti,/� , • �l ,�7, RE: Little Nell f f g• 3 3 / 7 G• r ti) 64- - DATE: March 1,1988 Attached is a copy of the Little Nell SPA approval. This approval outlines the conditions imposed on the development of the Hotel. The following outlines the issues that your office is responsible for determining have adequately satisfied. I prefer that all these issues when satisfied are documented in one file that will be accessible to the Planning Office. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE A BUILDING PERMIT THE FOLLOWING MUST BE CONFIRMED: ' mil) Page 4./ Area and Bulk requirements. Please verify compliance { L with these requirements, except for FAR which the Planning � ,� c , r .�G Office has already verified.The total building area in the CC 1 ' 6 zone district should conform with the 83,265 square feet as l I indicated on the above referenced page.. Item # 10 refers to the building area in the CC zone district.( The Building Dept. should have a survey which designates the C and CC zones). The foot UC LL print of the building which is in the C zo ne district must c on f or m specif icall to the footprint as a pprove d i exhibit 2 . ) q 11 I y, ;L �;, � „,,> { 11 yr ?,,e 3, ) ?r , / j;)/3// i ' r /i 2) Page 7./ c onstruction Schedule: I will confirm with Jay bl A-1 � Hammond of the Engineering Dept. and Jim Wilson of the building C-1 I u " , Dept. that this construction schedule has been submitted and is t.,, .. adequate. You should have an approved copy of the construction � schedule prior to issuance of a Building permit. L••A' _u L. , A 4,1 S � ' -' i i 3/I� gg / �) '� inaricial Assurances /Page 13: I will confirm that these / uments are acceptable. You should have signed copies of these #�� •ocuments prior to the issuance of a building permit. A guarantee for 100% of current cost of improvements. This must be submitted in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and City Manager. Also see page 14/ last paragraph regarding proof that the applicant warranties of good workmanship from the contractors with the city as a beneficiary regarding improvements in sections IV and VIII.A(1) of the SPA agreement. '-4) Page 19/ Parking Please verify that the applicant has supplied 144 spaces. (6, ".-- 1."-el 3 7' 1 i a t16 ;1YA r) ,?- 7 ,e- -1 fi iliCi 4 1 ((i - 4 > ‘i'd' c Page 19/ Utility' Plan: I will verify that all the utilit o mmitments are in place or have been provided for by the applicant. You should have a copy of a letter from either myself V 2ai8 or Jay Hammond verifying that this has ocurred. .1. �(' ( Co ,K` _, A... , v' i- .007/0 `b 1)JO v46) Page /3 .__A— f-,, L � h 23/ I will'" verify that all access , circulation and ' / parking is approved by the city Engineer. You should have a (DI Ci tC d.,6�n letter from � myself or Jay Hammond confirming the above. ki �7 • LPL L }nrP- bL U' ` A,llt / q 1p)t.i 1 /L ./` 1,-1 Leify M Tehnical Iss es: I wil that , / •tire applicant has complied with this section. You should have a C letter in your file from myself or Jay Hammomd verifying this. J I _- Page 26/ Building Design: I have reviewed the building for eneral compliance with the precise plan regarding basic design_. features. There is no need for you to spend additional, time on + Items 1,2 or 3. \ -;` 4h -c„---(1,,, ,'.�,,,,,, „-1-% , kyt - / / 9 ) Page 28/ regarding g con The final structural kl 1 and grading plans shall be certified by a geotechnical engineer. Y'� 3 I 14, I83 Final grading Plans must be approved by the City Engineer. You should have a letter from Jay Hammomd verifying that these plans have been certified and approved. 10) Page 29/ There shall be only be one real fireplace in the j lobby and the rest must be gas log types. © 17 `\,/y Page 29/ Please check to see that item 6 is accomplished and approved by Jay Hammond. You should have a letter v,�erifying this prior to issuance of a building permit.�t �1 ' 7 l t I 1 . �; 0,,. Page 29/ )1 ase check to see that item 7 is accomplished. You ,Auld have a letter from Jim Wilson stating that this has been accomplishedl ' Page 3Q/ �\� I will verify with the City Attorney that all the :- -ement documents are adequate. Please check to make sure that you have copies of all the easement agreements.( some easements are attached to the SPA). - m 3 J I / S / 8 8 } 'n r , _ iti i _ c : ., -n' .Q r acv=' c- o V V,e_. rr �# �vn� ( --1 -,,� 6 s�-< �. t a 1 F rnti ya O `2 p °� n, 0yo ,9 `1 64r) e `'-1" 6 RIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FOUNDATION PERMIT: g / i g - TE 5\ ,31144 S kA, .6.6. w w u � -C - a - ro U S 7 1) Landscaping /Page 11: The applicants must have an approved _t f .. ;,,\4/.,,,11.;,,\4/.,,,11., ;,,\4/.,,,11., landscaping plan prior to the initiation of construction. The _ .«, C,,y,���,`? applicants must process an amendment to the precise plan for this A , t ,,, plan. I will notify the applicant of this condition and you should have a letter from me verifying that this is finalized prior to the issuance of a foundation permit. a) Financial guarantees must be submitted prior to the issuance of a foundation permit. 1 c 6-(,,d-!ACyllSb _ f U i IT{:61 PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: (I would like to be involved at this phase and request that you notify me prior to issuance of C.O. so that we can verify the following items together) , 1 3 8 I, 1) Page 18/ Employee Housing : I will verify that the commitments ant 1,.' • made on the preceding pages shall be verified prior to C.O. You should have a letter from me confirming that this has been accomplished. 2) Page 23/ Item 1. regarding the drop off area and its as- sociated pedestrian walkway. Item 2. regarding the cul de sac area / check landscaping and signage. 37/ frig& Mexw. A L3) Page 24/ Item 3. regarding trails shall be accomplished prior ko issuance of C.O. for the WEST WING Has this been ac- complished? 4) Page 24/ Item 4. regarding the Hunter street mall and Dean street mall. 5) Page 25/ Item 5. regarding the Hunter St. intersection. WP/ a°1-1 6) Page 26/ Item 7. I recommend that yeF send the Ski Co. a OA* C letter reminding them of their obligation pursuant to this 4-' • section of the SPA approval. 7) Page 30/ Item 10. A commercial trash compactor shall be ,t�talled. / \) e) G} 0, dal:. ' ;fly, 7-0 y - -c-c -- c . 0 V ir i C gP L � n 3 . ° ✓ Q 'a/D"./..fl rvr e-rre . ch.ln21 /09 WPM.° 7)7C� fU , Lxt,i joi, MEMORANDUM FEB 2 6 TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering -A DATE: February 22, 1988 RE: Little Nell Construction In response to your memo and request of February 4, 1988, I have reviewed the conditions of approval and the construction drawings for Little Nell with regard to compliance with City Engineering Department concerns. The following, in no particular order, are the items which remain unresolved: 1. We still have not received the detail schedule responding to the SPA agreement section III B.2. We are concerned over construction timing, disruption and circulation on Durant during the street work. 2. The agreement calls for financial assurances in the amount of 5320,445.00 prior to permit for this phase. 3. Detailed plans for the relocation of the well controls and treatment facilities should be submitted to the Water Superintendent and completed to his approval prior to C.O. 4. Sanitary sewer relocations and construction should be verified through the San District. 5. Several items within the plan respond to prior concerns and are approved at this time: a. Service yard dimensions and access. b. Spring Street cul -de -sac. (My only reservation on this involves the issue of whether the Aspen Club Lodge was consulted regarding the design and the loss of parking along the wall to the pool.) c. Grading plans. d. Auto - taxi -limo drop- off -area. 6. One area of concern on the proposed plan involves the extent to which the proposed curb protrudes into Durant Street. Our discussion and understanding had been that the parking that remains along the Durant frontage would be at approximately the same curb location that currently exists and that neck -downs • .. Page Two Little Nell Construction February 22, 1988 would extend no more than 8 to 10 feet into Durant. The plan as presented indicates neck -downs 18 to 20 feet into Durant leaving just 24 feet of travel lanes. The neck downs as shown are excessive and need to be pulled back substantially. 7. Final determinations have not been made regarding who will provide electric power to the Hotel. Don Gilbert is pursuing this issue with our consultants and representatives of Holy Cross Electric Association. This matter is essentially between the City and Holy Cross and I would not suggest any conditions or changes at this time. 8. Finally, the Hotel plan indicates several connections from the sites to the storm system. We would require the opportunity to review the site drainage calculations to verify the maintenance of historic conditions and that the project does not represent new impacts to the storm drain system. JH /co /Memo31.88 cc: Chuck Roth MEMORANDUM FEB 2 6 TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering DATE: February 22, 1988 RE: Little Nell Construction In response to your memo and request of February 4, 1988, I have reviewed the conditions of approval and the construction drawings for Little Nell with regard to compliance with City Engineering Department concerns. The following, in no particular order, are the items which remain unresolved: 1. We still have not received the detail schedule responding to the SPA agreement section III B.2. We are concerned over construction timing, disruption and circulation on Durant during the street work. 2. The agreement calls for financial assurances in the amount of $320,445.00 prior to permit for this phase. 3. Detailed plans for the relocation of the well controls and treatment facilities should be submitted to the Water Superintendent and completed to his approval prior to C.O. 4. Sanitary sewer relocations and construction should be verified through the San District. 5. Several items within the plan respond to prior concerns and are approved at this time: a. Service yard dimensions and access. b. Spring Street cul -de -sac. (My only reservation on this involves the issue of whether the Aspen Club Lodge was consulted regarding the design and the loss of parking along the wall to the pool.) c. Grading plans. d. Auto - taxi -limo drop- off -area. 6. One area of concern on the proposed plan involves the extent to which the proposed curb protrudes into Durant Street. Our discussion and understanding had been that the parking that remains along the Durant frontage would be at approximately the same curb location that currently exists and that neck -downs Page Two Little Nell Construction February 22, 1988 would extend no more than 8 to 10 feet into Durant. The plan as presented indicates neck -downs 18 to 20 feet into Durant leaving just 24 feet of travel lanes. The neck downs as shown are excessive and need to be pulled back substantially. 7. Final determinations have not been made regarding who will provide electric power to the Hotel. Don Gilbert is pursuing this issue with our consultants and representatives of Holy Cross Electric Association. This matter is essentially between the City and Holy Cross and I would not suggest any conditions or changes at this time. 8. Finally, the Hotel plan indicates several connections from the sites to the storm system. We would require the opportunity to review the site drainage calculations to verify the maintenance of historic conditions and that the project does not represent new impacts to the storm drain system. JH /co /Memo31.88 cc: Chuck Roth MIR 3 itS HAGMANYAW MEMORANDUM ARCHITECTS LTD 210 SOUTH GALENA To: Bill Drueding ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303,9252867 �' From: John Cottle / Date: 3 March 1988 Re: Little Nell Hotel, height mesurement As requested, this memo is to review the "flat" dormers on the roof of the hotel and the question of how height is measured in that area. Attached please find a copy of the dormers in question as well as a copy of one elevation from the approval drawings. It seems that there are several reasons why these dormers are within the height limitation for the project: 1. They are precisely as shown, represented and discussed at length during the approval process. 2. As was also discussed, illustrated and shown during the process, overall height of the building is 45' -0 ". This has not changed. 3. The dormers are part of, and set into, a larger roof, and do not constitute a separate roof of and by themselves. 4. This interpretation is consistent with the Aspen Mountain Lodge approvals in which small dormers, if measured of and by themselves, would have exceeded the height limit, and as we know, the project was approved with the small dormers. Thank you. If there are any other questions which I can answer, please let me know. cc: Alan Rich 4 (w/ enclosures) - _-? 0 i - I CND _ / H 0 - -T - I , :/11?-- I 1 J- 0 - - ;r 11 i1 a I I I r a b O - 11 _1 \ — " 1 I . I 1 I Q.- N mil ' O 1 U c1)‘1:, 1 I 61,, . — so ^ == , , i .:• I - E I i W j �1j , 1 - I 1 . -� , I _. _ - . T a m I I I 1i s■ 11 ■ 1 1 I. i 0 ___ , ,_ 1 1 ` '4': ' I I II. / I, I II '� 111 �® I �� I } i e n ct.... NI" \ . gm. 6 • I ; ° 1 I - _t. =�l ail -~ 1 I 1 — I _ I r • H o Ho 01( ; Z f. >C n I III I II I �I © CO 1 " • —� I� � �_ I' l�!I1II 0 © I � - ,, • I _I i _ ... M\ f -� ��`+ ■ - -.__ , .,_____=___:, � I h1 I � —t 1 1 1 I I w i.�� =— -' , 1 i . —a ��1 - I 1 ,I -,4,. I 1 ...).. 1 .._. 2 ...... `9 ) li I 1 II j I V I I `li -ma 1 • i! It S _ I 1 0 f-' — °1 — 1 H, 1 HrH tr-\ ■11 1_� 1 • q ! I I d i _ if:: f„ 1 t l� .i. t W • W :. a N I �I � 0: , T all I � � �i II �� Q I Alplif..1111, 10l41. 111 -. cr o n ��j� o 1.5 1 'm . 0 r 0 II ;iuutu ► - -'igi� i _ t rIst i= r BIi lu per ,' l' , — � 1 ie III j j l I II 1111 (' s �; I�, iaJ � +I;I� ���� it I. i s dl i' - mil � 1 91' Ill it Iii'' III b a rd i;� r ;-i1 Li �� r glg iii all 1 - .4; . � � --Y •.:3 \. \•i Y _ 518 PAGE /// tr. SPA AGREEMENT FOR LITTLE NELL BASE DEVELOPMENT BOOK �.i 0 THIS SPA AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ,1741 day of,' 't , 1986, by and between the CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, 1 . municipal corporation and home -rule city (hereinafter referred to as "City ") and the ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, a Colorado general partnership (hereinafter referred co rn N to as "Owner "). v ro CO H - <y RECITALS: ° f„ no - 0 o cn 70 Ri m A N 1. The Owner has submitted to the City fo ap execution and recordation, an SPA Precise Plan for Development (hereinafter referred to as the "Precise Plan ") pertaining to the development of a gondola, lift facilities and lift buildings known as the "West Wing" and a hotel and commercial project known as the "Little Nell Hotel" (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Project ") on a tract of land situate within the City of Aspen, Colorado, legally described on Exhibit "1" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and, 2. The Owner has received all requisite development approvals from the City for the Project except for a Growth Management Allocation for the new commercial space produced by the Project which applicant will apply for in August, 1986. The development approvals that the Owner has received include the following: Bc3 518 ;pzE465 (a) Growth Management Allocation for ninety -two (92) lodge units for the hotel (approved by City Council on April 14, 1986), (b) 8040 Green Line Review approval (approved by P &Z on March 18, 1986) , (c) Mountain Viewplane Review approval (approved by P &Z on March 18, 1986), (d) Conditional Use approval for hotel in the CC Zone, ski lift and other ski facilities in the Conservation Zone (approved by P &Z on March 18, 1986) , (e) Change of Use approval for employee housing at Holiday House (approved by P &Z_on March 18, 1986, and by City Council on April 14, 1986), (f) SPA Conceptual Plan approval and Precise Plan approval (approved by P &Z on March 18, 1986 and by City Council on April 14, 1986), (g) Rezoning of Conservation Zone to SPA (approved by P &Z on March 18, 1986 and by City Council on April 28, 1986) 3. The City has fully considered the Precise Plan and the proposed development and improvement of the lands therein, and the anticipated benefits and burdens to other adjoining neighboring properties in the downtown area in general by reason of the proposed development and improvement 4 of the lands included in the Precise Plan, all in accordance with Article VII and other related provisions of the - 2 - BOK 518 ME 4r1 necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare; and, 7. Under the authority of Article VII of the Municipal Code, the City is entitled to assurances that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully performed by Owner and Owner's successors and assigns; and, 8. Owner is willing to enter into such agreements with, and to provide such assurances to, the City. WITNESSETH: 4:) NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval, execution, and acceptance of the Precise Plan for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: I. USE, AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS . The Precise Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "2" including all conditions of approval and representations of the applicant incorporated within the body of this agreement shall constitute the development regulations for this parcel of land. The underlying zones on the parcel upon which an SPA designation exists shall remain as CC and C as they are 0 - 4 - r 0 Lin 513 �,` 4 f'3 presently designated on the officially adopted City of Aspen Zoning Maps as of April 14, 1986. A. The following area and bulk requirements shall serve as guidelines to help administer the development of the Project which is to be built in accordance with the Precise Plan. 1. Minimum lot area 3,000 sq. ft. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit No requirement 3. Minimum lot width No requirement 4. Minimum front yard 26 ft. 5. Minimum side yard No requirement 6. Minimum rear yard No requirement 7. Maximum height 4:) 8. Minimum distance between No requirement primary and accessory buildings 9. Percent of open space required for building site (minimum) * 25% Ly , 10. External floor area ratio 1.93:1 83,265 sq. ft. .\ (maximum) (variation) 11. Internal floor area ratio No requiremen 12. Off street parking spaces: internal to the Project building 118 external to the Project building 15 (9 in drop -off lane; 4 in parallel parking along drop -off island, and 2 service delivery bays) 13. Utility /trash service area no less than 36 ft. in length 11:) (variation) - 5 - BONG 551:8 Pa;:E 01) * Open space for the parcel shall include all areas meeting the definition of Section 24- 3.7(d) of the Municipal Code, provided that the requirements of Subsection 24- 3.7(d)(3) shall not apply to this parcel. B. Uses Permitted. The following uses shall be permitted in the area governed by the Precise Plan or shall be conditional uses if so noted: 1. Hotel (conditional) 2. Retail commercial 3. Ski accessory retail to include ski shops, repair, rental and storage 4. Open use recreation 5. Restaurant and Little Nell apres ski deck 6. Additional retail commercial as specified under permitted uses in the CC Zone, Section 24 -3.2 of the Municipal Code 7. Ski area administrative offices and ski school 8. Shipping and receiving for hotel and mountain food service and other mountain operations 9. Storage of materials accessory to the above 10. Cabaret and night club 11. Activities associated with emergency medical service for treatment of injured skiers 12. Ski lifts and lift buildings (conditional) O 13. Mazes and skier milling areas - 6 - } 14. Hotel accessory retail �CO O II. VARIATIONS FROM THE UNDERLYING ZONE DISTRICT A. In conjunction with the above set forth use, area and bulk requirements, the following variations from the underlying zone district regulations governing the property shall apply to the project: cue ,t_ - 7 1. Use. Hotel protruding into C Zone. 2. Area and Bulk. The trash access and truck dock area shall be no less than thirty -six (36) feet wide, containing © approximately sixteen hundred (1,600) sq. ft. The external floor area ratio shall be 1.93:1. Open space shall be calculated as specified in Section I.A.(9) of this Agreement. III. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE A. Owner and City mutually acknowledge that exact construction schedules cannot be submitted or agreed to at this time. Owner shall construct the Project in two phases, the first phase being the construction of the "West Wing" and 4:) gondola with associated buildings and accessory structures, - 7 - �L: FS i 8 n,� V.i ; nur' and the second phase being the construction of the Little Nell Hotel. Owner anticipates that the first phase of the Project shall be commenced on April 15, 1986, and the estimated completion date of the first phase is December 15, 1986. Owner shall apply for a building permit for the second phase of the Project no later than thirty -three (33) months after the GMP submission date of December 2, 1985, which date is September 2, 1988. Owner anticipates that the Project will proceed in accordance with the following time frames, which time frames shall not constitute binding representations or schedules: 1986 April 15 Begin utility relocation at Little Nell June 1 Begin excavation for West Wing and grading for new lift. June 15 Begin regrading on Little Nell slope. August 1 Begin construction of gondola terminal. Begin construction of lower lift terminal for 4A. December 15 Structural work and lift terminal complete. No later than September 2, 1988 Begin demolition of Little Nell complex. January 2, 1989 Hotel framed and roofed. C 18 months later Hotel certificate of occupancy. - 8 4:110 B. Detailed Construction Schedule. CON LS n 1. In scheduling and constructing the first phase of the Project, Owner agrees to provide the City Engineering Department with plans and schedules as soon as they become available, and work with the City Engineering Department to address and alleviate any construction and safety concerns the City Engineering Department may have. 2. At the time of application for a Building Permit for demolition of the Little Nell complex and construction of the Hotel portion of the Project, and as a condition precedent to the issuance thereof, Owner agrees to provide 4:) the City Engineering Department with a detailed Construction Schedule for the construction of the hotel, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official in the exercise of their reasonable discretion, which Construction Schedule shall address how construction will best accommodate under the following circumstances: (a) barricading and provision of pedestrian protection, (b) maintenance of adequate public vehicular access and circulation in the development area, (c) excavation access and large truck traffic circulation and staging areas, ® (d) disposal of demolition and excavation - 9 - 471 materials, (e) delivery and storage of major construction materials, (f) construction equipment access and storage, (g) contractor vehicle parking, (h) compliance with City noise regulations, (i) how circulation will occur and what the base area will look like during construction, (1) how Owner shall maintain the barricade and walkway system throughout the course of construction, including repairs and removal, (m) how utility relocations, replacements and undergrounding shall be scheduled and designed, © (n) limits of excavation, construction easements and shoring needs, and, (o) proposed landscaping of areas where demolition is contemplated without immediate reconstruction. 3. The detailed Hotel Construction Schedule shall be verified by the City Engineer and the Chief Building Official and (if the City so desires) recorded as a supplementary exhibit hereto. 4. Major amendments to the Hotel Construction Schedule set forth in Section III.B.2. which, in the view of the City O Engineer, represent a substantial deviation from the original - 10 - Qu a J Gi Hotel Construction Schedule, shall be processed in accordance with the procedures established in Section XI hereof, and shall also be verified by signatures of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official and (if the City so desires) recorded as supplementary exhibits hereto. IV. LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS. In accordance with Section 24 -8.16 of the Municipal Code, all required landscaping for the Project shall substantially conform to the Landscape Development Plan. An Interim Plan, Phase I, has been supplied to the City and will be made more detailed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the hotel portion of the Project. as part of Exhibit "2 ". The Owner shall file a Final Landscape Plan, Phase II, which shall be processed as an amendment to the adopted Precise Plan, and which shall be adopted prior to the initiation of construction of the second phase of the Project. The Owner shall implement the Interim Plan, Phase I in conjunction with the first phase of the Project, and review the performance of these improvements annually with the City Council until the Final Landscape Plan, Phase II is put into effect. The Final Landscape Plan, Phase II will depict and describe the nature, extent and location of all plant materials at mature sizes in appropriate relation to scale, species and size of existing plant material, flower 40 1) and shrub bed definition, a plant material schedule with - 11 - r 4:) common and botanical names, sizes and quantities, proposed treatment of all ground surfaces (e.g., paving, turf, gravel, terracing, etc.), irrigation water systems, decorative water features, retaining walls, fencing, benches, site lighting, and all other agreed -upon landscape features. If Phase II is built, the Final Landscape Plan, Phase II shall provide that landscaping will be completed in a logical sequence commensurate with the staging of improvements as contemplated in the Construction Schedule, but in no event later than one (1) year after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Hotel portion of the Project. It is the mutual understanding of the parties that a Certificate of Occupancy may in fact issue for the Project even though the 4:) landscaping improvements related thereto have not yet been completed, so long as the portion of the financial guaranty provided for in Section V hereof which covers the estimated cost of such unfinished landscaping remains available to the City pursuant to the terms of said Section V. A listing of all planting and their costs is included on Exhibit "5 ". Financial guarantees will be supplied to the City insuring the landscaping commitment contained in this paragraph. Financial guarantees for Phase I will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase I. Financial guarantees for Phase II will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase II. 0 - 12 - •0 t,L1 :51.9 FT~E V. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of the _landscaping .improvements and site. improvements described in Sections IV and VIII.A.(1) herein, and to guarantee one hundred percent (100 %) of the current estimated cost of such improvements, which estimated cost is approved by the City Engineer to be $536,000.00 for Phase I and $320,445.00 for Phase II (as such amount may be updated from time to time as herein provided), Owner shall guarantee by irrevocable bond, sight draft or letter of commitment or credit from a financially responsible lender that funds in the amount of such estimated cost are held by it for the account of Owner for the construction and installation of the above - described improvements. Said guaranty for Phase I shall be delivered to the City prior to_the issuance to Owner of a building _permit for the West Wing, and the guaranty for Phase II shall be delivered to the City prior to the issuance to Owner of a building permit for the_Hotel portion of the Project. The guarantees shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and the City Manager, and shall give the City the unconditional right, upon clear and unequivocal default by the Owner, to withdraw funds as necessary and upon demand to partially or fully complete and /or pay for any of such improvements or pay any outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party, with any excess guaranty amount to O be applied first to additional administrative or legal - 13 - 518 p��:477 costs associated with any such default and the repair of any deterioration in improvements already constructed before the unused remainder (if any) of such guaranty is released to Owner. Provided, however that Owner shall be given fourteen (14) days written notice of default prior to City's ability to make a call under the letter of credit. As portions of the required improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and written acceptance, he shall authorize the release from the guaranty delivered by Owner of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the improvements except that ten percent (10 %) of the estimated cost shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and approved by the City Engineer. Provided, that Q the withheld ten percent (10 %) which relates to the improvements described in Section VIII.A.(1) herein shall be released by City upon completion and approval by the City Engineer of all such Section VIII.A.(1) improvements and regardless of the stage of completion of landscape improvements described in Section IV above. Furthermore, Owner hereby agrees to and does hereby warranty all such improvements to accepted standards of good workmanship for a period of one (1) year from and after acceptance thereof in writing by the City. In addition to this warranty, the Owner shall obtain from its contractors customary warranties of good workmanship with_the City as beneficiary, with respect to all improvements required by Sections IV and VIII.A.(1) herein. Bowc 518 41 It is the express understanding of the parties that the procedure set forth in Section XI of this Agreement regarding non - compliance shall not be required with respect to the enforcement and implementation of the financial assurances set forth herein and required by Section [20- 16(c)] of the Municipal Code. VI. EMPLOYEE HOUSING. As an inducement to approve the Precise Plan and grant the Growth Management Allocations necessary for the Project, Owner has agreed to and does hereby acknowledge its obligation to provide off -site employee housing for thirty -four (34) employees generated by the Project. Accordingly, Owner agrees to house thirty -four (34) employees by converting and deed restricting seventeen (17) rooms in the existing Holiday House Lodge located at 127 West Hopkins Avenue. Employees shall be housed at two (2) employees per room. Each lodge room shall have a private bath and small kitchen. Lodge rooms may vary in sizes, but shall average 172 sq. ft. of net living space per employee. The lodge shall provide a swimming pool, two laundry rooms, ample storage closets and a small common lobby as on -site amenities. On -site parking spaces shall be provided at the rear of the building off the alleyway to serve residents of the lodge. No less than twelve (12) parking spaces shall be provided. In addition to the improvements to the lodge - 15 - BCJH 51.8 E E' t already made by the Owner, which include painting and clean -up, and upgrading the mechanical systems, Owner agrees to add small kitchens to rooms currently without kitchens so that approximately eleven (11) new kitchens will be added to the lodge prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel. All proposed improvements will be reviewed, itemized,and_documented with _the City Council or its housing designee. Two (2) rooms in the Holiday House shall be deed restricted at the time the gondola goes into operation. Fifteen (15) rooms of the Holiday House shall be deed restricted at the time of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Little Nell Hotel. Rent for the rooms shall be deed restricted to the low- income rental guidelines in effect at the time of deed restriction, and may be adjusted annually according to the annually adopted City guidelines. Private lodge rooms vary in individual sizes, but in total the twenty -eight (28) rooms in the lodge contain 9,658 sq. ft. of net living space. Rents for the herein restricted seventeen (17) rooms, housing up to thirty -four (34) employees, shall be calculated as follows: PHASE I: Four employees (2 rooms) shall be restricted when the gondola goes into operation. Rental Formula: 4 (employees) X 172 (average sq. footage X .60 (low income per employee) guidelines) i r B Th 518 ?ni ;E 43U This figure may be amended as the low income rental guidelines are annually adjusted. PHASE II: Thirty employees (15 rooms) shall be restricted when a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the hotel. Rental Formula: 30 (employees) X 172 (average sq. footage X .60 (low income per employee) guidelines) This figure may be amended as the low income rental guidelines are annually adjusted. it Rents shall include all commonly metered or assessed utilities, management costs and taxes. Employees employed directly by Owner shall be given first priority to occupy the units. No rooms shall be rented for a period of less than thirty (30) days without the permission of the City Council or its housing designee. If vacancies occur, Owner shall be permitted to rent to other employees and music students in accordance with the low- income price and income guidelines adopted by the City. The City Council or its housing designee shall have the right to review rents and confirm employee status prior to and as a condition of employees occupancy for compliance with adopted City guidelines. The employee housing to be provided in accordance with this section shall comply with the housing size, type, income and - 17 - PI,,;F 318 =�,GE J. occupancy guidelines of the City of Aspen and the provisions of Section 24 -11.10 of the Municipal Code. The employee housing commitments described herein shall be performed in the following manner. Contemporaneously with the execution of this Agreement, Owner has signed, acknowledged and delivered into escrow with the Aspen City Clerk a "Dedication of Real Property to Employee Housing Restrictions and Guidelines" covering the Holiday House, which Dedication is to be held by the City Clerk subject to the following instructions: at the same time that the City issues and delivers to Owner a valid and effective Certificate of Occupancy for the Little Nell Hotel, the City Clerk shall and is hereby authorized, empowered and instructed to record in the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records the Dedication covering the fifteen (15) rooms in the Holiday House. At the time the gondola goes into operation, the City Clerk shall and is hereby authorized, empowered and instructed to record in the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records the Dedication covering the two (2) rooms in the Holiday House. Owner agrees to confirm to City the status of title to the above- described employee housing property as follows: At the time that Owner applies for a Certific.te of 0 --saucy__ for Hotel, Owner shall deliver to the City Attorney a current Owners' and Encumbrancers' Report issued by a local title insurance company covering the property, together with either - 18 - t-;� �,K 5' 8 F lJr7 482 0 a release or a subordination of any monetary liens disclosed by such Reports as those liens may affect the subject Dedications. Finally, Owner covenants that from and after the date hereof any entities lending funds secured by such employee housing properties shall be given actual notice of the Dedication requirements contained in this Agreement. VII. PARKING. •r - Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Little Nell Hotel, and as a condition precedent thereto, Owner shall construct 118 subsurface parking spaces for the �Project. The forty - six (46) spaces required to be provided A O through approvals granted to the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan contained in Resolution No. 85 -44 of the Board of County Commissioners shall be in addition to the one hundred --- eighteen (118) spaces required on -site. Owner has expressed __ a willingness to consider providing additional parking space.. if a parking structure is built proximate to the ski lifts. VIII. SITE IMPROVEMENTS. A. Owner shall and hereby agrees to accomplish the following improvements in the Project area. 1. Utility Plan. Owner shall relocate underground all C O electrical, telephone and cable television lines, and upgrade - 19 - 518 Fr water and sewer service and fire protection specified on the Utility Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "3" and incorporated herein by this reference. The specific cost breakdown of all items on Exhibit "3" are set forth on Exhibit "4 ". In accordance with the Utility Plan, Owner shall construct the following improvements in the Project area. (a) Underground Utilities. Owner shall relocate underground all electrical, telephone and cable television lines, in accordance with the Utility Plan prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel. (b) Water. Owner shall construct or accomplish the following water system upgrades: abandon the 12" Little Nell steel line; relocate the 12" DIP connection from the Hunter Street pumphouse to the one million gallon reservoir; install a 12" DIP loop in Dean Avenue; relocate booster pumping facilities to the snowmaking plant; maintain supply to Aspen Alps via a new 12" DIP line. Owner shall install a 12" fire main in Spring Street. This work will be accomplished. prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the West Wing. Owner shall relocate the well control and treatment facilities from the Hunter Street pumphouse into the stairwell on Hunter Street. This will be done prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel. The pumphouse shall be relocated within two years of the date of adoption of this Agreement, irrespective of a hotel Certificate of Occupancy. Plans and specifications for - 20 - Pry l � . pin 5 1745. J_ all water system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Water Superintendent in the exercise of his reasonable discretion, and final acceptance by the City is conditioned upon submission of final test reports by a registered civil engineer verifying conformance with approved plans and specifications. (c) Sewer. Owner agrees to construct and /or accomplish the following sewer system upgrades: relocate and upgrade the 10" main which runs from Spring Street -Ute Avenue across the maze to Galena Street -Dean Street with a 12" PVC main in Spring Street to Durant, and then a 15" PVC main in Durant Street to Galena Street. This work will be s accomplished prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the West Wing. (d) Fire Protection. Owner agrees to install a fire hydrant at the South end of Spring Street and a second hydrant on Dean Avenue behind the North of Nell building. This work will be accomplished prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the West Wing. (e) Vacate Old Easements; Grant New Easements. The City agrees to vacate any water, sewer or other utility reservations at such time as these utilities are either abandoned or relocated in accordance with the Owner's commitment set forth herein. Owner agrees to grant any new easements for relocated utility facilities in accordance with the location of the utilities as constructed and in place as may be required by the City Engineering Department. - 21 - BC K 518 21 = x,85 2. Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters. Owner agrees to provide sidewalks, curbs and gutters in accordance with Engineering Department requirements, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Hotel. B. Owner shall and hereby agrees to accomplish the following dedications and /or improvements in the Project area: 1. Drainage. Owner shall install and maintain storm drainage facilities for the storm drainage from the site in accordance with Rea, Cassens & Associates Storm Water Drainage Report dated November, 1985. A Final Plan based on the Rea, Cassens plan will be submitted to the City Engineer for his review and approval prior to the commencement of drainage work at the hotel, and necessary drainage facilities will be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel. C. Ski Lifts. Owner agrees to provide and construct the gondola, the relocated new lift 4A, and associated lift buildings and ski accessory improvements as indicated on the Precise Plan. It is the Owner's intention to begin the construction of these lifts in the Spring of 1986, and have them operational during the 86 -87 ski season. - 22 - 0 A l Ern 518 IX. OTHER COMMITMENTS BY OWNER A. Access, Circulation and Parking. 1. Owner agrees to provide an Auto drop off facility for the needs of the ski area and hotel guests as specified on the Precise Plan (Exhibit "2 "). Owner agrees that the drop off area will be managed during the ski season. A landscaped island buffering the drop -off area shall also be provided, including the pedestrian walkway all as shown on the Precise Plan. The paving in the pedestrian portion of the drop -off area shall be complementary to that on the Hunter and Dean Street malls, and shall be accomplished prior to the issuance O of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel. 2. Owner agrees to provide a service yard for the Project as shown on the Precise Plan. The Owner shall, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel, construct a cul -de -sac at the end of Spring Street to enhance the circulation of service vehicles and cars in the area as shown on Exhibit "2 ". The design of the cul -de -sac shall be coordinated with the City Engineer (who may consult with the Lodge Improvement District), whose final approval of all construction plans for the cul de sac shall be required. The landscape plan to screen the Aspen Alps from the cul -de -sac shall be implemented by the applicant, and signage shall be provided according to the plan on file with the © Planning Office prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel. ^� - 4I ,7 O 3. Owner shall provide and construct a pedestrian easement connecting the Ute Avenue Trail with Dean Street and a pedestrian easement connecting to Aspen Mountain Road as shown on the Precise Plan. The Owner shall also provide signs to prohibit bike riding in the gondola maze area of the trail. The Owner shall also provide a defined, unpaved trail from the base area to Aspen Mountain Road for summer hiking purposes. The Owner shall provide year -round trail easement to the City of Aspen for the cross country skiing trail proposed to cross the Little Nell Run, and will accommodate the needs of said trail in the regrading program, provided that the trail design and maintenance acknowledge the primacy of alpine skiing and will not interfere with the needs of the alpine skiing area. Except for the pedestrian easement connecting Ute Avenue and Dean Street, the remaining parts of this paragraph will be accomplished prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the West Wing. 1 4. The Owner shall take full responsibility for the construction and maintenance of all improvements for the Hunter Street mall shown on the Precise Plan, and Zone I of the Dean Street mall. The Owner shall participate with its neighbors in the Lodge Improvement District for that section of the Dean Street mall labeled as Zone II, provided that if the District is not underway by the time the rest of the malls are finally built, the applicant will at least pave Zone II with materials consistent with that in Zone I and - 24 - C 1© eC M restrict the entrance to the street to authorized vehicle access only. The Owner shall coordinate all mall and mall -type improvements with the work of the District to insure com�nnati.kzility of materials and design style. Financial assurances for this work are covered by Section IV and V of this Agreement. 5. The Owner shall construct the improvements shown on the Precise Plan in the Hunter Street intersection, including the paving pattern which designates this corner as the principal entrance to Aspen Mountain. This work will be accomplished prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel. The Owner agrees to remove the neckdown if required by the City of Aspen. 6. In the event that any municipal improvements or improvements of a kind contemplated in Section 20 -16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen as amended, become necessary or desirable to the area of the above described property, Owner agrees to join upon the demand therefor by the City any special improvement district, urban renewal district, or downtown development district formed for the construction of such improvements, including without limitations signage, drainage, underground utilities, paved 1 ID streets and alleys, planting, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streets, lights, traffic circulation, trails, recreation facilities, parking, etc. in the area of the above described 4 - 25 - 0 r)1 Pk 4 property; however, in view of the public improvements to be provided under this Agreement, the Owner reserves the right to contest the scope of the improvement district and the reasonableness of any assessments or assessment formula imposed against the property by the district. v � �J 7. The Owner expresses its willingness to evaluate the results of the Transit Development Plan as it is adopted by the City of Aspen, and incorporate those results in the Precise Plan if the results are timely and appropriate. Owner has expressed a willingness to provide a shuttle service between the lA base area and the Nell base area through RFTA if a need is demonstrated for that service. v Owner commits to provide a taxi /auto drop off facility at the base of Lift 1A by the beginning of the 1986/87 ski season. 7 Owner also agrees that in conjunction with operation of the hotel, the following auto disincentive techniques will be provided: (a) courtesy vans for hotel guests, (b) valet parking during peak use periods, and (c) employee shuttles to and from work for those employees who live beyond walking distance. B. Building Design. 1. Owner agrees that the hotel will be built as shown © on the Precise Plan as Exhibit "2 ", and per detail elevation - 26 - 1 . J� IJr49O i�� © and renderings on file with the Planning Office 2. Owner agrees that the base lift, lift buildings and storage areas for the gondola shall be designed, located and constructed in accordance with the criteria set forth on the Precise Plan and on file with the Planning Office. 3. Substantial change in design of the hotel or gondola building shall require conditional use review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. C. Miscellaneous Technical Issues: © 1. Owner agrees to comply with the requirements of the following geologic studies by Chen and Associates: (a) Preliminary Engineering Geologic Investigation, Little Nell Base Development, Job No. 1- 990 -85, November 4, 1985. (b) Preliminary Geotechnical Study Phase II, Interim Report, Foundation Considerations and Preliminary Evaluation of Proposed Site Grading, Little Nell Base Development, Job No. 1- 1122 -85, November 27, 1985. (c) Soil and Foundation Study, Proposed Earth Covered Retail Sales Area and Ski Lift Terminal, Little Nell Base Development, Job No. 1- 112 -86, March 14, 1986. - 27 - BCR 518 The Owner shall complete the additional soils and hydrology studies recommended by Chen in their three already completed studies, and provide these studies to the City Engineer, whose recommendations as to construction practices shall be followed by the Owner. The final structural design and grading plan shall be certified by the geotechnical — engineer as not impacting slope stability and surface hydrology to the detriment of this Project or its neighbors. The Owner hereby commits to participation in the ongoing geologic hazard and mud flow risk study for the upslope areas of Aspen Mountain, and to engineering design and mitigation construction in those areas of the mountain under their control via direct ownership, leasehold or other usage agreement. 2. Owner agrees to implement grading plans in substantial conformance with those submitted. Final grading plans must be approved by the City Engineer. 3.\ Owner commits to provide lift service on Little Nell for \spe6ial events, ski instructions and secondary access to *t 5 by relocating the current Little Nell lift (Lift 4) Coiditions for the present operation of Lift 4 are more fu]/l y set ''forth in Alan Richman's letter of March 18, 1986, attached hereto as Exhibit "6 ". 4. Owner agrees that only gas log type fireplaces - 28 - o An 518 T i`1' {3 o shall be allowed in hotel rooms, and only one wood burning fireplace shall be placed in the main hotel lobby. Further, air handling facilities shall be designed to satisfy concerns of the Environmental Health Department in the underground parking structure to eliminate buildup of air contaminants. 5. Owner agrees that the rezoning expressed in Ordinance No. 53, Series of 1986, is conditioned upon Owner receiving a Building Permit for the hotel within the alloted time. In the event the Growth Management Allocation for the Project shall expire, the boundary of the SPA shall be its configuration prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 53, r Series of 1986. 4:) ��U l 6. The Owner shall submit an application to Pitkin County for an excavation permit for the regrading work which will affect Aspen Mountain Road. Affected portions of the Road shall be reconstructed at the applicant's expense at a grade not to exceed fourteen percent (14 %), and to include any drainage facilities consistent with the Rea Cassens Report which the County Engineer may require. 7. The UBC life, health and safety problems identified by the Chief Building Official in his memo dated January 6, 1986, shall be corrected in the final building plans to be submitted for each phase of the Project. 4:) - 29 - i nC��t 518 r.��•� _ © 8. Owner hereby guarantees that the building to be constructed beneath the gondola terminal ho west w g and all other commercial or office areas will not be occupied as administrative offices, retail spaces or any other P - commercial use until necessary commercial development allotments are received. The space shall not be provided with plumbing or electrical fixtures, light and ventilation, or otherwise made ready for commercial occupancy as determined in the sole discretion of the Building Inspector until commercial allotments have been granted by resolution of the Aspen City Council. The building plans for the West Wing will not show the space as habitable space. Revised building plans shall be submitted if GMP allotments are 401) secured. 9. In the event that the Tippler boundary dispute which involves ownership of land including a portion of the Tippler deck shall be resolved in the Owner's favor and the Owner shall determine that the land be retained in their ownership, the Owner shall process a minor amendment to the Precise Plan to include said land in the project boundary. 10. Owner commits that a commercial trash compactor shall be included in the hotel service area to service the hotel and mountain restaurants. - 30 - 40 1) D. Easements. Owner shall execute and deliver to City such documents requested by City as may be reasonably necessary to carry out and effectuate the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including documents granting to City all utility easements, easements for public trails or rights -of -way described or depicted on the Precise Plan. Provided however, that the easement for a public trail at the base of the gondola which will connect the Dean Street Trail and the Ute Avenue Trail will be an undefined floating easement. The trail easement 4 must, however, reasonably connect the trail system. 1 rill' X. PERMANENT CARE AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING Owner agrees that it shall be the perpetual responsibility of the Owner or Owners from time to time of the lands described within the Precise Plan to design, maintain, care for, and replace when necessary, trees, shrubs, plants, and other landscaping features which may be planted or otherwise incorporated in the Project. Owner, in its discretion, may change or modify the landscaping in the Project provided the overall design of the landscaping 4 provided is consistent with or an improvement on the landscaping initially provided for the Project. - 31 - riq MIX 0 XI. NON - COMPLIANCE AND REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS OR EXTENSIONS BY OWNER. In the event that the City Council determines that the Owner is not acting in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the City Council shall notify the Owner in writing specifying the alleged non - compliance and asking that the Owner remedy the alleged non - compliance within such reasonable time as the City Council may determine, but not less than forty -five (45) days. If City Council determines that Owner has not complied within such time, the City Council may issue and serve upon the Owner a written order specifying the alleged non - compliance and requiring the Owner to remedy the same within thirty (30) days. Within twenty (20) days of the receipt of such order, the Owner may file with the City Council either a notice advising the City Council that it is in compliance or a written petition requesting a hearing to determine any one or both of the following matters: (a) Whether the alleged non - compliance exists or did exist, or (b) Whether a variance, extension of time or amendment to this Agreement should be granted with respect to any such non - compliance which is determined to exist. Upon the receipt of such petition, the City Council - 32 - BON 8 •496 shall promptly schedule a hearing to consider the matters set forth in the cease and desist order and in the petition. The hearing shall be convened and conducted pursuant to the procedures normally established by the City Council for other hearings. If the City Council determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a non - compliance exists which has not been remedied, it may issue such orders as may be appropriate; provided, however, no order terminating any approval granted herein shall be issued without a finding of the City Council that substantial evidence warrants such action and affording the Owner a reasonable time to remedy such non - compliance. A final determination of non- compliance which has not been remedied or for which no variance has been granted may, at the option of the City Council, and upon written notice to the Owner, terminate any of the approvals contained herein which are reasonably related to the requirement(s) with which Owner has failed to comply. Alternatively, the City Council may grant such variances, extensions of time or amendments to this Agreement as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances. In addition to the foregoing, the Owner or its successors or assigns may, on its own initiative, petition the City Council for a variance, an amendment to this Agreement or an extension of one or more of the time periods required for performance under the Constructions Schedules or otherwise. The City Council may grant such variances, - 33 - pecii 51.8 ?asE497 amendments to this Agreement, or extensions of time as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances. The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the City Council shall not unreasonably refuse to extend the time periods for performance indicated in Section III.B. of the Construction Schedules if Owner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for the delay(s) which necessitate said extension(s) are beyond the control of the Owner, despite good faith efforts on its part to perform in a timely manner. XII. GENERAL PROVISIONS. A. Notice. Notices to be given to the parties to this Agreement shall be deemed given if personally delivered or if deposited in the United States Mail to the parties by registered or certified mail at the addresses indicated below, or at such other addresses as may be substituted upon written notice by the parties or their successors or assigns: City of Aspen: City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Owner: Aspen Skiing Company Attention: Jerry Blann P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, Colorado 81612 91 S r.,..4 8 with a copy to: Gideon I. Kaufman 315 E. Hyman, Suite 305 Aspen, Colorado 81611 B. Binding Clause. The provisions hereof shall run with and constitute a burden upon the title to the subject property, and shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Owner and the City and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. C. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. D. Severability. If any of the provisions of this Agreement or any paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section or the application thereof in any circumstances is invalidated, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of any such provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section under any other circumstances shall not be affected thereby. E. Incorporation of Recitals and Written Submittals. The City and Owner hereby stipulate and agree that the "recitals" preceding this Agreement, and all of the written submittals (as amended and presently effective) made by Owner to City throughout the course of the Little Nell Hotel SPA approval - 35 - r^K `3_Co ^AGE 't'. - process, shall be deemed to be part of this Agreement and to be incorporated herein by this reference. F. Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement contains the entire understanding and agreement between the parties herein with respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder and may be altered or amended from time to time only by written instrument executed by each of the parties hereto. G. Acceptance of SPA Precise Plan; Ratification by Owner. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, the City agrees to approve and execute the SPA Precise Plan for the Little Nell Hotel, and to accept the same for recordation in the Recording Office of Pitkin County, Colorado, upon payment of the recordation fee and costs to the City by Owner. For its part, Owner hereby ratifies and confirms each and every representation set forth in the Plan, and made in the course of submittals and hearings (as amended and presently effective), upon which approvals granted may have been based. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and sells the day and year first above written. t Of �s CITY:i = THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO S 1]r a municipal ,porporation By Kathryn ich, City Clerk William Stirlin , Mayor - 36 - APPROVED AS TO FORM: Paul J. Taddune, City Attorney Er- 518 .E4g X O ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, a Colorado general partnership By Q u STATE OF COLORADO) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) c• „ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this.,,ilL day of- , 1986, by William Stirling 0SAR4s Mayor, and Kat ryn 'och as City Clerk of the City of a°spe State of Colorado, a municipal corporation. • j WITNESS my hand and offici,al sp41. My Commission expires: } / / C Notary Public STATE OF i / &-c CZ/.(LC ) ss. COUNTY OF /.-r i,i .- ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged be ore me this - day of ` 0" , 1986, by OA,- p ant do f the Aspen S a Colorado g partnership. 15L1 • 0WITNESS my hand and official seal. $ ia) :My Commission expires: Notary Public , spa agreement /ASC2 - 37 - c. d :h a ry r! e y ta O N T Sa ew_ ° u x U c '°_ 1 . " m e . �y e _ ` F IV ° W ° , e d • X [ n 1i i i i7° J a a e < u: OW to, 1 N =Ln t — 1 —� 111 \` - 11111 xi s < • 111 I1 d _7 x 111 • \ \ 111 i-- "a... \ . - 1 11 • — - "S -v. ./... fteir ( 4 * fl a 0 ■ OD \ � \ r ° " iii �. _ r L- . •[ ' .ice :/� �. % a 1 9 ■ �--- in. :1/ �■ ■g _ �S y1 . &d�.�uumm _ - ' :::: q / at s� v . . ..°.4 + I K + � 11 Issas r �. - 1111\11\ \11\111 \l1\ i: . " 1` 1 _ t`� q,i11 : +a * ;11111111111'„' �r = v - -, , , Y , g � y ° f .�$_j � 2 ili iii h - ) - �/ / i,... S a mm y . a 1 ■ • , 2 ..1 4 . —__ --_, .1,._ v e �� \ \\ — \seas 111 = • N n = - w '$ a' � j I c a m N �rl Nd ? c ° '°� m r 5 '- m o ° °om z: - m z n= / } J m m • 1J 4 ww 1 � O � 0 J O WU W w t Son 2 :n3om UW ".^ i A I 1. m an p :0 ~' / . W � 1 w _ °'nU n ZN C N F VU" W WW - R ueli V_O i L a FFFyYII •.:A azO:o `.� Oa =1'4:V4' 0 0 a l a v W < X 0 o m<„ a S::n <:° ;74?, o a .Wm u w mo., : � 1, IN I t 't a mm m w n� Y A S Se ? p + t j'a�� :A y'y �± 8 k 9 $ ° V • s ite ‘ {� silt l ii Co Ia -.n. t .. s i R j� N7 p 3 5, 3 ° i j° t2 , 3; 1 g ' Z 1 4t ,:'pi .. l { e O _ia° 1,;4 iii; �ia i+ d Y I Ill, • _ a g 1 i3 . ,4i 1, ;4 a 3:403 ° i �17 r ,4n• Stc, tR m n i aE4 +, m i o • � t :Jp P F E Pt i „ o I 15 7 ) m .P a91' P : R m 'ilk. +dt i m I'S •2:01a, �5 � al . r _ N , - N u F, "g ° N l f �o '.4 " N §s § ° ,1 . 2;fy . #t 0 0l Y + P ' o i l yr� I�M s. � l e o , S. 4 ' l ��lit i T r n J 4 _ �� lean WeleD . • S •YR 1 W t, I$, v -- - - i n3 v g e C. :, t hip' a ..pty ;/' 1 1113 =-- it 1 � . Sty k' tad Y kF` _ lil _ _ m a a ay +410 m z y f } � € � i 1 { 4 1 a 1 % a = ' J 1 il I . ill �/ AIMmm+ ... . "- . m • f6 66 @ — M ie. ; i ik ik 1 � a t 31 gg' 3 c N A 9. i ■ ft J Y iF ..a...., 7 1 1 : 2 i. it ni �� 111z,� II j hi m Et l A. . iI .r ° It tie" I ono I g ... I p H �1��iiuNllllll = : >' o it 2 ! F S , <���� Q� +F °�p,ii % -11 m I� 4 3rd 1 + 1. I ) • is • 1 j i / 7 777 .: i� II m �P i 6 { � dd. 6 • C / Y OO , , ' i`� i ii� / _, A. _ 1 : : Lill_ - *Alit •• .-----a■ F �'�t ,7 �� flNII1 i nn II % � , y X85 \� 1111 - s i YS 4E 9 _ Stile i t i�R$ , 41 = l 3 j " V f 2. • a a i �. -n I� g J � ° d ro J is i Q 'S t 1 t i{ i ' i61 t .. 9r .•.• O II," 3 4l a ° S� 21 3 o p s : I .a r¢ 4 o k .• a t d . F11 3f,1 t ItdtiiE \ i ✓? t MI - al it ) x ifi5F34 - -_ = w S c-' a oI N QJ cE U y ra 4-1 1y 0 0- � j 2 .— 2 m o p �� t0. 1 a F �jl U ?; ; 1ni io s ` J �x Wiz. �t _ Em 1 "E 3 sa� n zU C : a., uE r a., „ DD �mn 1 R� Q ` C W o Da JJao ai Uc ow Uwe e r �� °� S N =J �' d 1 i s j il l i $ F J -1 b d a ; 9 ,I4 , . , I' a I 1 1 \ i a 9 t ji 1 D t t.i i ffi$ 9 1 I 1 I ® \\ II I I 1 ',\11 r 1 I / 1 1 p O j (�1 I \ \� / Y. // I 1 J / / / I K 1 I i ��� LI � r ` ` � � a 1 � � J I 4 , 1 i / Ol it w a ► „ _I 4 . it-l--J- -t v 111 i / / vgi 1.1 / O-.. o...o 1._, S- 10 1 1 1 �B..�O ■ 00 f-� 1 11 L ®..... 000 t r 1 I & m„ m... -- 1 i r . r 1 1 I p_ % _ c . rn Ya e _ _ 1:7 _. 1:7 ,_ )lF IIII�IIIIIII III iii_ i f' r � ® . 411/111 xa 1 : - • 1 I 3 1 1 / 1 .0 / ' ; �s' I s � x - , '\ \\ \ = 1 5S€ it / I I ° \ / / / , / F � st xr II +111111111U r v / / 7 gg 3 1 \ \ I d / / / // /,� I l•\ it I ' 1. \ 47 , • t 1 \ I / / / / / p - \ � 1 % l i g : P a " e 'i ) 1 • \ I / i / / / \ 0 \ • - I r / / ° • 1 I 2 � 1 I 1 / i i- - - _g- - - -- 1 1 II 5 i; 9 1 1 1 1 I \\�� ' �c —�-- j ' �-- I 1 6 11 - LJ t ..- x I ' !Th `r r c ) •i3 il dJ t 1 a! N err yE 4 b '' i n+ Nv A� =no_ ¢ w t u om 3 ft lA r l� i O .o "'� 1:00 - w^ i m t s ° o . • 2 , d • II 2 l ay. • .X zg x x` ..I m - ;o m a � a d III, ig �r e' a '' W 0 Gaa., itao. a x •a 2 u tly p 0 h ze a • 7 T ri s Y ..., W_ V =• t%•„_ J • J • W Z: =, W• \ .•a .r.• emu.. NO n \, ipo t S ' - 1 3 :, .� x'. t 1aagS BW1dS ' i �2 Jy cAi I ktIS z : \, i r---1 . 4 / i � 2S , a Z • / ti d • H tit T - m .. = u _ ' of N Si ,_, E9 l Q of` Y +a ,, , O = 14 4. o a W . e_ i =, i a .a t„, my ar iy� ° w T° wz. : • .0 01 3 azua u s: �° _ ou= ] lam m X o<.�.e n5a &�.e a: n .� o = ewe ,",'Lag °+ro„ F ! I ° d � W W I ( L i 7 _la ' Rs -- - -- i�QQQQQQQ • a; s r; I I kl i I ra I I L c * a �y I y:if c W:.d- ` \ a i "Irk Q QQQQQQ I nv 0 i I, r P I 1d -' I v /l i i� is i ti C II ij kx I1A t .- ri;i1 , I w i$ i�' O. o �^a' o • ,.—o W o . o ci c t Y ` • . ? ha • " I 3 1 _ N ji 11 %J ■11 9 I OD . 0 1 •■1 S SW ® ■I■ • sib, 1 N c ca leans 6uuds = C • •••••••••••••••••••••••••\ • co o • j d IN a i °m = 1 I I I riff - 518 PASE5a4 o f M v ¢g .4 0 i" 8 e gg — 1— .,„ : : ' 0 , ,„..._0„.„. „; • 7 .,. to :' rd I co 1s . 1 I < 1 1, I, :c3 I. 1. pi / 13 2.3 1 / F- Ig ( / t. O: a war I / / / I :/ _ ,,,,,, 3: \ � it / / /� / i—un xti3 _ / \\>) ' I I - i g ?g / / // = r. / / /1/ / �imr rcwmr 1 / J� / / b /// / w,., ------c— is .e'. : :r2 t____— —� . F I � IS ie wt I - -- I x ww— 1 / — I ,-- / I ww— I I _,/ / I I - - 1 1 1 If I S5g 3 wu - F i ' l / i. I - -- c , J �� o .vy - C - _y3�4 p NNI w,-'s 1`_A .i , I a Y Y 1/ r :5: I e f I 9016 :31 i 51.t ^ I - 113N 311111 ° I 1 3 06 113N30 NINON : I lll eig C —_- - -- - -- -- -- ° ara.� ___ - - ww r- 3AN3AV _ j - 1N >N/10 Y , 1 I W ' ij W * F Q a N J N :o .D A „¢ D W 3 i rk z 1 1 N i w o .. / p �� y 1\ 1fi 519 ?' �p e Hli� V�S_J I� I 1 1 n I W1■ ■■■ ■■■■®IFT��IN�= O. I f i ` - k i■1 1 ■■ ■■■■■ lrEIIi 7a — CCCC�IIICCI ■■1 , E w __ 1 I ( 1111 ®11111■CIC : L I . ipsommotour 11 =111mo 11i 1 _• ) IICILCCII ®_IC�_ICMI 1( `®i�iTE lir CCU 1 z 1111®NIEMEMII® :I it CCIIMECI� ■ ■M ii 'u 11 •■ �■■� ■ ■ ■ ■ ®■■ ■ 1� ' l CC�11 i 11 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ®■■q 1 0 rR !MUMMO N■ ■I. ■ ■MMu1■■■ ` I k i j i 1111111111111111117 1 1111 11��11� , , o i I p , I Ilnnni llil 1® J �i ` \ a W 1111 . \ I ` r _ i CIIICICIIII��IC�CCa \ IIIioi111:a�11 = r ■■ .. ■■■un•• ■ _ n ' IC:.IICCC�:CC�11� w I % ■ ■■■■■■■■ ■11'■■■MM■■■■ ' CCCMCCCCCCCCCCCCC j ICICC 4 , i!!HiiilK!!I - 1 € i \ �_ 133tl15 t--)_4_ M'A - U .Wma■mil I,�� remOmmateamsimmmem - -- ` -- ' 1 111911:CCC11:1=C111 1 L � 1_, - - - -- CCCCnnEINI ■'@ EM _. ' 1 NCCM � MECE =__ - == 800k MS PAGE51i F co F . mmmmma•mm IS o mmmmmmmmmmEmmui m ui = 7 mmmmmmmmlmnmmEm 1 mm I :Lnn:u mmE Et • 1 MillElli mmnmmm:mmnnn mmnmmnmmnnnnn mmn ■ ■mm mm�m:nnn::n mmnmmnmmnnnnn mmmmmmn mmnmmnmmnnnmmn �4_: , I H I m HIIH l - 30M3AY tNYb00 y � ( / '9 y� (� w......n..,.rr 1 j' / _ b111�® ®■ ■■■■■n ■■■■us■ ! i L__ Pm■■UR■ ■■� �1 ■■■■ ■viii :. \ ; nnnnmmm�mm�nn ; : = IIIHI!IIIIILIlIIIIIII ■. 1111 .■■.■i■■■■■■■ ti 1111■ 1111■.■■■■i.■■..■■■ o ■■■i■ ■■■iI■■■■ ■ l_ . W P ■1111■ 1111■■■■■.■■■■i■ ■■■ma j 3 1111 •1111■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■1111■■ ■1111■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� 1111■■■■■ g IIIllh!HIIiIIIIlHI y -- - --- 11 - ■■■■ ■1111 ■ ■■� ��■■■■■■■■ I INMEU <IN�i 1�ii ■■■i■ ■viii , \` % / `\ ■■■■Z■■■■ ■Ya■■ ■■■ ■■■ / =a: l h •� mm■■mmnmmn■■■■■■■■ 1111 v s„ PIPM11111 1 / . : m ■ : : ■■■■ \\g' . 2/ .m C ■. =mC■ ■■ mmn iH ilIiu!1E "' IOW c ¢ • a ° M . v d z I= : = w Q 6 11 m ^ •= O ir + r N� WuW gym u. - v m a ft' .1o;-- -F ' ' I = 6 'a S • a Z' CO t " � ' '^ ^ i,� u o a UlfJt$ �? t' 1 tic k 11 € ` s n... O O.. 4n 'u°i8.<n a4n.n F../.1,-..A 6 .Wn uw wan { s:n� �!.a � 4 �.,1 . N ° 1-m ``, m ^ 1 I ' W a) ' I 1 t i i i 1 i j' _ .' i s , {t.t • f i �" i:c 1- 1 li. 1 .. 1 fl E i CO 1 i _ 1 I 1 9 -E a j am'] 1 i' 1 ;0 i k 1 I ___ • .1 • y 0 % _ , X . F 1 . k 1 . f ' I Co . . . _ lc ' '1 Etwi . 1 • `1 . ! 6,-..N. • U Zs - C k m C.71 < : 11 i 1 , 1 L/ j i1 1 1 1 . 1 1 / 4 .1 1 1111.E 1 .. d as c--.....-- -..---..x, • \ / 2 \\ 1 \ J S :e 1 „_ \ \ \ \ .' y,, W co , W } I I 1 �1 I ; I �\\ \\ W O. 6 �C I' .t 1 N. N.. \.� r \ \ \> \ C J O � � I I i n J I . u. o I II »E• • na s. �.r. ] ~ 1 r .. d'ed i il iff t Ilfi # t 1 p 1 ifiN2PM/Ala Ater 7t 1 ILISSINIflflt anae ' 4 Anti I \ \; — - . 1 l l, l e it I i I1 i 1 i 11 :: 11 I y i 1 e I I e 1 1 1 i I ; 1 I, 1 It! \ F 1 I j l ! I 1 1 1 u I ! 1 L__ v ) I 1 N , . 11 • 1 I I I II .� .... I / I I I I r-- - -1_1 " - I i I ` 1 • \\ 1 \ 1 1 1 1 I II; 1 1 r 4 l i II I I / / f 1 gi 1 \ I1 \ \ li I i l ��j ( y r i� ^ I )IIA / \ � \1 ., 1 I I I 'y 1 / d `. / / 1 /I I l � � �' -- or. i z; 1 6 V i / /'. "/ " / r I .rsnii / //i : / / / / 1 / / I/ ; / �\/ /// y 1 1 I l l : % / // I �� i i� J - I I i, al / i J \ n.n j --7 j i ��t i Q/ i I ... N EeaFS iaS I 1 / iiG� �. ` W / i I c .\ — ♦ E /!�54/ - - - - -- i� ,/ N I m oI\ /4://,- --- /�\ / U U' ��\ i 1 l / / Hi \ CO � ll / j d 1 V A 4 O. _ -^ e . - m, " . q `` F al ♦4-1,—.1 NO _ ` = W .4,y,-: m J , i" h _ _o^ f F I ti I ! a il u rN � w I ` < o m w X 0 o<m.,, a a .,<c o= •.- u m in 1 , d yFy W j- f � etri - ; 1 1 I 4 111111 - 1 1a - ^ p _. i 1 E i !+ Y. I f w` TT \� t s lii+ 4-14:::;11.:::: U II 1 i E 3i = I l ; i m li ' ii 1 l5 . i �+ I - i ' !I + 'Z 1 CZN • - '._1. - :' ` ', i ! v,` ii i. J' t 'it f / jstj \ \� / ` \ I \ ? S i t p. \ \ \ \\ \ �� \\ \ \ W N \ J I I \ \ \ \� \ \\ \ I 0 �0 a • E - ' \ \ \� \Q \ ( \\ W a I \�\\ o 1- sas / SI 1' 1. ip,039; � � ��� �' =` �P C \I` a \� a.aaa.s�x I . - I O j : 1 ... 1... . ....- uiwrrnm111119arruiffitlfrsr •; ° ■av/ 1 \ \i - 1 I!I I 1 I I' I Y i -t I ' . IC I II I I I I 1 111 1 111 ill I p ;: € e �IIII I $ I ; I I I I i I 1 1 1 I I 1 I; ! ..•.•N II, I I P , c it \\ J I 1 I I 1 1 1! 1 1 1 I I is t__T ! \ I I I II 1 I\ V . \ 1111 \ ■ I I I�- -_; »,..... �/_ I 1 I I I ■ \ \\ n \ 1 1 1 11 , } I \ 1 '\ 1 ` \ ` `\ \ .` 3.61..51X 1 i ll / l 1 1 1\ I I I I N• III ,A ` . 1 1 ( \l _,1 /� I I1 j G ,}, \I IJ \ l L. i' I, I z; ii z z iii/ / 0 / Ni/ i , / I l r � • \ o // / / l 4 �// I I I / ° ' 1 W Pl <4.4., j N / / /I ---/ / ° o /// (-I l / . � ezwni min. \ 1 / jam 71------ < / / / 1 N I0811S dupes \ %� /r Z I I / / -2,2 \ ..... % jam �.\ co i i 1 \ co / I O(7 J • l � ll� / J� \. vvv < 1 \ Exhibit 1 Alpine Surveys QQ 1 414 North Mill Street eon v1 .0 ^,15[ai Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303 925 2688 April 3, 1986 Job No. 85 -121 REVISED DESCRIPTION OF ENTIRE LITTLE NELL S.P.A. (This description supersedes that of February 24, 1986) A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BLOCK 102 IN SAID CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE S 75 ° 09'11" E 220.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 102 TO A POINT 10.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT H OF SAID BLOCK 102; THENCE S 14 °50'49" W 241.76 FEET TO A POINT HALFWAY BETWEEN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WATERS AVENUE AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF UTE AVENUE; THENCE N 75 ° 09'11" W 29.34 FEET ALONG SAID HALFWAY LINE TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 21, UTE ADDITION; THENCE N 38 °35'40" W 16.98 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 21 TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 21; THENCE S 45 °21'00" W 124.28 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 21 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 21, UTE ADDITION, SAID CORNER BEING ALSO A POINT ON LINE 1 -9 OF THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE; THENCE N 75 ° 09'11" W 50.00 FEET; THENCE N 14 °50'49" E 51.30 FEET; THENCE N 30 °09'11" W 34.00 FEET; THENCE N 75 °09'11" W 235.35 FEET; THENCE N 15 °30'00" E 126.67 FEET TO A POINT ON LINE 8 -9 OF THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE; THENCE N 74 °23'18" E 13.11 FEET ALONG LINE 8 -9 TO CORNER NO. 9 OF THE ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE; THENCE S 40 ° 01'52" E 52.02 FEET ALONG LINE 1 -9; THENCE S 75 °09'11" E 4.92 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT R, BLOCK 98, CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE N 14 °50'49" E 10.00 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF LOT R TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF DEAN AVENUE; THENCE S 75 °09'11" E 60.24 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF VACATED HUNTER STREET; THENCE N 14 °50'49" E 50.00 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT I, BLOCK 97, CITY OF ASPEN; Exhibit 1 51• c "7 p:i4 Page 2 1 v.•, , Job No. 85 -121 Revised Description of Entire Little Nell S.P.A. April 3, 1986 THENCE S 75 °09'11" E 75.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT A, BLOCK 102, CITY OF ASPEN; THENCE N 14 °50'49" E 100.00 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT A TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 88,567 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. ( ( BooK 518 RZGE5 ?5 Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 March 18, 1986 GO v rn " o N fry OD 1 :< a --- :c NI Mr. Fred Smith m Planning Director Z CFI Aspen Skiing Company m °m z do 0060 Atlantic Avenue m r P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, CO 81612 -1248 Dear Fred, I am in receipt of your March 4, 1986 letter which requests that insubstantial modifications be made to the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan (AMSAMP). The Planning Office has reviewed the improvements proposed by the Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) for construction during the 1986 off - season and compliments ASC for aggressively working to improve the skiing experience on Aspen Mountain. The Planning Office has reviewed your proposal to amend the AMSAMP to include a new Lift #4 at- -the base of Aspen Mountain _. serving Little Nell. As you know, the Board of County Commis sioners recommended certain improvements to the AMSAMP proposed as part of Resolution No. 85 -44. Specifically, the Board proposed that the ASC be given the option of retaining Lift 14 or a similar lift system with certain operational restrictions as part of the AMSAMP. Since the Board made this recommendation I consider your proposal to construct a new Lift *4 to be an "insubstantial change" to the AMSAMP as long as Lift #4 is operated in accordance with the operation plan as set forth in this letter. Pitkin County's major concern regarding Lift #4 relates to the impacts upon the City of Aspen from an increase in the daily capacity to Aspen Mountain and potential safety problems which could occur on the Aspen Mountain trails system particularly at the end of the skier day. Therefore, the conditions of the Mr. Fred Smith En 518 P' 526 Planning Director Aspen Skiing Company March 18, 1986 Page 2 County's approval are designed so that Lift #4 will not operate as an Initial Access Lift except under special circumstances. It should be explicitly understood by the ASC that any changes to operations of Lift #4 which deviate from the conditions set forth below which lead to a daily capacity increase will require a substantial amendment to the AMSAMP. Based upon the authority vested in me by Section 3- 1.12(e) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, permission is granted to the ASC to construct a new Lift #4 on Aspen Mountain subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. The Aspen Skiing Company will revise the AMSAMP map proposed conditions to reflect the new location of Lift 44 and submit copies of the map to the staff prior to the issuance of an excavation permit for Phase I of the Little Nell base area redevelopment. 2. Lift 44 may be a fixed grip triple chair with a design capacity of 1200 persons per hour. We will consider requests for a quad upon further amendment requests. 3. Lift 44 will not be operated before 10:00 A.M. except in the event of: o Breakdown, slowdown, or non - completion of alternative initial access lifts (Gondola, #1A). o Major special events on Aspen Mountain such as World Cup Races, Summit Series Races, Town League Races. o Isolated, temporary, experiments are being conducted to observe the impacts of operating Lift 44 during the first two hours of mountain operation on the functional characteristics of Aspen Mountain, particularly end of the day mountain egress. Prior to such temporary, isolated experiments the Aspen Skiing Company will notify the Planning Director and Forest Service. It is the mutual understanding of the County and ASC that the principle function of this lift's opening at 10:00 A.M. will be ski school checkout, but it will also be available to the general skiing public. 4. It is explicitly understood that changes to the operation plan for Lift 44 or increases to the capacity of Lift #4 will require an amendment to the AMSAMP. Mr. Fred Smith BOOK 518 PasES27 Planning Director Aspen Skiing Company March 18, 1986 Page 3 5. An excavation permit will not be issued for Phase I of the Little Nell base area redevelopment unless and until the ASC provides written acknowledgement and acceptance of the operational plan for Lift #4 contained in this letter as a pre- requisite to such a permit. Based upon the discussions which we have had with you, we recommend that you consider operating Lifts #3 or 17 or both until 3:45 P.M. as one means of relieving end of the day egress pressure on Spar Gulch and Copper. As your plans for Aspen Mpuntai,n evolve we would welcome the opportunity to discuss operational modifications with you prior to your submission' of future amendments. This letter shall be recorded with the County Clerk and Recor- der's Office and will serve as an amendment to the AMSAMP. We look forward to the opening of the new Lift #4 and the gondola on Aspen Mountain. If we can be of any further assistance to you please let us know. Sincerely, ASPEN /PIT KIN PLANNING OFFICE Alan Richman, AICP Planning and Development Director AR:j1r:ltr.2 cc: Board of County Commissioners Tom Smith, County Attorney John Eldert, County Manager Glenn Horn, Asst. Planning Director , doc /alpha /Onn14- 4/13109 6 12 86/1081 Pea 518 P4sES ?4 PARTNERSHIP AUTHORIZATION THE UNDERSIGNED, being all of the partners of ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, a Colorado general partnership ("Aspen "), hereby authorize and direct JERRY BLANN to execute and deliver, on behalf of Aspen, the following documents: 1. SPA Agreement for Little Nell Development between the City of Aspen ( "City ") and Aspen; 2. Agreement between City and Aspen regarding utility and trail easements; 3. Agreement between City and Aspen regarding vending operation; 4. Dedication of Real Property to Employee Housing Restrictions and Guidelines for the Holiday House by Aspen (Rooms 9 and 10); and 5. Dedication of Real Property to Employee Housing Restrictions and Guidelines for the Holiday House by Aspen (Rooms 5 through 8, 22 through 26, and 31 through 36). DATED: June 23, 1986. MKDG III /MRDG IV PARTNERSHIP, n c a Colorado general partnership 2 c , i By: MKDG III ASPEN, INC., Cm Q W .i a Delaware corporation, 03,:r ti .c General Partner 00 4rU CC 2 14- 00 — By: (a h Thoma$ O t ick, Vice President By: MKDG IV ASPEN, INC., a Delaware corporation, General Partner B y : _ i �� Thou J. lu znick, Vice President BELL M N PART RS, LTD., an I no s d partnership �. Dim 518 R GE513 EXHIBIT 4 Little Nell Base Development SPA Agreement Site Utility Costs • Phase 1: Water $ 207,100 Sanitary Sewer 69,500 Electric 125,400 • Telephone _ 15,600 Phase 1 Subtotal $ 417,600 Phase 2: Water $ 45,000 Total $ 462,600 • Boox 51 fac_514 EXHIBIT 5 Little Nell Base Development SPA Agreement Landscape and Paving Costs Zone 1: Planting, paving, irrigation and street furniture 19,250 sf 0 $15.00 /sf $ 288,750 Zone 2: Special finish concrete 8,750 sf 0 $3.50 /sf 30,625 Zone 3: 10 trees 0 $500 ea. = $5,000 3,000 sf of sod or ground cover and irrigation O $1.75 /sf = 5,250 10,250 Zone 4: 25 trees 0 $500 ea. = $12,500 75 shrubs 0 $25 ea. = 1,875 3,000 sf of irrigation O $1.50 sf = 4,500 1,920 sf of sidewalk O $3.50/s€ = 6,720 700 If of curb and gutter O $10 /lf 7,000 32,595 Zone 4a: 30 trees Co $500 ea. = $15,000 125 shrubs 0 $25 ea. = 3,125 3000 sf of irrigation O $1.50 /sf = 4,500 22,625 Zone 5: 30,000 sf of wildflower/ native grass seeding 0 $.30 /sf 9,000 Total $ 393,845* * Includes $118,400 for Phase 1 improvements in Zones 1, 2 and 5 • �.., cis rrti Co AGREEMENT -� s ma, m n OJ �/ - o p= cn THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 2,Cj dayaof gril, 1986, by and between the City of Aspen, a migicima CO corporation (hereinafter "City "), and the Aspen Skiing Company, a Colorado corporation (hereinafter "Vendor "): RECITALS 1. Vendor is, and has been for many years, engaged in the business of providing facilities and services related to skiing, in and around the County of Pitkin. 2. Vendor is duly licensed under the provisions of Section 12 -28, et seq., of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen to conduct business in the City of Aspen. 3. Vendor has requested permission to conduct vending operations in connection with the sale of lift tickets and ski school for skiing on its mountains. 4. Skiing on Aspen Mountain and other Aspen Skiing Company mountains is a unique community benefit, which provides many recreational and economic benefits to the City of Aspen, its visitors and inhabitants. 5. The execution of this agreement is required under the provisions of Section 13 -61 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen as a condition precedent to the vending operations described herein, which operations are specifically subject to annual review by City Council. Vendor shall pay to the City the annual fee of $10.00, said sum shall be payable in advance on or before the first day of the annual renewal term of this agreement which term shall be thirty (30) years. NOW THEREFORE, the parties mutually agree as follows: I. City hereby grants Vendor permission to sell lift tickets and ski school tickets, under the provisions of Section 13 -61 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and to occupy Dean Street. from Galena Street to its termination at Hunter Street for such purposes, under the terms and conditions set forth below. Sale of other community organization tickets may be sold with permission of the City Manager. II. The permitted vending may only take place between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. III. Vendor may position "kiosks" in such design and at such locations as approved in writing by the City Manager. Vendor's street improvements must conform to Vendor's Precise Plan approved by City Council on April 213, 1986. - 1 - Pin 518 p,;E5i6 IV. Vendor agrees to keep the locations approved for vending in such repair and free from all litter, dirt and debris and in a clean and sanitary condition; to neither permit nor suffer any disorderly conduct or nuisance whatever; and to neither hold nor attempt to hold the City liable for any injury or accident occurring thereon. Further, Vendor does, by execution of this agreement, agree to indemnify and save harmless the City against any and all claims for damages or personal injuries arising from the operations of Vendor hereinabove described, and to include in its liability insurance coverage the operations contemplated and covered hereby and further to name the City as a co- insured and to deliver a copy of said policy or an insurance commitment upon the execution of this agreement, which commitment shall require that the policy or the coverage required herein provide for thirty (30) day's written notice prior to cancellation thereof. V. This agreement shall be subject to annual review by the Aspen City Council. VI. If legal action is taken by City or Vendor to enforce the provisions of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. VII. The parties agree that no assent, expressed or implied, to any breach or any one or more of the covenants or agreements herein contained shall be deemed or taken to be a waiver of any succeeding or any other breach. VIII. Vendor represents, warrants and agrees that its operations herein shall be in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, and regulations pertaining to the activities of Vendor. CITY OF ASPEN, ASPEN SKIING COMPANY a municipal corporation B • AP.RRoVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: i Paul J. Taddune, Kathryn S / och, ` ci y. a orney City Cle 4SEAL • CgndQ.r agr /ASC2 - 2 - y 7 v 7cr (V CA O „ 2 Co .A. :< n — o pm N 1p m AGREEMENT -0 x m cn o� 2116 m m THIS AGREEMENT, is made as of the date las below signed, by and between THE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, a Colorado general partnership (the "Owner ") and the City of Aspen, a Colorado municipal corporation (the "City "). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owner is the record title holder of that real property described as: That property described and referred to in that SPA Agreement for Little Nell Base Development and Exhibit "1" thereto (hereinafter "Little Nell PA Agreement "), recorded at Book 5/'f at Page it of the records of the County Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado WHEREAS, pursuant to the Little Nell SPA Agreement, Owner has agreed to grant to City for water, electrical, communication, and other utility appurtenances upon, under and through the above - described property such easements as described and depicted on the Precise Plan and attached thereto as Exhibit "2 "; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Pursuant to the Little Nell SPA Agreement and in consideration for the approvals granted therein, Owner hereby grants to City perpetual easements for water, electrical, communication and other utility appurtenances, and so much of the surface as may from time to time be reasonably necessary for the design, construction, installation, operation, maintenance, repair, alteration and replacement of such utility appurtenances as are described and depicted on the Precise Plan for the Little Nell Base Development recorded in Book 571 at Page of the records of the County Clerk and Recorder, Pitkin Cou ty, Colorado. The City agrees to vacate City water, sewer and other utility reservatons at such time as these utilities are either abandoned or relocated. 2. Owner fully agrees to grant to City trail easements substantially in the form annexed hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B ", for all public trails described and depicted on the Precise Plan. Upon request by City, Owner agrees to execute and deliver to City utility easements substantially in the form annexed hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" for all as built easements for utility lines and facilities as generally shown on the SPA Technical Site Plan. - 1 - (. 518 551RR MIK 51.8 ?AGES1S 3. With regard to the gondola trail connecting the Dean Street Trail and the Ute Avenue Trail, the easement shall provide that the specific course of the trail shall be allowed to float; that is, the exact course shall be as designated by Owner and depicted on correspondence to the City Engineer from time to time, provided that the trail so designated shall connect with the Dean Street and Ute Avenue Trails. 4. Owner agrees that City may assign the rights granted to it hereunder to any assignee for utility purposes who demonstrates sufficient competence and gives adequate assurances that any work to be performed pursuant to such assignment shall be conducted in a good and workmanlike manner, and that Owner's interest in the easement premises shall be protected. 5. City agrees that it will save and hold Owner harmless from all claims, causes and actions, suits, damages or demands whatsoever in law and in equity which may arise out of, or as a consequence of the City's maintaining, repairing and utilizing the easement premises and subject utility appurtenances. 6. City agrees that Owner shall have the right to grant other non - exclusive easements over, along, or upon the easement premises; provided, however, that any such other easements shall be subject to the easements hereby granted; and provided, further, that City shall first consent in writing to the terms, nature and location of any other easements as not interfering with the rights granted hereunder. 7. This agreement is binding upon the successors, representatives and assigns of the parties and is modifiable only in writing and signed by the parties. IN WITNESS REOF, the parties have set their hands and seals this iCL- day of , 1986. OWNER: ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, a CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado Colorado general partnership municipal corporation 1 / By V By���• rell1;44 1 0 p ■S ATTES14 r , .: (NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ON FOLLOWING PAGE) - 2 - STATE OF COLORADO) BOOK 518 PAGE519 ss. C UNTY.,OF PITKIN ) ‘A. PApjore of g instrument was ac owledged me this 1 k 01 cHag 4. 'of ( AC A , 1986, by _ OLE J3k'fl M AJ as "' of ASPEN SKIING CORPOONoa Colorado general a to s74 p '•, ........ WITNESS ' WITNESS my hand and official seal. aso c My Commission expires: AV r .4f44.2, / y! (�G� J Notary Public �J (/ STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ■&.&J day of tex , 1986, by William L. Stirling as ,v-Matycfr and Kathry Kcth as City Clerk of the City of Aspen, WITNESS my hand and official seal. / : My commission expires:■/r,47 r ?'n f o/ Yom" tC• c . _ _ �� x� Not.1 Public easement agr /ASC2 - 3 - m a 4 _8 a c t�L0 J. z u CO � n 4a z a V EXHIBIT "A" o ^ )• 0 z - n o z cn rt rn GRANT OF EASEMENT - C72, 71 a� m C rn 73 The ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, a Colorado general partnership (herein "Grantor "), whose address is P.O. Box 1248, Aspen, Colorado 81611, for and in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid, the adequacy and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, do hereby grant and convey to the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, a municipal corporation, whose address is 130 South Galena Street, Aspen Colorado 81611 (herein "City ") a perpetual easement for underground, water, electrical, communication and other utility appurtenances, and so much of the surface as may from time to time be reasonably necessary for the design, construction, installation, operation, inspection, maintenance, repair, alteration and replacement of such utility appurtenances as such easements are depicted on the Precise Plan of the L tle Nell Base Development recorded in Book 67S at Page /� of the records of the County Clerk and Recorder, Pitkin Co nty, Colorado, which Precise Plan is incorporated herein by this reference. Grantor further grants to City the right of ingress and egress to. and from said easement for the above - described purposes necessary to the easement over and across said lands by means of roads and lanes therein, if such there be, otherwise by such route or routes as shall occasion the least practicable damage and inconvenience to Grantor. Grantor reserves the right to utilize and enjoy the above- described real property providing the same shall not interfere with the design, installation, operation, inspection, maintenance, repair, alteration or replacement of the utility appurtenances. Grantor reserves for itself and its successors and assigns the right to relocate the easement and the utility appurtenances therein with the consent of City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, upon the payment of all direct and indirect costs of the said relocation to the City which such security for the payment thereof as City shall require. Grantor warrants that it is the record owner of the property described herein and it is agreed that the covenants herein shall be binding upon the representative successors and assigns of the parties hereto. Dated this 4i day of ✓� 1986. - 1 - cccn 518 R.,G_52.i GRANTOR: ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, a Colorado general partnership B t� C, T STATE OF OLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) :TYi�, foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this z‘s Craft ..' ...ay/,•to£ ( 4 � , 1986. by {Q to \ c /Am ) as ofj ASPEN SKIING CQhIPANY a Colorado general garaGrantor. ' • pL '- ‘- o_ WITNESS my hand and official seal. w :_ E ••• ..... . •� My commission expires: AO/ai de. ' lode . m. ./// (2-Y 041. Notary Public easement grant /ASC2 - 2 - (. EGA 518 PAGE ?? EXHIBIT "B" PUBLIC TRAIL EASEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, a Colorado general partnership (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor "), is the owner of that real property situated in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly described as: That real property described and referred to in Exhibit "1" of that SPA Agreement for Little N41 1 Base Development recorded in Book 1 f�'Y at Page t 50/ of the records of the County Clerk and Recorder, Pitkin County, Colorado, which Agreement and Exhibit are incororated herein by this reference. Grantor hereby grants, demises and conveys to the City of Aspen, a Colorado municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City "), its successors and assigns forever, a perpetual easement over, across and through the above - described real estate for the use and purpose of a public trail easement for the use and benefit of the public including, without limitation, hiking, biking and cross country skiing, but excluding all motorized vehicles provided that the trail easement design, use and maintenance acknowledge the primacy of Alpine skiing, and will not interfere with the need of the Alpine skiing area, said easement being ten (10) feet in width,from the following described center line: cc '! -o r Al J z CO � m Dated this day of 9t , 1986. i — A D •• z. m iV 0 GRANTOR: " ° C2 3C o CO co m ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, a Qa a Colorado general partnership rTh By \ CIA (NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ON FOLLOWING PAGE) - 1 - STATE OF COLORADO ) MOH 518 ?,Gt5 -) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3 day of /, 1986, by /A liYlJ as 77 o ASPEN SKIING C PANY a a Col Colorado general partnership, G ntor. WITNESS my hand and official seal. w My commission expires: Sgigt ./..„... a. itR 1• • Notary Publi A 4:.••••-'•••....i -o-on trail easement /ASC2 - 2 - • - -.... • .. - ___,k. —_ - - -. — _- a > J_ - io- n1 il,,%4 GJ - : 1 T t t; • ... I. _ ; - o t! *L to C• " z O N _ za -0 o GP ` ' 1--rftgi TJ w - - - -- - -- - -- _ '\'' I' a W N 1 rp � : x fl J U' e n� $ -.. QJ . _ _. _ -- —_ ck, — • — — - - - -- - - - -- - - J T -- — __ i a . l l - - F -- _ _ Ii T .. - - --. -" - L • — - – _ -. 3- I a , b.- ' � 1 0 " '-sue 1 s 1 I I C .__ .I G 11 3 I �- - _ _ . _. ___ _ -_ _ I I _ _ _ _ — — . J . ci'_ N _ ." M ... . 6`01 - - - -T cr i ce.: _I -- ° £ • e -- — .. ' _ -t I -- H ri CZ ^mob el _ -- - - #� t o . '-• , :„. r ‘ • - o. I ,rn s I \I!' i . _ \J i- N - ro y I M -- c�! ... -. - - _-- 3 -- - _ .. o r . N - — . - -- _ — �#}1 . . . . J _. _.__ _ — .. . ..2 . ; L i . \t- - o -.. - d 00.401 � _ It w y • r 1. -;' _. ' P • s .3 J+ 4 . r {_ - - -_ N. .'S L � ?_ . F . - .j:_. _ ._. .- ___.___ ,__ _ l . , -"� ti i r t _ w r-- - _. _ _ �pL O dlP .� - =t . _ __. — — - = . r i • *7 1 - 1 - . — r .a, - - -- -- - - - I� I�k'�'txr z'� _� Nx tiP c 62 -.. E MATCH TO SHEET ZE`, H-14 t. \ am 0 o at -- - - -- = — �i a1 1 . , , -� - a _ Cj 1 L � � rn 'I f , I I • 7 ` � t' i 1 f I r f O 1 ` ±` r I - -- ` . , 1 .... ... 0 id )1 r , r ( s I ,,, 1_` — _ 1 1.0-; , I , 8 _ r .rr I �� II • Ig 1 rim ,J JI ; ‘ iw k 4..............41 1 I I 1 x w 1 i V - , ` . , I - ` Q I C 1 T . I. A.....„- . (..,, ... . - c_____ (\, • , (t( , . , . . I I . , , _ ,. _ ... __,,_, .. , , , i ) , , . , , ), , r ' " C N * I I \ , . . . 1 ails I 1::;1 ) ( ( I I t 1 I 1 A I IP . . 1 la u . i- C [ ' 1 . a en is 11:1 -, , - - - - 0 \ 0,0 I 1 4 i €1 - , a jL JL' ) � _ ji I ASPEN*PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M TO: Alan Richman, Planning Director ,AAl2 5 $9bo FROM: Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official RE: June 20, 1986 DATE: Silver Queen Gondola Base Terminal On Wednesday, June 18, 1986, Rob Weien and I met Warren Burke, of Shaw Construction, on site to verify the lay -out of the gondola base terminal. We determined the location of the NE corner of the building, and verified it's conformance with approved plans. In addition, we verified the elevations of the interior foundation plans. The finished floor level for the retail space is as low as practical, so the building height will also conform to approvals. On Friday, June 20, 1986, Rob and I met Warren Burke, of Shaw Construction, at the same site, to verify the height of the designed pedestrian walkway, in relationship to the elevation of the Tippler patio. The designed elevation difference of five (5) feet was "critical" in your words. We again can verify that construction thus far, with materials in place, conforms to design approvals. This department does not have the time nor manpower to continue responding to complaints from crackpot sidewalk superintendents. Additionally, we have a strict departmental philosophy against harassment and selective enforcement. I understand the political sensitivity of this project, but the Building Department doesn't react to political impulse. It is obvious that the layperson doesn't comprehend the massiveness of this politically approved building and I fully expect complaints to continue, but cannot waste anymore staff time on whimsical crises. JW /ar offices: mail address: 517 East Hopkins Avenue 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611 - 1 Work Session Aspen City Council March 19. 1986 Mayor Stirling, Councilmembers Isaac and Collins started the meeting at 5:15 p.m. to consider the Aspen Skiing Company's application for Little Nell SPA. P & Z has recommended precise plan approval to Council. There are conditions addressing architecture, site design, access circulation and parking, geologic hazards, drainage, grading, utilities and employee housing. Council also has to address the precise plan review criteria, zoning regulations and any variation, the multi -year allocation issue, rezoning of part of the site to SPA. Mayor Stirling said Council's responsibility is to look at the best vested interest of the overall community and to use the SPA to maximize the benefits to the community. Peter Forsch, Aspen Skiing Company, told Council they have been through the process with P & Z, which has resulted in changes to the site. The conditions of Council and P & Z have been addressed by the applicant. Forsch told Council the applicant feels the building of a gondola lift has great implications for the marketability of the resort both winter and summer. The gondola is not a condition of the precise plan but it is a part of the SPA. Forsch told Council the building has been moved off Durant street 20 feet since Council last saw the presentation, which helps both the open space and the skier drop off, which is entirely on the applicant's property. Another change has been moving the service entrance from Dean street to Spring street, which will serve both the hotel and ski area. 1 4 f Work Session Aspen City Council March 19. 1986 Kane said there will be a 12 foot island containing landscaping which will screen the drop off area. Kane said the drop off accommodates 10 parking spaces plus 4 parallel spaces on the street. Kane said the drop off is 20 feet of travel lane so that cars can be at the curb and cars can still travel through. Kane said the original plan was to have delivery vehicles use Dean street for service deliveries to service the mountain restaurant. Kane said Vail services its mountain restaurants through the gondola, which eliminates the need for snowcat traffic at the base area. Kane said the plan now is to use Spring street for all deliveries. Kane told Council the regrading plan has been reviewed ny Chen & Associates, the geological consultants and Rea Cassins. Kane said the depth of fill and steepness of fill has been modified that will be physically achievable. Kane explained the utility relocations. The pump house on Hunter street will be relocated below street level. Kane told Council the Skiing Company has committed to paving the west portion of Dean street, if the lodge improvement district is not in place when the hotel is completed. Kane said the east wing of the hotel has been swung towards the mountain to accommodate the service area. Forsch told Council the applicants have worked with the Aspen Alps and the Aspen Club Lodge on this plan and has their support for this plan. Kane said a bike trail has been requested through the property. The location for the 3 Work Session Aspen City Council March 39. 1986 2 -1/2 stories and looks to be shorter than the North of Nell building. Yaw pointed out this parcel has an intense use and is an edge parcel between urban and the mountain. Yaw said he has tried to made the site respond to both the urban character and the mountain character. Yaw pointed out the hotel entry drop off is separated from the skier drop off. Yaw said the hotel has been designed to give two levels of usable pedestrian space. The traditional beer deck has been preserved and enlarged. Yaw said the entry to the parking garage is under the building. Mayor Stirling said he would like to see a rendering or drawing from Little Nell looking down on the hotel. Yaw told Council over 40 percent of the 180,000 square feet of the project are underground. There is parking, support, mechanical, ski area administration. There are two levels of parking below ground using every square inch. Placing the building 26 feet from the street will also allow a landscape buffer between the pedestrians and the hotel. The corners have been angled to reduce the apparent street frontage and soften the building edge. Yaw pointed out the roof is lower in some areas to reduce the perceived bulk. Yaw pointed out the fireplaces are all gas log. Yaw said the building is set on columns, which define the pedestrian arcade on the ground level. Forsch said the gondola lift cannot be moved any further to the west because of a conflict with lift 5 nor any further to the east because of the 5 �p ( , h lk I tir E 3 �, nil l ( " � S January 1986 Aspen Sk Company JAN 2 1986 1 V / \,f� 1 / \ Aspen, Colorado Attn: Peter Forsch Aot Dear Peter, We, the Aspen Square Board of Directors, believe we owe you a position statement on the proposed Little Nell development. We also want to express our appreciation to you -° for your efforts to keep us apprised of the Ski Company plans. As you know, a group of Aspen Square unit owners led by Fred Dill and represented by Joe Edwards is strongly opposing the project. You should also be aware that there are several Aspen Square unit owners that have taken a strong uncritical positive position. The Board of Directors with the benefit of your presentations has come to a position that can be described as follows: 1. A development at the base of Little Nell commensurate with the world class status of the mountain would benefit the town, the surrounding properties, and the Ski Company. ,,, 2. Blocking of the only open space view of, as well as up the mountain with a large structure would be detriment/no the town and, in a -self serving sense, to the view planes of som#Tf our 28 unit owners whose apartments face on Durant Street. We feel strongly as loyal and enthusiastic part time Aspenites, that the loss of the only open view access as one traverses Durant Street would indeed be a great loss to Aspen. 3. The addition to the town of a top flight luxury hotel should work to the benefit of the town and to Aspen Square. 4. Building a hotel that will not, as you noted, turn profitable for seven years, concerns us greatly. We dont doubt the sincerity of the Ski Company in stating that a hotel, even if not profitable, is desirable as a "flagship" of the Ski Company, and that no further expansion is planned. However, changes in ownership of the Ski Com- pany in the future lead to a much different pos-turr. Experience of some of our owners and Board members who have served -..©n commissions and councils of other communities has borne out that developers frequently come back later for concessions to achieve a viable operation; con - sessions that would have made the project unacceptable at the time of original approval. 6I 7 East Cooper Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 303 - 925 - I 000 condominium hotel at little nd - A m m i- u al 1 31996 CRAWFORD PETROLEUM COMPANY 3401 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD • LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90803 TELEPHONE 433 -7484 AREA CODE 213 January 9, 1986 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Problems with Pedestrian Mall on Dean Street and Funding of Same Gentlemen: I own condominiums in the Tipple Inn, 505 Dean Street. I have reviewed the Aspen Skiing Company's SPA plan, its application for encroachment into Dean Street and Peter Forsch's December 18, 1985 modification letter to Alan Richmond, and attended ,the Aspen Lodge Improvement District Task Force meeting on December 27th. I will be out of state on January 21 and request that copies of this letter be distributed to each Commissioner prior to that meeting. At the aforesaid Task Force meeting, I expressed concern with the ASC plan and renderings, showing the Tipple Inn's private property as well as access to same, along Dean Street, completely "malled- over". Peter Forsch said he had sent a letter to Alan Richmond which solved this (December 18) but was unwilling to make any changes in the ASC plan at this time. His letter is appreciated but does not address the complete problem. The Tipple Inn's parking along the north side of our building is on our private property and is the only parking available to Tipple Inn residents, as parking on the south side of the building is shared on a complicated basis with the Tippler /Copper Kettle, Tipple Wood subdivision and Tipple Lodge. We must pant perpendicular to Dean Street in order to accommodate the necessary number of cars, necessitating driving in on Dean Street, with a different turning radius for each parking space. Furthermore, Dean Street is utilized for access to our dumpster for trash removal and potential fire and emergency vehicle use. The Tippler /Copper Kettle also uses Dean Aspen Planning &'"Dning Commission January 9, 1986 'z Page 2 Street for their deliveries and trash removal from their dumpster and has informed me they cannot move this operation to the south side of their building, but I will let Sirus address this. To prohibit ingress and egress to our private property would be tantamount to inverse condemnation and would leave the Tipple Inn owners no recourse but to take appropriate legal action to pro- tect our rights. I request that the plan be corrected immediately in a manner acceptable to the Tipple Inn Board of Governors, and suggest: 1) one lane pedestrian mall on the north side of Dean Street; 2) full width mall but with trees, etc. spaced such that condo occupants and necessary vehicles still have access; 3) if all else fails, a shorter mall - - -the west end of same terminating at the Tippler /Copper Kettle delivery entrance. At the aforesaid Task Force meeting, I asked the ASC representa- tive who was going to pay for the proposed pedestrian mall on Dean Street, and was surprised to learn that the ASC does not plan to do so, considering it is something desired by the community in general and the commercial sector. This appears to be contrary to its plan application wherein it views Dean Street as an entrance way to its property and as "a pedestrian access and drop -off for Aspen Mountain ". In further conversation with Jeffrey Winston, President of Winston Associates, hired by the City at the Task Force meeting, he enumerated the various alternatives for funding, most of which included a heavy alloca- tion to the property fronting the improvement, which means that the North of Nell and Tipple Inn owners would be paying the lion's share of the Dean Street mall. In most improvement districts, the improvements fronting a property greatly benefit that property, but here this is not true. The Tipple Inn owners will be faced with increased pedestrian traffic in front of their property and the resulting noise, littering and possible vandalism cannot be construed as desirable. I anticipate great resistance from the Tipple Inn owners to paying a disproportionate share of the cost and urge that the expense of the pedestrian mall be borne by those requesting and benefiting from same. incerely, Jack B. Crawford JBC:fm cc: Alan Richmond, Peter Forsche, Jay Hammond, Gideon Kaufman, Lee Miller, J. D. Muller LASALLE & SCHIFFER, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOHN D. LASALLE AREA Conic 303 SPENDER P. SCHIFFER TELEPHONE 025 February 4, 1986 Planning and Zoning Commission City' .0 Aspen 130 Saha Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Aspen Skiing Company, SPA Precise Plan Dear Commission Members: I represent The Kettle Corporation, owner of the Sea Grill at the Copper Kettle and The Tippler. By letter to you of August 21, 1985 regarding the proposed SPA Boundary Change and Conceptual SPA Application which was made part of the record of proceedings and was incorporated in the record of proceedings of City Council by my letter to Council of September 23, 1985, I expressed general support for the project on behalf of my client, subject to certain specific concerns. At that time we had been assured by representatives of the Aspen Skiing Company that all of the concerns would be addressed to our satisfac- tion prior to submission of the Precise SPA Plan. Neither I nor my client have since been contacted by any representatives of the Aspen Skiing Company as a conse- quence of which we are unable to definitely determine which, if any, of the concerns have been addressed to our satisfac- tion. However, based upon information made generally available to the public we believe that some of the concerns may have been satisfactorily handled. Without prejudice to our right to reassert all of those concerns, as well as new ones which might arise, we would call your attention to one which has clearly not been satisfactorily handled. In my letter of August 21, 1985 I stated: "Some of the Plats which have been available for inspection in the Planning Office indicate that the Aspen Skiing Company is claiming that part of the . .. LASALLE EC SCHIFFER, P. C. February 4, 1986 Planning and Zoning Commission Page Two property within its boundary is, in fact, property which belongs to The Kettle Corporation." I have been advised by Alan Richman that the Aspen Skiing Company has represented to you that we are in the process of resolving this apparent dispute. That is not true. Neither my client nor I have ever been contacted by the Aspen Skiing Company to discuss this, much less resolve it. We adamantly maintain our position that a portion of the property belonging to The Kettle Corporation appears to be improperly, and without consent, included within the proposed SPA boundary. As a consequence thereof it is possible that the approvals heretofore obtained are voidable and that the application is fatally defective. At a minimum, the applicant has failed to satisfy condition No. 20 of Resolution No. 33, Series of 1985, wherein City Council granted conditional Conceptual SPA approval. That condition required, in part, that: The applicant will also demonstrate that the boundary questions adjacent to the Tippler have been resolved, and the SPA boundary designation shall be adjusted accordingly." Very tru.l, yours, Spencer F. Schiffer SFS:ljk cc: Sirous Saghotojeslami Alan Richman ✓ Gideon Kaufman, Esq. February 25, 1986 � FEB 28 �II Aspen City Council Aspen Planning and Zoning Pitkin County Conmiissioners I an writing to support the Aspen Skiing Company's proposal at the base of Aspen Mountain. I did feel it necessary to preserve the view of Aspen Mountain for the entire community, but with the project moved back from the street, I feel this objective will be met. I feel very strongly that a small luxury hotel is needed at the base area along with improved skier services. Other resorts in Colorado and Utah offer luxury amenities, if we are to keep our share of the skier market, we too need to offer the same services. Our reputation will not continue to carry the weight it once did. Please take a strong leadership role in the community and stand firm on this project. It is important! Sinc d' AA Terri Hart • LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 1021, 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, 111 TELEPHONE 13 -7116 � February 28, 1986 D i✓l �' L!:::! Allen Richmond Aspen- Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Little Nell Hotel Dear Allen, Needless to say, I am extremely frustrated by the review process of the Little Nell Hotel by the Planning & Zoning Commission. I note from your memorandum of February 4th that you made a number of very positive suggested changes to the Little Nell Hotel application that would have resulted in what I believe to be a much more beneficial design for the benefit of both the users of the hotel as well as skiers and members of the general public using that portal to the mountain. I am speaking in particular of your recommenda- tion on page 2 that the skier drop -off facility as presented is flawed, that it eliminates too much public parking, constrains the public right -of -way, and creates a poor image for the entrance to the mountain, and of your recommendation on page 4 that they be required to remove the drop -off area out of the Durant right -of -way. I am also referring to your recommendation on page 6 that the applicant should be made to provide true open space in the front of the site by stepping the building back in some manner similar to that suggested by Hans Gramiger. Lastly, you pointed out that the precise plan, being substantially the same as the conceptual plan, made no change at all from the conceptual plan to make the purposed entrance portal to the mountain more grand for skiers and pedestrians. In listening to the Planning & Zoning Commission review, it is almost as if they did not even read the Planning Office memorandum. In the presentations in the course of the meeting, it seems to me that you are not reiterating or verbally presenting your recommendations, nor are you in any way attempting to amplify or support the Planning Office recommendations, but merely allowing the written Allen Richmond February 28, 1986 Page 2 recommendation to stand on its own merits and then only responding to questions or comments of the P &Z. I would like to request that you stand up stronger for the Planning Office recommendations and assert them with some more forcefulness, so that the members can clearly get your staff's position on these issues. I am sure that the agenda which bifurcated the many issues in this application into five different meetings was for the purpose of allowing opportunity for a comprehensive review. However, I note that the Commission seems to be taking each of these separate items or aspects of the application completely out of context and not relating them to other aspects of the application nor to the concept of the appli- cation as a whole. They just review each aspect, piece by piece, and seem to be satisfied that they are doing some- thing by being reasonable and approving, unchanged, each aspect as presented by the applicant. I suggest that perhaps this bifurcation is actually counter- productive since, in effect, we cannot see the forest for the trees, and if one thinks that the Planning & Zoning Commission is actually doing something, I note that they have not, to date, made one single substantive change, or even recommendation for a change, to the application as submitted. Either this reflects the P &Z's complete bias and total agreement with the applicant's form of the application or the unique occurrence of an applicant accurately having perceived not only what was in his own best interest but the best interest of the community, so that no changes whatso- ever are required, or, more likely, the bifurcation of the process has created a situation where everyone feels like they can be reasonable and agree on this little aspect of the application and, when you get to the end, every single aspect will have been reasonably agreed upon, and the whole thing will be approved in its entirety. I submit, if the proposal had been reviewed in its entirety at the first, it would have never been approved without amendment. I truly believe that a serious and permanent mistake is about to be made in the planning of the critical portal entrance to the major ski area in Aspen. The argument that there should be a Victorian storefront, street side presen- tation of the building has no applicability to this particu- lar, unique parcel. Perhaps, recent commercial buildings have been made somewhat worse by unusable open space and unworkable setbacks; however, that does not apply to this specially planned area, which is attempting to intergrate a Allen Richmond February 28, 1986 Page 3 mass movement within a short period of time of a number of pedestrians and skiers through this portal to the major ski lift facility in the area. Space for the adequate drop -off, assemblage and movement of this mass of people with their cumbersome ski equipment has to be made available, and an open park or plaza entrance with the courtyard of this hotel reversed and facing the street is much more conducive to the support of that flow of people to the gondola than the tightly constrained and pinched drop -off area and narrow mall between North of Nell and the new hotel that is in the present plan. It is bad enough to add the additional traffic and constraint on the space that the footprint and activity of a hotel itself is going to add, but to actually design the hotel in a way to unnecessarily further constrain those pedestrian /skier drop -off flows much further than they now exist and further than they could be with some innova- tive building design is a serious planning mistake. I feel that because of the form of the process, the predisposition of the P &Z that if the Planning Office, through you, does not take a more determined stand in support of its recommendations set forth in your February 4th memorandum, we are going to get exactly the wrong building design in spite of all the high sounding standards of the precise plan review, subparagraph A -4, section 24 -7.7, which admonished an applicant to use creative land planning set backs, clustering, screening, buffering, and architectural design to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts, provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. That has not occurred in this application. Very truly yours, J•seph E. •war, JE • SPORT DBERMEYER LTD. March 6, 1986 Pitkin County Board of Commissioners 506 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Gentlemen: Here is a letter from a member of the silent majority. The undersigned would like to express his full agreement in the Little Nell Base Project to be undertaken by the Aspen Skiing Company. We need to stay dynamic and competitve as a town and the above mentioned development can only add towards that end. Thank you for your open- mindedness. . Cordially yours, Klaus F. ..ermeyer President KFO:kac P. O. BOX 7848 • 92 ATLANTIC AVENUE • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925 -5060 • TX. 45 -998 LASALLE & SCHIFFER, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOHN D. LASALLE AREA CODE 303 SPENCER P. SCHIFFER TELEPHONE 025-2043 MAR 2 f S86 << March 20, 1986 Gid n Kaufman, Esq. 315 E t Hyman Avenue Aspen, lorado 81611 RE: Aspen Skiing Comany SPA Precise Plan - The Kettle Corporation Boundary Dear Gideon: As you know, The Kettle Corporation is concerned that the SPA boundary line, as presently drawn, could conceivably encroach upon its property. In our telephone conversation on March 18, 1986 with Peter Forsch, you represented that that boundary line is not intended to, does not, and will not encroach upon the property of The Kettle Corporation or conflict in any way with the easterly boundary of The Kettle Corporation's property. Since Jim Reser has done all of the work for you, I think it would be in the best interests of all concerned to have him tie the metes and bounds description of the SPA boundary into the east line of Lot 0. Please give me a call when you have a chance so that we can discuss this before it gets to Council. Thanks for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Spen er F. Schiffer SFS:ljk cc: Sirous Saghatoleslami Peter Forsch / Alan Richman ✓ LASALLE & SCHIFFER, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOHN A LASALLE AREA CODE 300 SPENCER P. SCHIFFER TELEPHONE 025 HAND DELIVERED March 18, 1986 anning and Zoning Commission Ci of Aspen 130 th Galena Street Aspen, orado 81611 RE: Aspen Skiing Company SPA Precise Plan Dear Commission Members: Resolution No. 33, Series of 1985, pursuant to which the City Council granted conceptual approval to the SPA, con- tained twenty -five conditions to that approval. Condition No. 20 thereof required, in part, that: "The applicant will demonstrate that the boundary questions adjacent to the Tippler have been resolved and the SPA boundary designation shall be adjusted accordingly." On behalf of The Kettle Corporation, owner of the Sea Grill at the Copper Kettle and the Tippler, I can represent to you that the "... boundary questions adjacent to the Tippler ..." have not been resolved and we cannot determine based upon the available information whether or not the SPA boundary designation has been sufficiently adjusted so as to take into consideration a resolution of the boundary question adverse to the Aspen Skiing Company. We are therefore requesting that you require that the applicant submit to you a certified survey which would definitively establish that the boundary line in question has been adjusted so that it could not possibly conflict with the property owned by The Kettle Corporation. In the alternative we would recommend that you incorporate a provision in your Resolution which would make LASALLE 8C SCHIFFER, P. C. March 18, 1986 Planning and Zoning Commission Page Two Council specifically aware of this concern and which would require that the question be definitively resolved prior to any further approval by the City Council. Thank you for your cooperation. Very tr ly yours, Spen er F. Schiffer SFS:ljk cc: Sirous Saghatoleslami Alan Richman, Planning Director Gideon Kaufman, Esq. Peter Forsch Paul Taddune, Esq. 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Informational Update - Little Nell Conceptual SPA DATE: November 12, 1985 Mayor Stirling asked that I provide you with an update on Council's final action with respect to the Little Nell Conceptual SPA. I attach their resolution of approval for your review and offer the following comments: 1. For the most part, Council's action followed along the lines of P &Z's recommendation. Virtually all conditions placed on the project by P &Z were accepted by Council, although with some modifications. 2. The key changes made by Council include: a. In the 3rd finding under the final "WHEREAS ", Council indicated its "willingness to consider granting a multi -year allocation to the project upon approval of the applicant's precise plan " This statement conveys a similar sentiment to that approved by P &Z . b. Condition #1 has been revised to require open space along Durant. c. Condition *3 has been revised such that the precise plan must provide for an increased number of parking places. d. Condition #7 now requires the auto - taxi -limo drop -off area to be within the project's property boundary. e. Condition *9 now also recognizes the access needs of emergency vehicles. f. Condition #13 requires the applicant to specify which type of lift system will be installed at the base, with installation to commence in 1987. g. Condition *20 provides the applicant with greater flexibility in resolving the Hunter Street right -of -way ownership questions. h. Condition #23 is a new requirement for disclosure of all plans relative to Dean Street. The condition replaces the prior requirement as to a "historic" access across the Tippler property to the base area. I will be available at your meeting on November 19 to answer any questions you may have. Incidentally, P &Z review of the Precise Plan should be initiated in February. cc: Mayor Stirling Jz ME MDRANDU M TO: Aspen. City Council Tum : Hal chilling, City Nana S y g FROM: Alan Richman, Planning an evelopment Director RE: Little Nell Conceptual SPA DATE: November 11, 1985 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the attached Resolution granting conceptual approval to the Little Nell SPA, and first reading approval of the attached Ordinance changing the date for the L- 1 /L- 2 /CC /CL and Other zone district lodge competition for 1985 only to December 16, 1985. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council directed the Planning Office to prepare these two documents at the close of your continued regular meeting on November 5, 1985. �2 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Hove to approve Resolution No._ (Series of 1985)." "Move to read Ordinance ‘=.1_ (Series of 1985) ." "move to approve on first reading Ordinance No. _el_ (Series of 1985." RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AE (\c-- AAI-1\ _,Ac \F RESOLUTION NO. 3 (Series of 1985) \gas P,-, ee.. v••?. \....e� A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL ... - THE LITTLE NELL BASE REDEVELOPMENT SPA WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 20, Series of 1985, the Aspen Skiing Company (hereinafter, the "Applicant ") did submit a proposal for the redevelopment of the Little Nell base area; and WHEREAS, aspects of the development proposal include a 96 unit hotel, replacement of the existing commercial space, new pedes- trian gateways to the mountain from Hunter and Dean Streets, new base lifts and an expansion of the area designated with an SPA overlay; and. WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter, the "Commission ") did hold a public hearing on August 20, 1985 to consider the applicant's SPA boundary change proposal, and did also hold meetings to consider the base area redevelopment plan on August 6 and August 27, 1985, and did adopt Resolution 85 -18 recommending that the conceptual SPA be approved; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council (hereinafter "Council ") did hold public hearings to consider the Little Nell Base Redevelopment Conceptual SPA on September 23, October 15, November 4 and November 5, 1985, and a work session on October 7; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its deliberations the Council did make the following findings: 1. The proposed mix of uses for this site is an appropriate one and meets the intent of its original designation with an SPA overlay. 2. The requested extension of the boundary of the SPA overlay into the Conservation zone provides public benefit by integrating the planning for the lifts with the remainder of the base area redevelopment plan. The redesignation meets the test of Section 24 -7.2 (C) of the Code due to the unique location of the parcel as the summer and winter gateway to Aspen Mountain and the potential year -round recreational benefits to the community which can be provided on this site. 3. The Council supports the policy stated in Section 24 -11.3 (b) of the Municipal Code that "City Council may (but need not) grant a development allotment for an entire project to be constructed over a period of years . " and, there- fore, expresses its willingness to consider granting a -- o - - o multi- year approval to the project upon pprov al of the - - pr -- n co applicant precise pl plan, if submitted. The formal con - sideration of this issue will occur following the scoring of the applicant's growth management application at the precise plan review stage. leMr RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That Council does hereby grant conceptual SPA approval to the Little Nell Rase Redevelopment Plan, subject to the following condi- tions: 1. The applicant shall amend the site plat to provide open J ots o ace along the length of the Durant Street frontage of the as to create a courtyard of at least 10 feet in depth. The open space requirement shall be considered in coordination with rather ttjn in addition to the area to be set aside for the on -site drop -off facility requireci tn .concdition 47 below. 2. The applicant shall, in the Precise Plan submission, request a variation of the project's FAR if it is above 1.5 :1, since the land zoned Conservation does not count toward the overall project FHB. The applicant may also request special review approval to increase the allowable commercial FAR of the property to 1.7:1 by providing employee housing in the appropriate ratio on or off site. 3. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the parking needs of the facility to meet the demands from the lodge rooms, skiers, administrative offices, commercial spaces and skier support facilities, and shall increase the number of spaces to be provided at the Precise Plan stage. 4. The applicant shall continue to evaluate the impact of the hotel on the views of Aspen fountain from Hunter Street, and propose any design changes which will reduce obstructions of the mountain from the corner of Cooper or Hyman Avenues on Hunter Street. Detailed architectural renderings and elevations shall he provided at the Precise Plan stage. 5. The applicant shall provide detailed grading plans for the earth work which is proposed to occur at the base area, including any activity associated Faith the base of the new lifts which may fall outside of the SPA boundary, and shall identify the locations for any material deposition. which is to occur. G. The applicant shall evaluate the applicability of the City's PO40 greenline and mountain: viewplane review procedures to the proposed development. Should it be found that either review procedure applies, the applicant will submit the necessary materials at the Precise Plan stage demonstrating compliance with the review criteria of the Code. 7. The applicant shall revise the site plan to indicate an auto- taxi -limo drop -off facility of adequate size for _the needs of the ski area. which is in addition to any drop off area for hotel Guests. As the Council isconcerned whouE maintaining adequate traffic flows on Durant Avenue, it is expected that the applicant will address the proper location for this facility within the project's property boundary. 2 Cr RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 8. The applicant shall provide a detailed analysis of the proposed service yards on Spring Street and Dean Street, demonstrating that adequate space has been provided for truck stacking and that proper turning movements can be accomplished within these streets. The applicant shall also confer with the Environmental Health Department as to any air and water quality devices which may need to be installed in these areas (and in the parking facility for cars). The applicant shall work with the North of Nell and Tippler management entities and shall try to accommodate the service delivery needs of these buildings in a single location off Dean Street. Finally, the applicant shall demonstrate that the service delivery area on Dean Street will not cause safety problems for pedestrians on Dean Street or nuisance problems for the residents of the North of Nell, and that the needs of the facility could not practically otherwise he met by a single facility on Spring Street. 9. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the adequacy of Durant, Spring and Dean Streets to handle the vehicle traffic volumes associated with skiers, hotel guests, employees, service vehicles, and visitors to the commercial uses and shall propose appropriate mitigation measures to address any traffic problems which will result from the project. The applicant shall also take into account the access needs of emergency vehicles, rnclaing, but not limited to ambulances and fire trucks. 10. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the geologic hazard on Aspen Mountain as it affects this site and shall demonstrate that any hazard posed to the property can and will be fully mitigated. The applicant shall also investigate the soils hydrology in the area to demonstrate the suitability of the site for development purposes. 11. The applicant shall provide a solution to the pumphouse relocation problem and shall agree to implement said solution at the applicant's cost. 12. The applicant shall provide detailed drawings of the new base lifts, demonstrating that these buildings are visually compatible with the base area and that the principal storage area for either chairs or gondolas will not be above grade at the base area. 13. The applicant shall reiterate the commitment as to how lift service will be provided on Little Nell for special events, ski instructions and for secondary access to Lift 5. The applicant will show the location of all lifts proposed for the base area and will provide a commitment that their installation will be initiated in 1987. The applicant shall be required to f _ specify to the City which lift system is intended to be installed prior to review of the Precise Plan ---- - by the City Council, also giving the Planning Off ice adequate time to review the _proposal and obtain referral comments from other agencies prior to the initial pr ese nta- tion of the Precise Plan to Council. 14. The applicant shall provide housing for employees of the project in a manner acceptable to the Housing Author- ity and Planning Commission. The number of employees to be housed will be determined at the Precise Plan stage, based on the applicant's commitments as part of the growth manage- ment plan application. 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 15. The applicant shall provide a shadow study of the effects of the building along Durant Avenue and Spring Street, and mitigate the problems caused by theniuflarng's - __ shadows for pedestrians crossing the street. 16. The applicant shall demonstrate the techniques to be employed on the roof of the hotel to manage snow shedding to insure that it does not interfere with or endanger pedes- trians below. 17. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed buildings do not encroach into the land within the Park zone near the Aspen Alps. 18. The applicant shall provide a trail easement through the property connecting the trail near the Aspen Alps with the Dean Street trail and will include any required ramps for bicycles or other year - round trail facilities in their site plan at the precise plan stage. The applicant will also examine the potential for creating a pedestrian trail connecting to the Aspen Mountain Road within the context of the base area regrading and provide an alignment f or said trail if it is found to be feasible. 19. The applicant shall make every effort, including working with the City of Aspen, to increase the extent of the pedestrian gateway to the mountain so as to make it a more "grand" entrance in the winter and summer. 20. The applicant shall demonstrate in the Precise Plan submis- sion that all questions as to the ownership of the Hunter ei reet right -of -way Are in the process of being_ resolved, to insure that permanent guarantees of the availability of Hunter and Dean Streets for pedestrian access will be provided. The Precise Plan shall not be approved until the pedestrian access issue has been resolved to the City's satisfaction. The applicant will also cremonst rate tEt the boundary questions adjacent to the Tippler have been resolved, and the SPA boundary designation shall be adjusted accordingly. 21. The applicant shall provide the Environmental Health Department with detailed information on any fireplaces which will be included in the project, demonstrating their compliance with applicable Code provisions. 22. The applicant shall provide a drainage plan at the Precise Plan stage which meets the standards of the Engineering Department concerning the 100 year storm and which addresses drainage from Aspen Fountain as it affects the site and drainage from the development site itself. 23. The applicant shall disclose at the Precise Plan stage all plans, related to the Dean Street right -of -way, including_ any requests for encroachments as may be necessary. 24. Final approval of the proposed SPA boundary change shall only occur in conjunction with final approval of the Precise Plan for the project. 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 25. In the event that the growth allocations for the project shall expire, the boundary of the SPA shall revert to its prior configuration. Dated: , 1995. William L. Stirling, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held , 1985. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk AR.81 5 ( ORDINANCE NO. 6i (Series of 1985) AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE DATE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF LODGE GMP DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 24 -11.6 FROM DECEMBER 1, FOR THE YEAR 1985 ONLY, AS PREVIOUSLY EXTENDED UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 42, SERIES OF 1985 TO DECEMBER 16, FOR THE YEAR 1985 ONLY WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 42, the City Council previously extended the submission date for lodge development applications set forth in Section 24- 11.6(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code from October 1 to December 1, for the year 1985, in order that potential applicants may have the opportunity to submit more refined and detailed lodge development applications; and, WHEREAS, because the City Council desires to obtain lodge development applications that are as refined and detailed as is practicable; and, WHEREAS, the City Council feels that potential applicants may need up to December 16, 1985, in order to complete their applications in as refined and detailed manner as is practicable; and, WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City of Aspen, its citizens and visitors, to extend the lodge development application date from December 1 to December 16 for the year 1985 only. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That for the year 1985 only, the lodge development application submission date set forth in Section 24- 11.6(a) as previously extended to December 1, for the year 1985 only, shall be extended to December 16, 1985, for the year 1985 only. Section 2 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 3 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1985, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. rite INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado at its regular meeting held at the City of Aspen on , 1985. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1985. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk GMP ordinance /D0C2 2 _ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ORDINANCE NO. 53 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, EXTENDING THE BOUNDARY OF THE SPA OVERLAY ACROSS A PORTION OF THE LITTLE NELL BASE AREA WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 20, Series of 1985, the Aspen Skiing Company (hereinafter "Applicant ") did submit a proposal for the redevelopment of the Little Nell Base Area; and WHEREAS, included within said application is a request by the Applicant to extend the boundary of the SPA Overlay across the site, to include the 43,124 square feet of land now zoned CC /SPA, plus an additional 45,738 square feet, proposed to be zoned CC /SPA, all as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission did hold a public hearing on August 20, 1985, to consider the applicant's SPA boundary change proposal, and did make findings as to the public benefit of said redesignation and recommend its approval in the Commission's Resolution 85 -18; and WHEREAS, having received and considered the recommendation of the Commission, the Aspen City Council does with to extend the boundary of the SPA Overlay across a portion of the Little Nell base area due to its confirmation of the Commission's finding that: The requested extension of the boundary of the SPA overlay into the Conservation zone provides public benefit by integrating the planning for the lifts with the remainder of the base area redevelopnent plan. The redesignation meets the test of Section 24- 7.2(C) of the Code due to the unique location ofthe parcel as the summer and winter gateway to Aspen Mountain and the potential year -round recreational benefits to the community which can be provided on this site." NOW, THEREFORE BY IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Serf i on 1 That it does hereby rezone to "C /SPA - Conservation with an SPA Overlay ", the following land, as depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. (LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT) Section 2 That the Zoning District Map be and hereby is amended to reflect the rezoning described in Section 1 and the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Map to reflect said rezoning. Section 3 That the City Clerk be and hereby 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. Srrtion at That in the event the Aspen Skiing Company fails to obtain a building permit, or the growth allocations to the Little Nell Base Area Redevelopment Project otherwise shall expire, then the property described in Exhibit "A" shall be rezoned to the C zone district, and its SPA overlay shall be removed from the zoning district map automatically and without a further act by the City Council of the City of Aspen. Sect i on 5 That if any portion of this Ordinance is found to be unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Svctinn 6 That a public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the PI day of (C../ , 1985, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. .=s RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the_ day of si , 1985. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1985. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk AR.11 4 L Proposed Responses To P &Z Conditioris;. A. Open Space: 1. Kane to meet with "zoning official" to determine compliance B. FAR Compliance: 1. Kane to calculate actual FAR variance request based upon floor plans from Hagman -Yaw. 2. Kane to draft list of variance request items 3. Kaufman to draft variance request items - C. galkilig Needs 1. Bill Eager, TDA retained and underway; November 1, report deadline 2. Kane, Forsch to coordinate and review draft report D. Visual T'pact - Computer SIDU2 jjon: 1. DWI to produce a view from Hyman and Hunter 2. Put color 8x10 prints in GMP submission package E. Detailed Grading Plain 1. DWI to prepare at 1 " =50' for Little Nell slope from 44 midway to base. 2' contours. Revise Aspen Mtn. road. F. 8040 argentine, Mountain Viewolane: 1. DWI (D. Ellis) to review and prepare submission for P.P, G.M.P. G. Drop -off 1. B. Eager to review and prepare 2. Ellis to review turning movements with Yaw H. Service Yard Design: 1. P. Forsch, Yaw, Kane to resolve design approach 2. Yaw to incorporate in building design I. Street Capacities: 1. B. Eager, TDA to analyse and report J. Geologic Hazard: 1. Chen, R. Spitzer to prepare (See Chen proposal) 2. Budget = 3,000 - 3,500 (phase 1) - ? (phase 2) K. PumPh use_ 1. D. Ellis to coordinate preliminary engineering design with REA/Cassins. • L. Base Lift Building: 1. Yaw to produce elevation to match hotel M. Lift Service: 1. Fred Smith to provide technical memo for inclusion in submission N. Emplovgg_Bou.jDy- 1. J. Curtis to prepare plan and coordinate with housing authority 0. Shadow Stuff_: 1. DWI to prepare computer simulation for sun /shadow 2. Define pedestrian circulation P. Roof Plan /Snow Shedding: 1. Yaw to prepare roof plan and snow shedding area maintenance plan Q. Park Land Encroacbngnt_ 1. Yaw should show precisely that building does not encroach beyond property line R. Trail Eaugment: 1. Show trail to existing Tippler parking lot (DWI) S. Gateway "More Grand 1. DWI will better define the landscape plan for Hunter, Dean T. Hunter Street Ownershipj. 1. P. Forsch to contact H &H to resolve A.S.A.P. 2. Legal description before 5/1/86 3. Reser to define ownership boundary with Tippler with attorneys U. FireolaceB lvironmental Healtht 1. No fireplaces proposed or if so, only natural gas will be used V. Storm Drainage_Ekani. 1. Rea /Cassins to prepare storm draingae plan 2. Budget and proposal required W. Historic AccesS_kattgjn: 1. Regrading and service will keep this area open anyway X. Legal Conditigrie__ NO_Actipn Required Y. Height Limitation_ Hagman Yaw should receive some formal, written interpretation of the technique and actual measurement of the roof height. C. Collins suggested that the slope /midpoint method is not appropriate since we are proposing a mansard roof. II. Preparatjp pf_greciae Plan. G.M.P. Submission DWI (Kane) will assume responsibility for preparation of the SPA Precise Plan and GMP submission. This submission will reflect responses to P &Z and Council conditions of approval as noted above. The application will be supported by the following technical team members. A. Chen & Associates - geologic conditions of the site B. REA /Cassins - storm drainage, water utility consulting C. TDA - parking, drop -off, circulation D. Hagman -Yaw - architecture E. Gideon Kaufman - legal F. Aspen Ski Company - Fred Smith G. J. Curtis - employee housing H. DWI - D. Ellis (engineering, project management), B. Johnson (computer simulation), P. Carroll (grading plan) p mcjoMr� 1 r t_ HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD 18 October 1985 Mr. Bill Drueding Mr. Alan Richman City of Aspen Planning 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Little Nell Hotel and Base Development Dear Bill and Alan: Thank you for meeting with me today regarding the height measurement of the sloped roofs on the Little Nell Hotel Project. The roof form we discussed, and which is proposed for the hotel, is configured as a sloped roof on all building elevations, the upper slope of which terminates at a continuous flat roof section hidden from pedestrian view at the interior center portions of the building. Because this roof configuration clearly does not fall under the definition of a flat or mansard roof, we agreed that it best fell under the zoning code definition of "or similar pitched roof" which permits the upper roof termination to exceed the 40 ft. height requirement by not more than 5 feet or a total height from natural undisturbed ground slope of 45 ft. The reasons discussed in approving this interpretation were as follows: 1. The sloped portions of the roof met the visual intention of the code in that they reduced perceived building mass by lowering the vertical surfaces of a building to an eve line which the roof slopes away from, further reducing apparent mass. 2. All perimeters of the building had one or more sloped roofs and the flat section was not perceived from street, sidewalk or other pedestrian areas. 3. The flat portion of the roof will retain snow thus reducing the contributing area for potential snow slide to public areas of the building perimeter. 210 SOUTH GALENA SUITE 24 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 303.925.2867 V HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Mr. Bill Drueding and Mr. Alan Richman 18 October 1985 Page Two 4. The sloped roof reduces the Durant Street shadow pattern. 5. The flat roof portion of the hotel hides vent, flue and mechanical equipment which would otherwise penetrate a sloped roof and have a negative visual appearance. Further we discussed that your approval of the "pitched roof" interpretation of building height limit would be conditioned upon using the current Little Nell parking lot elevation at the "0" datum elevation from which the building height on all public street perimeters would be measured. This we agree to comply with, excepting that portion of the building described below and approved by Bill Drueding. Although not adjacent to a public street, there is a small portion of the south end of the building which is angled away from Spring Street into the existing steep slope of the Little Nell hillside, for which a change in height will be necessary. The radical grade change of this point requires that portion of the building to step up, causing the roof to be 6 ft. higher than the remaining roofs measured from the "0" datum described above. With respect to existing grade, however, this portion of the building is less than the code prescribed height limit and is terminated by a long sloping roof which is only two stories above grade. I have included a building plan and architectural elevation which indicates this area and its relative building height. Thank you for taking the time to meet with me to resolve this issue. Very truly yours, Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd Larry Ya AI Principal LY:sv cc: Jim Wilson, Building Dept. Peter Forsch, Aspen Skiing Company MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manager U`'��� FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Continued Public Hearing - Little Nell Conceptual SPA DATE: October 30, 1985 SUMMITRY: The Planning Office recommends that the Aspen City Council grant conceptual approval to the Little Nell SPA, subject to the conditions in P &Z Resolution 485 -18, as proposed to be modified herein, and that you indicate your conceptual opposition to the applicant's lodge allocation request. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council held public hearings on this item on September 23 and October 15, 1985. A work session was held on October 7, and the public hearing scheduled for October 28 was continued to November 4, to allow the full Council to consider and act upon this important project. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Our previous memo to you, dated September 23, identified two broad categories of issues associated with this project, these being major design issues and growth rate issues. The former topic was discussed in depth on October 7, while the latter was the subject of the October 15 public hearing. Based on the comments from the first meeting, it appeared that Council generally concurred with P &Z's approach of cataloging concerns at the conceptual stage, which are to be resolved at the precise plan stage. However, on a variety of topics there were serious questions raised by Council, and no final disposition of the issue occurred. Therefore, it is our intent to identify these problem areas for you, provide you with our analysis and a recommended action. We also have not, as yet, resolved the growth rate issue. Therefore, it is also our intent to provide you with an analysis of this problem and a recommended action in this regard. 1. Major Design Issues Among the numerous technical issues discussed at the work session, there were at least two which are a basic part of the applicant's concept, and need to be either endorsed or modified at this time. These issues are the taxi - auto -limo drop -off facility, and the open space /massing questions. The auto - taxi -limo drop -off facility issue first arose during the County's review of the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan (AMSAMP). In the BOCC resolution approving AMSAMP, the following condition was included as one mitigation technique to address parking /transit /- circulation impacts created by the 1,300 skiers -at- one -time (SAOT) capacity increase of Aspen Mountain: "ASC shall continue the taxi - limo - automobile drop -off facility at Little Nell ". The Aspen P &Z, in response to this concern and the fact that no such facility is shown on the conceptual plan, proposed the following condition: The applicant shall revise the site plan to indicate an auto - taxi -limo drop -off facility of adequate size. As the Commission is concerned about maintaining adequate traffic flows on Durant Avenue, it is expected that the applicant will creatively address the proper location for this facility within the Durant Avenue right -of -way, within the property boundary, or through some combination thereof. The Planning Office is concerned about the vagueness of this con- dition. We feel that it should be clear that the size of the facility should be in keeping with the needs of a ski area with a 4,300 SAOT capacity, and may need to be equal in capacity to that presently available (10 -15 cars). This facility should be separate from, and in addition to that for hotel /commercial needs. Finally, we note that the Planning Office has very serious doubts about designing this facility even partially into the Durant Avenue right -of -way, with the attendant loss of on- street parking and potential affect on traffic flow on Durant Avenue, which is both heavily travelled and frequently icy. We would note that a basic City land use policy is that appli- cants internalize their growth impacts within their project. Placing this facility within the City right -of -way externalizes the traffic impact of the ski area and hotel on the community, and may not be in the best interest of the City. The open space issue first arose in the Planning Office memo to the Planning Commission. At that time we noted that including both the present and proposed SFA site boundaries, over 2/3 of the property is to be kept in open space. However, according to the definition of open space in Section 24- 3.7(d), "open space shall be defined as a portion of a building site, one side of which shall be open to the street... ". In this case, the open space is at the rear of the property, but appears to me to be open to both Spring and Dean Streets. The Code also provides that "the minimum frontage of the open space which is open to the street shall be one -half of the dimension of that side of the building site or 100 feet, whichever is less." In response to this issue we have required the applicant to work with the Zoning Official to determine if the open space meets the technical requirements of the Code. In a conversation with Bill Drueding, both 2 he and I felt fairly certain that the open area off Spring Street will meet this technical requirement. However, the more significant issue, as expressed by members of Council, is the intent of the Code to provide open space relief from the street for pedestrians and passers- by. Council has expressed considerable concern about the unbroken mass along Durant Avenue, as it affects views from Aspen Square, shadows on Durant Avenue, snow shedding, heights and simply from the standpoint of another huge facade in this area. There are a variety of solutions to this problem, each of which have major implications on the project, including: o Set the building further back from Durant Avenue so as to create a front courtyard (and also, possibly, to provide the on -site drop -off discussed previously). o Bring a strip of open space forward, parallel to the Hunter Street entrance, so as to make that entrance "more grand" and continue that strip across the front of the building, to a minimum depth of 10 feet, as required by the Code. It is not our intent to redesign the project for the applicant, but simply to note at this point that Council's conceptual concerns about massing must be defined and resolved. Should Council feel that a major design change of the type contemplated herein is warranted, this determination should be made now and not withheld until the precise plan stage. Other issues discussed by Council at the work session, which seem to be well addressed by P &Z's resolution, are parking, service yards and streets. A final issue discussed by Council was that of the admitted economic marginality of the hotel investment. In a recent letter from Joe Edwards to Council, the question is raised as to what will the community's reaction be if in five years the hotel in fact is an economic drain on the company and an expansion up the mountain is required, in the area the proponent has identified as the best development area on the site. Despite the fact that such a request would be subject to all rules and regulations in effect at that time, could the community objectively review such a request, once a lodge has been constructed on this site? I would suggest that Council consider encumbering the open space on the site with a conservation easement, if this or a similar technique is found acceptable by the City Attorney. 2. Growth Rate Issue Since we have made a significant presentation to you on the growth rate issue, including a lengthy written piece in our memo of September 23, we do not intend to dwell on this topic anymore than is necessary. However, following is a summary of what we consider to be the major questions facing you with respect to growth management. 3 The current status of the lodge quota for the "L- 1 /L- 2 /CC /CL and other" zone district is that the Aspen Mountain PUD was granted all of the units available through the year 1986. The Sardy House is under construction as a change in use, and will add twenty new lodge units to the inventory. The reconstruction of the Hotel Jerome reduces the current number of units in that facility from 39 to 28, and is, therefore, a net loss of 11 units from the inventory. Therefore, the computation for the next available lodge quota, in 1987, is as follows: 35 - 20 + 11 = 26 The Little Nell Hotel Project, which requests 96 units, is, therefore asking for all remaining units from 1987, plus all of those available in 1988 and 1989 (26+35 +35 =96). This analysis intentionally does not address the potential effect on the lodge quota which would occur: o If Council decided to credit this quota, rather than the L -3 quota, with the 54 units from the Alpina Haus /Copper Horse upon their change in use from lodge to residential status. o When a building permit is issued for the 60 -70 units associated with the second phase of the Hotel Jerome. In the opinion of the Planning Office, the decision as to whether you should award the future years' quota should be based on your deter- minations as to the rate at which we have grown in the recent past, your expectations as to projects which are approved and unbuilt, and whether or not you want to add another project to those which are already approved. In this respect we note that: o There has been no addition of lodge units to the inventory in the core lodge district since the expansion of the Glory Hole Lodge and its reconstruction as the Woodstone in the mid 1970's. o While there has been only limited growth in lodging outside of the core district, there has been significant recon- struction of the "small" lodge inventory in the last decade (Aspen Ski Lodge, Ullr, Prospector, Coachlight Chalet, Applejack, Nugget, Lenado) . There is no conclusive data on the overall loss /gain of units in the short term inventory communitywide, although there is a distinct impression of attrition in the short -term rental market due to owners' keeping units vacant during portions of the year. o There is an exceptionally high backlog of approved but unbuilt units in both large (Aspen Mountain PUD, Hotel Jerome, Highlands Inn) and small (Lodge at Aspen, Carriage House, Hotel Aspen Addition) projects. The approximate number of additional units which would be added by these projects is 400. 4 It is extremely difficult to take a snapshot of today's lodge market, which has not experienced any recent significant additions, and argue that a new, quality facility such as proposed herein would not be a welcome project. However, it is equally difficult to argue that if even only some of the approved projects are built, there would be a need to borrow further into the community's lodging quota. As we have noted for you previously, the backlog of approved projects are likely to have significant impacts on this community. Therefore, if, as the applicants argue, the Little Nell project has minor impacts on unsolved issues such as transportation and air quality, the cumulative impact of all of the projects will still be quite significant. Furthermore, the spinoff impacts of these projects on other growth sectors, such as ski area development and commercial developnent, will also likely be significant. Given the level of support which growth management always receives in planning efforts (i.e., Goals Task Force) and at the polls, we were quite surprised by the public's willingness to accept the likely impacts of this project and to award it a quota from the future. As we noted for you previously, we must wonder if our recent moderate growth rate has lulled residents into a false sense of security about growth. Should the three major lodge downtown projects go forward in the second half of the 1980's, we will experience a change to this town unlike anything we have experienced in the last 15 years. We have great reservations about taking this kind of step in the absence of well defined, publicly accepted plans to solve some of the very real problems we are now facing regarding parking, transportation, air quality and similar issues. In our opinion, this community took a very bold step in its decision to support the Aspen Mountain PUD. Many factors went into this decision, culminating in a conclusion that the benefits of the project outweighed its community costs. We feel that the community must now take the time to seriously respond to the costs of that project before it takes another step to grow. This is the true intent of growth management, to phase growth so that we can responsibly deal with its impacts. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office's recommendation has not changed since our initial memo on this project was drafted. We recommend conceptual approval of the Little Nell SPA subject to the conditions of P &Z Resolution 1185 -18, as modified by the decisions Council makes on the drop -off area, open space and future buildout issues. However, we are conceptually opposed to the applicant's multi -year allocation request. Since the Council cannot formally consider this request until a GMP application is submitted, we recommend that you simply indicate your conceptual opposition to such an allocation, with formal action being taken when a precise development plan is before you. AR.25 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Stirling FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Summary of Council Work Session on Little Nell Conceptual SPA DATE: October 10, 1985 Following is the summary you requested of the Council comments made at the Little Nell Conceptual /SPA work session held on October 7: 1. I asked, and Council agreed, to delay the discussion of growth issues until your regular meeting on October 15, so that I could make a brief presentation on the record. 2. The meeting therefore concentrated on an informal question and answer session between Council, the Ski Company representatives and myself. We did not take any public comment. 3. The following issues were discussed at the meeting: a. The number of parking spaces proposed was addressed. I asked Council if they felt comfortable with this issue being studied and addressed at the precise plan stage. It seemed to be agreed upon that a study, as envisioned by Condition #3 of the P &Z resolution, would be acceptable. b. Concern was raised as to the two service yards shown on Spring Street and on Dean Street. Particular concerns involved pedestrian conflicts on Dean Street and turning movements near the Woodstone. The applicant agreed to address the questions at the precise plan stage, as per Planning and Zoning condition #8 in their resolution. c. Several Council members had problems with the massing of the building on Durant Avenue. Issues included shadow effects, snow shedding, heights, extent of the facade, views and open space. I explained how P &Z had addressed these issues with Conditions #1, 4, 15 and 16 of their resolution of particular concern to Charlotte and Pat was the staff's finding that Section 24 -3.7 requires open space to be open to the street with a minimum street frontage of 100 feet and a minimum depth of 10 feet. Although the open space on the parcel (about 2/3 of the site) does front on Dean Street, it was questioned whether such open space meets the intent of the Code to provide for reduction of frontage massing. d. A question was raised about the similarity of the design of this structure to the Aspen Mountain Lodge as regards roof and arcade elements. It was hoped that greater variety between the two designs could be demonstrated at the precise plan stage. e. Two key transportation issues were raised. Council was most concerned about the present skier drop off area on the site, and whether it would work if placed within Durant Avenue and how it would affect traffic flow on Durant. Concern was also raised about the adequacy of the street network in the area to handle the traffic. It was pointed out that these issues have been addressed by P &Z in conditions #7 and 9 of their Resolution. f. Questions were raised as to why the ASC is interested in building a hotel which they admit is a marginal economic investment. Peter Forsch responded that this would be a commitment to the future tourist base by the company, and a symbol to others that renovation /upgrading should be accom- plished by other owners. Charlotte concluded that it is the hotel which appears to be creating all of the impacts on the community in terms of parking, traffic, service areas, heights, etc., and that without this marginal facility, the needs of the ski area for parking and skier drop off could be better accommodated. As an interesting aside, I received a phone call from Joe Edwards on the day after the work session. Joe has been hired by some Aspen Square residents to oppose the project, and he made the following points to me: 1. Since the ASC admits that the hotel is a marginal operation, what will happen in five years when the hotel does not turn a profit? If the owners at that time become more cost conscious, will they either (a) impose higher lift ticket prices or (b) ask for the southeastern "finger" of the hotel to extend up to what Peter Forsch admitted was the best part of the site, on the mountain? Should we insist upon a limitation on future development as a condition of a multi -year allotment award, if one is made? 2. The ASC sold the land to the developers of Aspen Square which should have been kept for ski area parking. Now that the company is left with a small land parcel, they are externalizing many of their development impacts on our street system and adding to the need for a City parking structure. Is it reasonable to allow this approach? I hope this information is of assistance to you. I will plan on meeting with you to prepare for the public hearing by coming down to your office on October 15 at 11:30. - 2 - MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council TARO: Hal Schilling, City Manag -a 4\9%s FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office SUBJECT: Little Nell Conceptual SPA DATE: October 8, 1985 At your work session on October 7, 1985, you decided that tonight's meeting would concentrate on the issue of growth management as it relates to this project. I would like to make a brief presentation to provide you with some background on this issue. Please bring your memorandum and other materials from your packet of September 23rd so that we do not have to reprint those materials. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manager n FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office SUBJECT: Little Nell Conceptual SPA DATE: October 8, 1985 At your work session on October 7, 1985, you decided that tonight's meeting would concentrate on the issue of growth management as it relates to this project. I would like to make a brief presentation to provide you with some background on this issue. Please bring your memorandum and other materials from your packet of September 23rd so that we do not have to reprint those materials. Y epCJOIOO nn s T O11 '1310311H01:11 A NVWDVH 1N3Wd073A30 ll3N 311111 � I _ ,-------____J 1 J • a C L ------ F . N J \ 1 7 Q s "" l W 0 U o o� z G as °' zu m °o 8 ° a I E E a "ork ' i 6 ! s 1 S 5s -t _ s _ -- - 1 .., ' 1 ii /r > 0 I I I ' J k / / O. i 1...-1 . I 1 p4 "-'}s a jr . < u . 3 r �i '. I I U i •� `` PI 4. Y t e I l ',,,„ n € z t f , twk z: n v n semen° / \ / _ 3 } L �. (...,-- ry— J L r 1 PVW*1116111PIRWOWWW- '1 ,P. LODGING QUOTA - CURRENT ISSUES SKIING: SHORT TERM ACCOMODATIONS BALANCE Aspen Mountain expanded to 4300, 43% expansion 1982 short term accomodations, report indicated a balance of 10,670 pillows to 11,500 capacity for a ratio of .93:1 - Assuming balance in 1982 current short fall of 1,300 pillows or 325 units exist (1,300 new capacity - 4 .S- pillows per unit) 410A s „ �,,,,k a e trw k 1 +�' 2. UNITS LOST FROM SHORT TERM ACCOMODATIONS 87 units from 1982 short term accomodations report have been removed from rental pool. These are derived as follows: � ` �` sk Aspen Alps 33 Units Aspen Square 3 Units North of Nell 4 Units Gant 20 Units 5th Ave Condo 20 Units Mountain Queen 7 Units Total 87 Units 3. CORRECTION TO ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE QUOTA - Alpina House units (44) will be converted to employee housing and all units will be credited to L -1, L -2, CC and C -L zones - Copper Horse - 14 units credited as above 1986 quota will be released 23 units available in this year 35 for 1986 58 available for review now 4. DEDUCTION FOR "EXEMPTED" UNITS - Hotel Jerome (not issued yet) - Sardy House 19 Units - Nugget (N /A in L -3 zone) Independence Lodge (Same human use and occupancy characteristics) Total 19 Units 5. SUMMARY - Skiing imbalance shortfall 325 Units - Loss from short -term accomodations 87 Units - Correction to Aspen Mountain Lodge 58 Units - Deduction for "exempted units" <19> Units - Total current shortfall 451 Units MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manager FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director ik& RE: Conceptual SPA Submission - Little Nell Base Redevelopment DATE: September 17, 1985 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) requests concep- tual SPA approval for the redevelopment of the Little Nell base area. The applicant also requests that the boundaries of the area designated as SPA be expanded. Presently, the SPA Overlay covers that portion of the site (about 43,000 square feet) which has a "CC" - Commercial Core zone designation. The applicant requests that the SPA overlay be expanded across about 45,000 additional square feet which is now designated "C" - Conservation, with no change in the underlying C -zone designation being requested. APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: There are several sections of the newly adopted Ordinance 20 which are particularly pertinent to the appli- cant's request, including the following: "Section 24 -7.2 Procedure for Designation of Sites as SPA (a) Parcels of land shall be designated with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay or the boundaries of parcels already designated with an SPA shall be adjusted only following the procedures and requirements for amendments to the zoning map described in Article XII of this chapter, and by submitting a conceptual plan for development of the parcel, as described below." (c) In designating parcels with an SPA overlay, the Planning Commis- sion and City Council shall make findings as to the unique , characteristics of the parcel which justify its designation with an SPA overlay, including how the parcel complies with the intents and purposes of this Article." "Section 24 -7.3 Conceptual Plan (a) An applicant for any site designated, or proposed to be designat- ed with an SPA Overlay shall submit a conceptual plan, for the purpose of establishing the objectives which the SPA designation is to achieve. The conceptual submission shall include a statement of the intent and a conceptual description of the type of development which is proposed to take place on the parcel, including but not limited to use categories, overall • project density, and design concepts to be employed. The applicant shall consult with the Planning Director as to the submission requirements prior to the submission of the conceptual plan; however, as a general guide, it is not intended that the submission go into the technical detail required of conceptual subdivision or conceptual AJD." In my opinion, the key points regarding conceptual review which are contained in the above statements are as follows: 1. Adjustment of the boundaries of an SPA requires that rezoning procedures (i.e., public hearing before P &Z, Ordinance adoption by City Council) be followed. We attach a proposed Ordinance for your first reading consideration. 2. If Council supports the alteration of the Little Nell SPA boundaries, it must identify "the unique characteristics of the parcel which justify its designation with an SPA overlay." Therefore, we must make such findings with respect to the new area requested for designation if we are to support this request, as was done by P &Z in their attached resolution. 3. Conceptual SPA is a very broad review process, intended princi- pally to identify the overall type and form of development which is to take place on the parcel. In this respect, it is closer to a zoning process, which establishes the uses and area and bulk requirements for a parcel, than a subdivision or AJD process, which deals with design standards and technical feasibility of the project. These detailed concerns are more properly to be addressed at the precise plan stage which follows conceptual approval by Council. PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: The Planning Office review of this project can be broken down into the following categories: 1. Major design issues, including referral comments; and 2. Growth rate issues. Following this review, a summary of the pros and cons of the project is presented, and a Planning Office recommendation is made. For a detailed summary description of the project and an analysis of the existing deficiencies of the base area, we refer you directly to the materials provided by the applicant. MAJOR DESIGN ISSUES: 1. Use - The conceptual plan is the appropriate time to review the use categories proposed for the project. The uses proposed in the Little Nell Base Redevelopment are as follows: o Hotel - 96 rooms (approximately 77,700 sq. ft. above grade 2 and 15,700 subgrade). Included in the hotel are various subgrade spaces serving skiers such as lockers and rest - rooms. o Commercial - Approximately 16,100 sq. ft., of which about 13,400 sq. ft. is requested for verification as existing space. (Note: This square footage is included in the above hotel size estimate.) o Ski Area Support Facilities - Approximately 10,000 square feet of subgrade space, some of which is a reconstruction of existing space (note: the applicant should clarify the breakdown of uses within this space and how much is a rebuild of existing offices and support areas for the purposes of establishing the commercial quota for which the applicant will be applying). This area is principally ski administration space, but also included in this category are the new lifts at the base area, for which no FAR has been provided. o Parking - 77 subgrade spaces are proposed, at a rate of .7 spaces per room (96 x .7 = 67) plus 10 spaces for key employees, in an area of about 30,000 square feet. The Planning Office believes that the proposed mix of uses is an appropriate one for this SPA site. The hotel is a conditional use in the CC zone, while the commercial uses are permitted in this zone. The ski area support facilities are an appropriate use of the land in the Conservation zone district. More will be said about the appropriateness of the proposed uses in the section of this memo concerning the proposed boundary change to the SPA overlay. However, at this point it is clear that the intrusion of the hotel and commercial area into the portion of the site zoned C, with an SPA overlay requested, would be a variation in the uses allowed in that district. 2. Area and Bulk Requirements - The key area and bulk requirements of the CC zone district which apply to this development are as follows: o Maximum Height - 40 feet - The building has been scaled at 46 feet to the top of the roof and appears to be able to meet the 40 foot limit to the midpoint of the roof. Final determination of compliance would be made at the precise plan stage. o Percent Open Space - 25% - If we include both the present and proposed SPA areas, the site contains about 88,862 square feet, of which 61,003 square feet are to be kept in open space (approximately 68.5% open space). However, according to the definition of open space in Section 24 -3.7 (d), open space must be open to the street and unobstructed 3 from ground level and have a minimum street frontage of 100 feet and a minimum depth of 10 feet. The purpose of these provisions is to provide visual relief along the street from the mass of the building. Since the pedestrian plaza is not within the applicant's ownership, there is no area along the Durant Street frontage which meets this provision. However, the open spaces does front on Dean Street. As a condition of P &Z's recommenda- tion, the applicant has been asked to verify with the Zoning Official that this open space meets the requirements of the Code. In any case, the building as proposed has an exten- sive facade mass, and by not having open space along Durant Street within the applicant's ownership, will particularly affect views from the Aspen Square Complex. Also important in this regard are the shadow effects on Durant Street, as noted in condition 15 of the P &Z resolution. o External FAR - 1.5:1 - There are two possible methods to calculate the external FAR for the project. First, the FAR can be calculated based on the existing CC /SPA site, which would involve 43,124 square feet of lot area and 77,718 square feet of building, amounting to an FAR of 1.80:1. A second approach would be to include in the calculation the area zoned C, and proposed to have an SPA overlay placed on it. In this case, the site would be 88,862 square feet and the FAR would be 0.87:1. Based on the precedent set in the review of the Aspen Mountain Lodge, the land zoned C should not be included in the FAR calculation, since the uses proposed (hotel, commercial) are not permitted or condition- al uses in the C zone. Therefore, the applicant is request- ing a variance from the CC FAR from 1.5:1 to about 1.8:1. The applicant can also request Special Review approval to increase the allowable commercial FAR on the site to 1.7:1 by providing employee housing in the appropriate ratio on- or off -site. o Parking - There is no requirement for parking for lodging or commercial uses in the CC zone. There is also no parking requirement for lodge uses in the C zone, but the Code does require that parking for "all other uses," (i.e., the commercial space) receive Planning Commission review. Both the Engineering Department and the Planning Office have serious doubts about the adequacy of 77 spaces for a project of this magnitude. The application references "recent downtown parking studies" (presumably those for the Aspen Mountain PUD) to justify this level of parking provision. We would like to see additional study of this issue to justify that the parking needs of the lodge rooms, adminis- trative offices, commercial spaces and skier support facilities are being met by this proposal. We would also note that the building is proposing to displace approxi- 4 mately 30 parking spaces which now exist on the property, although only about 10 of these spaces are used year- round. The parking issue is addressed by Condition #3 of P &Z Resolution 85 -18. 3. SPA Boundary Change - The applicant proposes to adjust the boundary of the area designated with an SPA overlay. The applicant does not request any change in the extent of the area designated as CC. Instead, it is proposed that an SPA desig- nation be placed over approximately 1 acre of property currently designated only as conservation. The applicant's zoning boundary change differs significantly from that which was considered and eventually denied by City Council in 1983, The extent of the area requested for SPA designation is considerably less than that previously identified and corresponds directly to that area in which the hotel, commercial and ski support facilities are to be located at the toe of the slope. In fact, by extending the boundary, we insure that the location of the lifts is considered at the same time as the remainder of the base area development. We find that the increase in the SPA boundary does meet the test of being unique and providing public benefit in that it permits integrated planning of the lift locations in conjunction with the remainder of the base area development. Without the SPA Overlay, our review of the ski lifts would be limited to the conditional use review process. Furthermore, the site itself is unique due to its location at the gateway to Aspen Mountain, and the year - round recreational benefits to the community which can be provided there. The Planning Office supports the proposed boundary adjustment with the following qualifications: a. The area designated C -SPA is not used in the calculation of the FAR for the project, due to the rationale noted above. b. Final approval of the boundary change should only occur in conjunction with final approval of the precise plan for the project. Therefore, the City Council should accomplish a first reading of the ordinance, and table second reading until a precise plan submission is reviewed in 1986. c. In the event that final approval of the project expires, the boundary of the SPA should revert to its prior configuration until a new conceptual and precise plan is submitted. Each of these qualifications was accepted by P &Z and included in their attached Resolution. 4. Project Visibility - There are at least three aspects of the 5 project's visibility which we believe are of concern to the community. First, there is a concern about the historic ability of residents and visitors to view the base of the mountain from various points in town. In my opinion, the view corridor up Hunter Street provides the least cluttered sight lines which must be preserved. I have reviewed a computer simulation prepared by the applicants which will be included in their slide show. This simulation appears to demonstrate that because of the pedestrian plaza, the hotel will not cause a significant impact on the Hunter Street view. However, I have asked the applicants to move the reference point for this view back down Hunter Street from Durant to Cooper and even to Hyman to better evaluate this impact, and feel that this information could be requested at the conceptual review stage. P &Z addressed this concern in Condition #4 of Resolution 85 -18. Detailed architectural renderings and elevations would not be expected until the precise plan stage. A second visibility question has to do with the regrading of the Little Nell slope. I have been informed that either the new quad lift or the gondola will require an extensive flat area to allow the lift motors to bring the chair or the gondola up to the necessary minimum speed. This flat area will also have the significant benefit of allowing easier pedestrian access to the lifts, drastically improving circulation at the base area. We will need to see a detailed grading plan to evaluate the extent of the cut which will be required and to obtain a clearer idea of the degree to which the historic appearance of the base of the mountain will be altered. This concern is addressed as Condition #5 of Resolution 85 -18. A final visibility question has to do with the City's mountain viewplane and 8040 review criteria. It appears that a portion of the site may technically fall within the Cooper Avenue viewplane, or possibly even be affected by the Courthouse or Wheeler viewplanes. It also is unclear from the applicant's presentation whether or not the project falls within 50 yards below the 8040 greenline. The applicant should study these viewplane and greenline concerns and, if review is required, submit the necessary documentation at the precise plan stage of review. 5. Circulation - Several conceptual circulation issues have been raised by our review of the conceptual site design. First, the resolution of the Board of County Commissioners approving the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan (AMSAMP) requires that the taxi - limo -auto drop -off facility at Little Nell be maintained. We do not see where provision for this facility has been made on the conceptual drawings. This issue received extensive attention at the P &Z level and was finally addressed as Condition #7 of Resolution 85 -18. The applicant also has not made provision for the 46 off- street, skier automobile parking spaces required to mitigate the effects of the 1,300 daily skiers -at- one -time capacity increase on Aspen Mountain. However, the BOCC Resolu- 6 tion states that this requirement can be met either at the base of Little Nell, through a cash contribution, or through an off - site solution by ASC. A second circulation question has to do with the location of service delivery areas on Spring Street, opposite the Woodstone Inn, and on Dean Street, behind the North of Nell building. These two entrances are intended to serve the vehicles bringing goods to the hotel - commercial facility, and for the restaurants on the mountain, respectively. The City Engineer questions whether it is appropriate to have two such service yards, or if a single area can be provided to consolidate these operations. Given our recent experience with the Aspen Mountain Lodge service yard on Monarch Street, we want to insure that these facilities impact the least number of sur- rounding residents. Condition #8 of Resolution 85 -18 states that we would like the applicant to demonstrate that adequate room has been left for stacking trucks within the service yards and for making necessary turning movements, without causing interference with traffic on either Spring Street or Dean Street . With respect to overall traffic circulation, the applicant has provided us with no information whatsoever on the adequacy of Durant, Spring and Dean Streets to handle the traffic volumes from skiers, guests, employees and users of the commercial spaces. Condition #9 of Resolution 85 -18 requires that such technical information be provided in conjunction with precise plan review. One of the most positive aspects of the applicant's proposal is the improvement to pedestrian circulation which is expected to result form the plazas on Hunter and Dean Streets. The applicant appears to have given thoughtful attention to the placement of the ticket booths, the lift and the entrance to the mountain. We are conceptually pleased with this effort, but note that neither Dean Street nor Hunter Street is owned by ASC, although the applicant states that it does have easements over these pro- perties. The ASC must clarify its intent with respect to these right -of -ways at the time of precise plan review, and provide us with copies of these easements as soon as possible, since without these areas, there is certain to be inadequate access for pedestrians to the mountain. P &Z has requested that efforts be made including coordination with the City, to increase the extent of this pedestrian gateway to the mountain. We also need to clarify the kinds of vehicles which will be permitted on Dean Street, since the applicant already intends to have service vehicles here, and possibly emergency (fire, ambulance, etc.) vehicles as well, which could affect the pedestrian character of the street. Finally, the applicant has 7 been asked in Condition 4118 of Resolution 85 -18 to provide trail facilities connecting to Ute Avenue and Aspen Mountain Road through the site. 6. Miscellaneous Technical Concerns - From our review of the Aspen Mountain FUD it has become clear that we must take a much closer look at geologic hazards in the review of any developnent at the base of Aspen Mountain. Condition #10 of Resolution 85 -18 requires that a conclusive, technical study demonstrating that no hazard is posed to this project, or that any hazard can be fully mitigated, be provided prior to the review of the precise plan. The applicant has also been asked to address off -site drainage as it affects this site and on -site drainage in Condition 4122 of P &Z Resolution 85 -18. A memo has been received from Jim Markalunas of the Aspen Water Department noting the presence of City water pumping facilities in the east half of Hunter Street. Jim feels that relocation of this facility is technically possible and should not be an impediment to the project. Condition 4111 of Resolution 85 -18 requires that technical details of the proposed solution to this problem be provided at the precise plan stage. There appear to be no problems whatsoever with the provision of sewage disposal service for this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Several aspects of the base area plan relate to commitments made during the review of AMSAMP. First, ASC committed to a general- ized design for the lift structure at the base which would insure that it not be a large, obtrusive building in which hundreds of chairs would be stored. Compliance with this condition should be demonstrated at the precise plan review stage, as noted in Condition 112 of P &Z's attached Resolution. The applicants also committed to provide lift service on Little Nell for special events, ski instructions, and secondary access to Lift 5. The applicants agree at this time to provide such service via a mid -way unloading station (if a detachable quad chair is implemented) or via a relocated number 4 lift (if a gondola is implemented). Finally, the applicants agreed to removing the snowcat mainte- nance shop from the base area and relocating it to the mainte- nance facility on the mountain. Accomplishment of this commit- ment will significantly improve the look of the base area, as will the consolidation of the snowcat loading dock function in a much less obtrusive location. Both of these commitments are contained in the conceptual SPA plan. One amenity requested by the Planning Office but not made a condition of approval by the County was the provision of public ski storage facilities on site. We felt that such storage would 8 0 be an auto disincentive by making it easier for people to travel about town without excess baggage before and after skiing. We are pleased to see the inclusion of public lockers and ski lockers in the hotel plan. We would like the applicant to clarify that these lockers will be available for public overnight storage of skis, boots and accessories. A concern raised by the City Engineer and the P &Z in Condition #16 relates to snow shedding from the roof. The applicant has been asked to address this problem to insure that pedestrians are not affected by snow from the hotel. A last technical issue is that of employee housing. The app- licant has put this issue off to the precise plan review stage, and indicate that the requirements will be satisfied at an off - site location. The Planning Office does not object to this approach at the conceptual stage, pending review of the location, quality and quantity of the proposed housing. GROWTH RATE IS SU ES A. Problem Statement Under the provisions of Ordinance 20, the applicants will not submit their growth management application until the precise plan is submitted. Council recently changed the due date for 1985 lodge allocation submission other than L -3 from October 1 to December 1. Therefore, you can expect a lodge GMP application to be submitted by this applicant on December 1 of 1985 or October 1 of 1986. Even though we are not yet reviewing the GMP application at this time, the Planning Office believes that the question of the allocation itself is a conceptual issue. Presuming for the moment that the applicant is successful in meeting the competi- tive threshold, we feel the Council should provide the applicant with an indication of the likelihood of obtaining an allocation for this project. We pose this issue because of the unique circumstances associated with this year's lodge competition. As you recall, the City granted an allocation of 172 lodge units to the Aspen Mountain PUD. This allocation consisted of 32 lodge units unallocated from prior years, and the full 35 unit per year allocation for 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. In effect, the lodge quota available for this year and next year is 0. Section 24-11.3 (b) of the Municipal Code provides that: "(b) The City Council may (but need not) grant a development allotment for an entire project to be constructed over a period of years provided that each year during the scheduled construction the annual allotment provided for in Section 9 24 -11.1 shall be reduced by the amount of construction permitted by the approval." Therefore, it is clear from the above language that the City can award an allocation to this project from the 1987, 1988 and most (26 of 35) units of the 1989 quotas. Therefore, the question for us to analyze is whether the City should, from a planning and development perspective, award such an allocation. B. Numerical Analysis () wny o Lo o k o 6AA, , s s s,,� A s In the opinion of the Planning Office, one key consideration in awarding a future allocation is that we have approved a series of lodge projects in recent years which have not yet been occupied and whose impacts have yet to be felt. Included within this list are the following projects: 1. Aspen Mountain Lodge (275 rebuilt units, 172 new units) 2. Hotel Jerome PUD (28 rebuilt units in Phase I, 11 rebuilt and 67 new units in Phase II) . 3. Sardy House (20 new lodge units) . 4. Highlands Inn Renewal (37 rebuilt units, 136 new units). t� „cAL 1 5. Hotel Aspen (13 new units). \-. L-1 - 2 y,, tee The above projects amount to about 350 rebuilt units and over 400 units in the Aspen Lodging inventory, none of which have yet 6- been occupied. Other projects which have recently been occupied and which demonstrate the level of activity in Aspen's lodging market include the 14 rebuilt and 4 new units at the Hotel Lenado, the 35 rebuilt units at the Hotel Aspen (Nugget Lodge), �-- and the 35 rebuilt and 3 new units at The Aspen (Applejack) . Units which are approved to be removed from the inventory include the 14 at the Copper Horse and 40 at the Alpina Haus. (Note: When the units at these two facilities are deed- restrict- ed, the change in use provisions of the Code will require us to credit the L -3 quota with these 54 unit m, an to deduct 4 units from the residential quota.) * �e.c.ov.sJ V�,:c �C A --- .�� Wl AkLoc The Council should also be aware that the Code (Section 24 -11.2) requires that when a building permit is issued for the new units in the Sardy House (this occurred in August, 1985) and Hotel Jerome projects (expected in Spring, 1986) , we will have to deduct those units from the lodge quota. This requirement means that, in effect, these projects have taken the available quota for 1987, 1988 and part (17 units) of the 1989 quota. Therefore, the Little Nell Base Redevelopment project could be seen as , gy p,. P\ a w....�•kw. , S 10 Lq CV..a\a •S --) CA of � 6� k 53'N requesting the remainder of the quota for 1989, 1990 and 1991 (less 2 units) . C. Policy Analysis During the Planning Commission's review of this project, quite a controversy was created when the Planning Office presented the above numerical analysis. Some members of the Commission felt that additional study of the lodging inventory should be done, since there have been assertions of an overall loss of short -term pillows over the last 10 years which have not been addressed by the formulation of the lodge quota. The applicant provided some data to support this claim, although admittedly not a comprehen- sive study of this issue. The applicant also provided a numerical analysis of the lodge quota. This analysis found that if the 54 units in the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus are credited to the L- 1 /L- 2 /CC /CL and Other zone quota (as was originally recommended by the Planning office and Planning Commission in the P &Z Resolution recommending con- ceptual approval of the Aspen Mountain Lodge) and the 20 units at the Sardy House are deducted from this quota, then 34 of the 35 units in the quota would be available beginning in 1986. On this basis the applicant's request would be to obtain 34 units from the 1986 quota, the 35 units from the 1987 quota and 27 units from the 1988 quota. Since the facility is planned to open in 1988 or 1989, the applicant feels that no inconsistency with the growth management quota system is being proposed. However, the problem with this rationale is that Council did not accept the recommendation to credit the L -1 /L -2 quota for those units, and the L -3 quota will, therefore, receive the lodge unit credit. The Planning Office believes that this type of numerical analysis Sc.Nr,3c is one indication of the impacts of the 96 unit allocation V54-4.4_ request by the applicant, but that it should not be the sole determinant of Council's decision. As noted on Page 41 of the Growth Management Policy Plan, "Growth management would be a meaningless exercise in the manipulation of sterile numbers if some higher goal were not in mind ". Our understanding is that the higher goals were (and continue to be) community balance and quality of life. A principal reason that the community chose to regulate its rate of growth was to avoid the boom conditions of the prior decade, where the construction of a multitude of projects at a single time would take us across major service thresholds and require the government to intervene in a time frame in which it cannot respond. We, therefore, established a growth phasing mechanism to smooth out the growth cycles, so that projects do not occur at the same time which would profoundly change the community before the public sector can develop plans and react to the service problems the growth has caused. 1 (� 11 Despite this philosophy, we know that there are problems in this community right now which we are not yet solving. Rather than present an endless list, we can simply identify some of the most critical, including: o Highway Entrance to Town; o Parking - Intercept Lots or Downtown Structures; o Air Quality; and o Bus Terminal. While it is certainly not this applicant's responsibility to solve these problems, we believe that it is incumbent upon the community to identify how it will solve them if it is to continue to grow. By asking us to give out tomorrow's alloca- tions today, this project seeks to accelerate our rate of growth, yet does not similarly speed up our ability to solve our pro- blems. In fact, each time we move forward with development approvals, without putting into place the public facility solutions to accommodate the projects, we may be foregoing possible alternatives without ever realizing their potential. If we haven't solved these problems during our recent era of moderate growth, how will we do so following the downtown lodging boom? 5v,,,, 4 We recognize that the project before us offers some very appeal- ing amenities with respect to the very dilapidated area at the --`�c base of our mountain, just as the Aspen Mountain PUD offered us �rr an opportunity to upgrade the core of our lodge district and the Hotel Jerome to repair our historic hotel. We feel that the reconstruction of old lodging units, along with the renovation of existing commercial space and the Aspen Mountain skiing area, are desirable developments because they contribute to the revitali- zation of our resort complex. However, when the Aspen Mountain Lodge, Hotel Jerome addition and Little Nell Base Hotel are all scheduled to come on line in a 2 or 3 year time frame, we can anticipate a massive change in our lodge sector, which is likely to have spinoff effects which we cannot predict for years to come. The Growth Management Policy Plan postulated that growth in any sector has interdependent and cyclical effects on the other sectors, as lodge development leads to ski area and commercial growth, which influence residential development, and so on. As we compress the rate at which we create new lodge O units, we wonder how we will respond to the secondary impacts on our other sectors, and where the accelerated rate will end. The question of secondary impacts is a confusing one, and, in fact, the GMPP noted on page 3 that "Growth is composed of a variety of elements with connections that are only poorly 12 understood." Since we recognize that we cannot accurately predict the effects of growth on the town, we have chosen to grow at a regulated rate so that the mistakes we make will not be compounded. Having three major hotel projects going on downtown will not give us the chance to monitor and respond to the impacts of growth in an orderly manner. Furthermore, it will mean that we will be adding to our congestion and to our problems in that portion of town which is already the most dense and exhibits many of our problems. As we all know, we have just approved the largest tourist project in the history of the town, and we are in the process of occupying the largest residential project in our history, and we have yet to experience the impacts of either. Given the moderate rate of growth of our recent past, and the fact that several projects have been approved but not yet built, many in town seem unconcerned that another large project such as this is following right after the approval of the Aspen Mountain PUD. Current residents seem to have forgotten what it is like to live in a boom growth period and have been lulled into a false sense of security about growth. However, if we don't take this opportun- ity to see how the town will change as a result of the impacts of the Aspen Mountain PUD, and those of the Hotel Jerome, when will we evaluate what happened and how we must respond? More importantly, what kind of precedent with respect to our rate of growth will we be setting with respect to the Aspen Meadows development, which is likely to follow this project and which will also be requesting a multi -year allocation? One of the arguments made in the numerical analysis is that we have not been growing in the lodging sector over the past decade and that accelerated growth is therefore appropriate. There are at least two fallacies in this argument. First, in response to the lack of activity in the first 5 or 6 years of the lodge quota, we increased the L -1 /L -2 quota from 18 to 35 units, and created the L -3 zone, with its ten unit quota. These actions increased the overall City lodge quota from 18 to 45 units per year, and help to explain some of the more recent activity in t e lodge sector. � ti ,5 oc 6 \a $ Second, and more importantly, 'because of the slow growth in lodging in this period, we felt comfortable in approving major employee housing developments exempt from the system (Castle Ridge and Centennial) an excess commercial growth rate, and the expansion of the Hotel Jerome. Is it reasonable to then argue that the slowed lodge growth of the prior years is a basis for allowing three major projects to be built during such a confined period of time? Moreover, do you still have a meaningful growth management system when you are approving major projects that are exempt from the system and others which borrow from future years' quotas, so that you are simply accounting for rather than phasing growth? 13 v � A,' e � ' �-cr a 6\4. L- Ar SUMMARY: The Little Nell Base Redevelopment presents the community with a very important set of tradeoffs to consider. On the one hand, the community is presented with an opportunity to upgrade the entry point to its most important recreational asset. Key improvements include the visual benefits of removing the surface parking and maintenance functions; circulation benefits of better pedestrian access to the lifts and ticketing function; and recreational benefits of improved skiing and commercial facilities at the base area. There are a variety of technical issues which must be addressed to insure that the project "can be planned and developed in a manner which provides the greatest public benefit" as is the purpose of its designation as an SPA. Issues to be resolved include parking, open space, FAR, hazards, transit, service delivery, employee housing, utility relocations, roads, grading and visibility. None of these issues is technically beyond resolution, although they do tend to indicate the magnitude of the impacts this project will have on the community. The growth policy issue, is, in our opinion, a threshold question with regard to this project. Although we could defer consideration of this issue until such time as the project has been scored and an allocation is pending, we feel this is the wrong course to take. The applicants will be expending a great deal of time and effort if this conceptual SPA is approved. We feel that they deserve the full benefit of our thinking at this time, before further studies are authorized. Furthermore, we think that the issue of future allocations is crucial to the basic concept proposed herein and is justifiably to be consid- ered at this time. As noted above, the Municipal Code provides a mechanism by which a future lodge allocation can be granted to the applicants. It is the Planning Office's finding that such an allocation is inappropriate at this time. We feel that the Council should consider the following four questions in its consideration of the growth rate issue, and only give a favorable response to the ASC on this issue if it can positive- ly answer the following: 1. Does the government have the ability to solve its service (highway, parking, bus terminal, etc.) and environmental (air quality) problems at an accelerated rate to address an accelerat- ed growth rate? 2. Can you still have a meaningful growth management system when you are approving major projects that are exempt from the system and others which borrow from future years' quotas, so that you are simply accounting for rather than phasing growth? 3. What kind of precedent would granting this request set with respect to other requests which may be made for multi -year allocations? 14 4. Can we accommodate the likely growth which will spin off from this project in the skiing, commercial and residential develop- ment sectors? Based on these considerations, Council has the following alternatives available for action: 1. Approve the conceptual SPA and provide the applicant with an indication that you are willing to entertain a request for a multi -year allocation. 2. Approve the conceptual SPA and provide the applicant with an indication that you are conceptually opposed to the multi -year allocation request. 3. Deny the entire conceptual SPA due to your conceptual opposition to the multi -year allocation request, or for other technical review concerns. The Planning Office strongly supports and recommends approval of the reconstruction of the commercial, administrative and skier support spaces, the replacement of the base lift, the upgrade of the pedes- trian circulation corridors and the removal of the maintenance facilities from the base area. However, we are conceptually opposed to the applicant's multi -year allocation request. Since the Council cannot formally consider this request until a growth management application is submitted, we recommend that you follow Alternative 2 and make your final decision on the growth issue when and if a preise development plan is before you. AR.12 S • - 55 as t& '-1 Li e 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1QQ 1 payefi ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, EXTENDING THE BOUNDARY OF THE SPA OVERLAY ACROSS A PORTION OF THE LITTLE NELL BASE AREA WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 20, Series of 1985, the Aspen Skiing Company (hereinafter "Applicant ") did submit a proposal for the redevelopment of the Little Nell Base Area; and WHEREAS, included within said application is a request by the Applicant to extend the boundary of the SPA Overlay across the site, to include the 43,124 square feet of land now zoned CC /SPA, plus an additional 45,738 square feet, proposed to be zoned CC /SPA, all as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission did hold a public hearing on August 20, 1985, to consider the applicant's SPA boundary change proposal, and did make findings as to the public benefit of said redesignation and recommend its approval in the Commission's Resolution 85 -18; and WHEREAS, having received and considered the recommendation of the Commission, the Aspen City Council does with to extend the boundary of the SPA Overlay across a portion of the Little Nell base area due to its confirmation of the Commission's finding that: "The requested extension of the boundary of the SPA overlay into the Conservation zone provides public benefit by integrating the planning for the lifts with the remainder of the base area redevelopment plan. The redesignation meets the test of Section 24- 7.2(C) of the Code due to the unique location ofthe parcel as the summer and winter gateway to Aspen Mountain and the potential year -round recreational benefits to the community which can be provided on this site." NOW, THEREFORE BY IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 iPaveR Bent inn 1 That it does hereby rezone to "C /SPA - Conservation with an SPA Overlay ", the following land, as depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. (LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT) Section 2 That the Zoning District Map be and hereby is amended to reflect the rezoning described in Section 1 and the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Map to reflect said rezoning. Section 3 That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a cow of this Ordinance in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 4 That in the event the Aspen Skiing Company fails to obtain a building permit, or the growth allocations to the Little Nell Base Area Redevelopment Project otherwise shall expire, then the property described in Exhibit "A" shall be rezoned to the C zone district, and its SPA overlay shall be removed from the zoning district map automatically and without a further act by the City Council of the City of Aspen. Section 5 That if any portion of this Ordinance is found to be unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6 That a public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1985, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 11 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1985. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1985. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk AR.11 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR ASPEN SKIING CO. PROPERTY TO BE ZONED C /SPA A parcel of land situated in the City of Aspen, being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Block 102 in said City of Aspen; thence S 75 ° 09'11" E 220.00 feet along the Northerly line of said Block 102 to a point 10.00 feet Easterly of the Northwest corner of Lot H of said Block 102; thence S 14 ° 50'49" W 263.52 feet to a point on the Northeasterly line of Lot 21 of the Ute Addition to said City of Aspen; thence N 38 ° 35'40" W 53.51 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 21; thence S 45 ° 21'00" W 124.28 feet along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 21 to a point on Line 1 -9 of the Original Aspen Townsite; thence N 75 ° 09'11" W 50.00 feet; thence N 14 ° 50'49" E 51.30 feet; thence N 30 ° 09'11" W 34.00 feet; thence N 75 ° 09'11" W 237.00 feet; thence N 15 ° 30'00" E, 125.50 feet to a point on Line 8 -9 of the Original Aspen Townsite; thence along Line 8 -9 N 74 ° 23'18" E 14.15 feet to Corner No. 9 of the Original Aspen Townsite; thence along Line 1 -9 S 40 ° 01'52" E 52.02 feet; thence S 75 09'11" E, 4.92 feet to a point on the Westerly line of Lot R, Block 98, City of Aspen; thence N 14 ° 50'49" E 10.00 feet along said Westerly line of Lot R to a point on the Southerly line of Dean Avenue; thence S 75 ° 09'11" E 60.24 feet along said Southerly line to a point on the Westerly line of vacated Hunter Street; thence N 14 ° 50'49" E 50.00 feet along said Westerly line to the Southeast corner of Lot I, Block 97, City of Aspen; thence S 75 09'11" E 75.00 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot A, Block 102, City of Aspen; thence N 14 ° 50'49" E 100.00 feet along the Westerly line of said Lot A to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, all of that land presently zoned CC /SPA. i RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE LITTLE NELL BASE REDEVELOPMENT SPA Resolution No. 85 -18 • • WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 20, Series of 1985, the Aspen Skiing Company (hereinafter, the "Applicant ") did submit a proposal for the redevelopment of the Little Nell base area; and WHEREAS, aspects of the development proposal include a 96 unit hotel, replacement of the existing commercial space, new pedestrian gateways to the mountain from Hunter and Dean Streets, new base lifts and an expansion of the area designated with an SPA overlay; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter, the "Commission ") did hold a public hearing on August 20, 1985 to consider the applicant's SPA boundary change proposal, and did also hold meetings to consider the base area redevelopment plan on August 6 and August 27, 1985; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its deliberations the Commission • did make the following findings: 1. The proposed mix of uses for this site is an appropriate one and meets the intent of its original designation with an SPA overlay. 2. The requested extension of the boundary of the SPA overlay into the Conservation zone provides public benefit by integrating the planning for the lifts with the remainder of the base area redevelopment plan. The redesignation meets the test of Section 24 -7.2 (C) the Code due to the unique location of the parcel as the summer and winter gateway to Aspen mountain and the potential year -round recreational benefits to the community which can be provided on this site. 3. The Planning and Zoning Commission supports the policy stated in Section 24 -11.3 (b) of the municipal Code that "City Council may (but need not) grant a development allotment for an entire project to be constructed over a period of years..." and, therefore, is willing to entertain the applicant's request for a multi -year allocation. The formal consideration of this issue will occur following the scoring of the applicant's growth management application at the precise plan review stage. 4. The resolution approving the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan contains commitments by the applicant to provide 46 parking spaces to mitigate the skiing capacity increase at Aspen Mountain and to accomplish various other parking /- . transit /circulation impact mitigation measures. The Planning Commission encourages the City Council to work cooperatively with the applicantcto insure that the parking spaces can be provided in a timely manner and in an appro priate location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE•IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does • hereby recommend that the Aspen City Council grant conceptual SPA approval to the Little Nell Base Redevelopment Plan, subject to the • following conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with the Zoning Official to determine whether the open space provided on the site meets the requirements of Section 24 -3.7 of the Code.. 2. The applicant shall, in the Precise Plan submission, request a variance of the project's FAR if it is above 1.5:1, since the land zoned Conservation does not count toward the overall project FAR. The applicant may also request special review approval to increase the allowable commercial FAR of the property to 1.7:1 by providing employee housing in the appropriate ratio on or off site. 3. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the parking needs of the facility to meet the demands from the lodge rooms, skiers, administrative offices, commercial spaces and skier support facilities, and shall adjust the parking plans accordingly. 4. The applicant shall continue to evaluate the impact of the hotel on the views of Aspen Mountain from Hunter Street, and propose any design changes which will reduce obstructions of the mountain from the corner of Cooper or Hyman Avenues on Hunter Street. Detailed architectural renderings and elevations shall be provided at the Precise Plan stage. 5. The applicant shall provide detailed grading plans for the earth work which is proposed to occur at the base area, including any activity associated with the base of the new lifts which may fall outside of the SPA boundary, and shall identify the locations for any material deposition which is to occur. 6. The applicant shall evaluate the .applicability of the City's 8040 greenline and mountain viewplane review procedures to the proposed development. Should it be found that either review procedure applies, the applicant will submit the necessary materials at the Precise Plan stage demonstrating compliance with the review criteria of the Code. 7. The applicant shall revise the site plan to indicate an auto -taxi -limo drop -off facility of adequate size. As the Commission is concerned about maintaining adequate traffic flows on Durant Avenue, it is expected that the applicant • will creatively address the proper location for this facility within the Durant Avenue right -of -way, within the property boundary, or through some combination thereof. 8. The applicant shall provide a detailed analysis of the proposed service yards on Spring Street and Dean Street, demonstrating that adequate space has been provided for truck stacking and that proper turning movements can be accomplished within these streets. The applicant shall also confer with the Environmental Health Department as to any air and water quality devices which may need to be installed in these areas (and in the parking facility for cars) . The applicant shall work with the North of Nell and Tippler management entities and shall try to accommodate the service delivery needs of these buildings in a single location off Dean Street. Finally, the applicant shall demonstrate that the service delivery area on Dean Street will not cause safety problems for pedestrians on Dean Street or nuisance problems for the residents of the North of Nell, and that the needs of the facility could not practically otherwise be met by a single facility on Spring Street. 2 4 i • 9. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the adequacy of Durant, Spring and Dean Streets to handle the vehicle traffic volumes associated with skiers, hotel guests, employees, service vehicles, and visitors to the commercial uses and shall propose appropriate mitigation measures to address any traffic problems which will result from the project. 10. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the geologic hazard on Aspen Mountain as it affects this site and shall demonstrate that any hazard posed to the property can and will be fully mitigated. The applicant shall also investigate the soils hydrology in the area to demonstrate the suitability of the site for development purposes. 11. The applicant shall provide a solution to the pumphouse relocation problem and shall agree to implement said solution at the applicant's cost. 12. The applicant shall provide detailed drawings of the new base lifts demonstrating that these buildings are visually compatible with the base area and that the. principal storage area for either chairs or gondolas will not be above grade at the base area. 13. The applicant shall reiterate the commitment as to how lift service will be provided on Little Nell for special events, ski instructions and for secondary access to Lift 5, and will show the location of all lifts proposed for the base area. 14. The applicant shall provide housing for employees of the project in a manner acceptable to the Housing Author- ity and Planning Commission. The number of employees to be housed will be determined at the Precise Plan stage, based on the applicant's commitments as part of the growth manage- ment plan application. 15. The applicant shall provide a shadow study of the effects of the building along Durant Avenue, and mitigate the problems caused by the building's shadows for pedestrians crossing the street. 16. The applicant shall demonstrate the techniques to be employed on the roof of the hotel to manage snow shedding to insure that it does not interfere with or endanger pedes- trians below. 17. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed buildings do not encroach into the land within the Park zone near the Aspen Alps. 18. The applicant shall provide a trail easement through the property connecting the trail near the Aspen Alps with the Dean Street trail and will include any required ramps for bicycles or other trail facilities in their site plan at the precise plan stage. The applicant will also examine the . potential for creating a pedestrian trail connecting to the Aspen Mountain Road within the context of the base area regrading and provide an alignment for said trail if it is found to be feasible. 19. The applicant shall make every effort, including working with the City of Aspen, to increase the extent of the pedestrian gateway to the mountain so as to make it a more "grand" entrance in the winter and summer. • 20. The applicant shall demonstrate that all questions as 3 to the ownership of the Hunter Street right -of -way have been resolved, and shall work with the City of Aspen to insure that permanent guarantees of the availability of Hunter and Dean Streets for pedestrian access have been provided. The applicant will also demonstrate that the boundary questions adjacent to the Tippler have been resolved, and the SPA boundary designation shall be adjusted accordingly. 21. The applicant shall provide the Environmental Health Department with detailed information on any fireplaces which will be included in the project, demonstrating their compliance with applicable Code provisions. 22. The applicant shall provide a drainage plan at the precise plan stage which meets the standards of the Engineering Department concerning the 100 year storm and which addresses drainage from Aspen Mountain as it affects the site and drainage from the development site itself. 23. The applicant shall take into account in the precise plan the historic access pattern of skiers using the land between the Copper Kettle and the Tipple Lodge as a means of getting to the Little Nell base area. 24. Final approval of the proposed SPA boundary change shall only occur in conjunction with final approval of the precise plan for the project. 25. In the event that the growth allocations for the project shall expire, the boundary of the SPA shall revert to its prior configuration. APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at their regular meeting on September 3, 1985. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By C A I • i C. Welton A . -rson, Chairperson ATTEST: )744c_ (J.i ei Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk AR.8 • ti 4 5 4 TM ASPEN SKIING COMPANY 0060 ATLANTIC AVENUE • AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER • BOX 1248 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 • PHONE 303/925 - 1220 September 16, 1985 City Council City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Council Members, Attached for your review prior to our meeting on September 23rd, are the following: 1. The application for S.P.A. Conceptual Plan Approval as sub- mitted to P & Z. 2. A background piece that explains the submission, the issues and our goals. 3. A press release, fact sheet, illustrative site plan, and rendering. Together, I believe they explain the goals and intentions of the Aspen Skiing Company for the Little Nell base. We look forward to a productive series of meetings to determine the future of the base of Aspen Mountain. ectfully su 1 ted, 6-a -ice Peter Forsch Project Manager PF:dm ASPEN MOUNTAIN • BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN • SNOWMASS • BRECKENRIDGE TM ASPEN SKIING COMPANY 0060 ATLANTIC AVENUE • AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER • BOX 1248 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 • PHONE 303/925 - 1220 APPLICATION FOR S.P.A. CONCEPTUAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY Members of the Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Aspen Skiing Company /Application for Conceptual Plan Approval for Specially Planned Area at Little Nell at the base of Aspen Mountain Dear Planning Commission Members: The Aspen Skiing Company hereby submits this Application for its Conceptual Plan for the Specially Planned Area (S.P.A.) at Little Nell at the base of Aspen Mountain. The attached drawings, maps, and plans are submitted herewith in accordance with the newly enacted Ordinace 20, Series of 1985 which repealed and re- enacted Article VII, Chapter 24, of the Municipal Code pertaining to Specially Planned Areas. Attached please find: 1. a vicinity and existing conditions map, 2. a Conceptual S.P.A. Plan, 3. cross sections, 4. illustrations depicting design guidelines, and 5. floor plan drawings. The vicinity map submitted herewith depicts the property which is the subject of this Conceptual Plan Appliction. The uses in the neighborhood surrounding the subject property are mixed and varied including short -term residential, long -term residential, lodging, commercial, and office uses. A. INTRODUCTION In February of 1983, the Aspen Skiing Company submitted an application for an adjustment to the boundary for this Specially Planned Area. The application met with controversy due to the large amount of area submitted for S.P.A. designation and the then unclear S.P.A. language and adoption ASPEN MOUNTAIN • BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN • SNOWMASS • BRECKENRIDGE Members of the Planning Commission June 21, 1985 Page 2 procedures. As a result of this previous application, the provisions of the Municipal Code pertaining to Specially Planned Areas have been repealed and re- enacted. Furthermore, the Aspen Skiing Company, sensitive to the community needs and input from the Planning Office, the Planning Commission, and the City Council has completely rethought and redesigned its concept for development in the area. The result is this current submission which is fully 50% smaller than what was contemplated in 1983. This submission constitutes the Aspen Skiing Company's statement of intent and conceptual description of the type of development which is proposed to take place on the subject property. This Conceptual Plan should be considered in context with and as part of the Aspen Skiing Company's overall plan for the improvement of ski terrain and lifts on Aspen Mountain, and its intent to improve the skier access to and experience on Aspen Mountain for residents and tourists alike. With this Conceptual Plan Application, pursuant to Section 24 -7.2 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Skiing Company seeks an adjustment to the boundary of its property already designated with an S.P.A. pursuant to the procedures and requirements for amendments to the zoning map described in Article XII of the Municipal Code and as part of this Conceptual Plan submission. The unique characteristics of the property to be encompassed within the S.P.A. designation justify its designation with an S.P.A. overlay and comply with the intents and purposes of the Specially Planned Area concept, The purpose of a Specially Planned Area is to "provide design flexibility for parcels which require innovative consideration in those circumstances where traditional zoning techniques do not adequately address their historic significance, there is a potential for community benefit from the parcel's development and the parcel has unique attributes." The City has always felt that the Little Nell area at the base of Aspen Mountain has all these unique characteristics. Further, consistent with the purposes of a Specially Planned Area, the S.P.A. designation will allow the integration of mixed use projects on a single parcel of land through the encouragement of innovative design practices. The S.P.A. will allow the establishment of a precise plan which provides a detailed land use plan for the entire parcel in question, and establishes a mechanism by which the subject property upon which there has historically been a variety of uses, can be planned and developed in a manner which provides the greatest public benefit. This is all consistent with the purpose of a Specially Planned Area as is set forth in ASPEN SKIING COMPANY • BOX 1248 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PHONE 3031925 -1220 Members of the Planning Commission June 21, 1985 Page 3 Section 24 -7.1 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) , and (4) of the Municipal Code. B. GENERAL DESCRIPTION In general, the Aspen Skiing Company's Conceptual Plan consists of the following elements: 1. Construction of a 96 room hotel containing a total of 77,718 sq. ft. of rooms and circulation areas, including hotel accessory space plus 15,668 sq. ft. subgrade. 2. 16,078 sq. ft. of commercial space of which approximately 13,396 sq. ft. is already existing on the site. 3. 9,976 sq. ft. of improved and expanded ski area facilities. 4. 77 subgrade parking spaces. In the CC zone, there is no- parking_requirement for either lodge use or commercial use; however, based on industry standards and recent downtown parking studies the hotel will require .7 parking spaces per room with an additional 10 spaces for key personnel for a total of 77 spaces. The floor area calculations do not include those spaces excluded from F.A.R calculations by the zoning code. Thus the use categories proposed for the parcel are as follows: 1. Hotel - Lodging 2. Commercial 3. Ski Facilities 4. Parking C. INTENT AND PURPOSE The construction of the facilities proposed by this Conceptual Plan will provide significant improvements for ski operations at Aspen Mountain to the benefit of local and visitor alike, and will greatly enhance the tourist accomodations available at the base of Aspen Mountain. The Plan accomplishes the following: 1. The relocation of grooming vehicle maintenance and parking to an on- mountain location removes unsightly, noisy, and heavy equipment functions which currently exist incompatibly at the base of the mountain in the heart of the ASPEN SKIING COMPANY • BOX 1248 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 • PHONE 303/925 -1220 Members of. the Planning Commission June 21, 1985 Page 4 tourist environment. The snow cat shop and all of its clutter will be removed from the base which will significantly improve the area, creating a visually more attractive site and eliminating an annoying source of noise to the neighborhood which currently exists. 2. The plan also relocates and consolidates restaurant snow cat service functions. These will be provided from a new building, with a new loading dock consolidating these activities, which places them in a location less offensive and less noisy to all neighbors in the vicinity. 3. Hunter and Dean Street access will be landscaped and significantly improved to provide attractive and easy pedestrian and skier access to the lifts and other base area activities. The plan indicates pedestrian access off of Durant Street. The rights to this access exist by virtue of easements obtained by the Aspen Skiing Company over two separate parcels owned by the City of Aspen and Stan Johnson, respectively. These easements grant a right of-. pedestrian - access over both of these parcels, regardless of any future development which may occur on either of these parcels. The City and the Aspen Skiing Company have for some time been considering the undergrounding of the pumphouse and utlizing the City -owned property for pedestrian access to the mountain. 4. The base area plan upgrades service on and up the mountain by the construction of either a detachable quad chair lift or a six place gondola. In either case, lift service will be provided on Litle Nell to serve special events, ski instructions and secondary access to the number 5 lift. This will be accomplished via a midway unloading station or a relocated number 4 lift. 5. The plan makes available to this community the highest quality hotel accomodations. As conceived this will be the finest hotel in Aspen and one of the best in the state. The Aspen Skiing Company and its owners will bring to this project and the community the financial wherewithall and development expertise needed to make the project a success. The redevelopment also makes available renovated and improved commercial space for the provision of quality ski - oriented retail services at the base of Aspen Mountain solving some of the current problems of unsightliness, overcrowding, and poor skier and pedestrian access to the current retail spaces. Further, it will create a much improved public base area with improved and expanded base lodge facilities. The base area facilities will provide a full range of services to the skiing public, including lockers and ski storage facilities, ASPEN SKIING COMPANY • BOX 1248 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PHONE 303/925 -1220 Members of the Planning Commission June 21, 1985 Page 5 public restrooms, ski school and skier service offices, ski rental and repair, food and beverage service, all of which represent a major and significant improvement over existing conditions and services. 6. The construction of a first -class luxury hotel will create an extremely attractive, social focal point to serve as a symbol of quality emphasizing that Aspen Mountain is the premier ski experience in North America. Its varied and challenging terrain has given Aspen Mountain a reputation as a unique and quality ski experience. The purpose of this plan is to deliver base facilities that compliment the mountain and make the statement and reaffirmation of the high quality for which Aspen became famous. The hotel aims to provide excellent services to both guests and local residents. The hotel will include restaurant space and an expanded, improved deck to replace the popular Little Nell deck area. The quality of devel opment envisioned for the new.-hoteL- -will allow for. better after ski activities than currently exist at the Little Nell building. Although the number of employees to be generated has yet to be determined, it is the intention of the Aspen Skiing Company to satisfy the employee housing requirements at an offsite location. While this is a conceptual S.P.A. submission, we have nonetheless evaluated the extension, upgrading, relocation and other considerations pertaining to utilities for the site. We acknowledge that some relocation and upgrading of utilities will probably need to be undertaken. A detailed analysis of the utilities is more appropriate at the time of application for approval of a precise plan for the S.P.A. area and during the GMP submission. Items such as undergrounding the city pumphouse have been discussed and are contemplated. Utilities will be relocated to more suitable locations and upgraded and extended as necessary. The Little Nell area as presently constituted detracts from the quality image of Aspen Mountain and Aspen in general. The existing building is decrepit with numerous structural and roofing problems. The entrance to the mountain, currently occupied by on grade automobile drop off parking, presents an unsightly and constricting entrance to the mountain. By this plan the Aspen Skiing Company seeks to create a much improved and more visually pleasing ASPEN SKIING COMPANY • BOX 1248 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PHONE 303/925 -1220 Members of the Planning Commission June 21, 1985 Page 6 gateway- entrance to the base of North America's finest ski mountain. D. ADJUSTMENT OF S.P.A. BOUNDARY As part of this Conceptual Plan Submission, the Aspen Skiing Company seeks to adjust the boundary of the property designated S.P.A. to include more land within the S.P.A. designation to accomodate the total base activity. Adjusting the boundary to include this additional area is justified by the unique characteristics of the parcel and because the City feels this property fulfills the intents and purposes of the S.P.A. designation. We do not seek a boundary adjustment to the S.P.A. CC area. All the property presently zoned S.P.A. CC will remain S.P.A. CC and no additional CC will be added to the S.P.A., and no property currently zoned C- Conservation is sought to be changed to be CC. Rather we seek to extend S.P.A. designation to portions of the conservation zone presently under Aspen Skiing Company ownership. Because of the plan to leave the CC zone intact, _we anticipate - requesting approval for variations from several zoning standards. In the C zone, both commercial and lodging uses are contemplated. In the CC zone, it is anticipated that the FAR standard may be varied. It is not possible for us to calculate the actual FAR until the policy for calculation is reviewed with the planning staff, the Planning Commission and City Council. We offer the following support of our request for adjusting the S.P.A. boundary. 1. The structure, which will occupy the expanded site includes a full mixture of uses to include lodging, commercial, ski area facilities, and parking. 2. Parking and ski area facilities are permitted as conditional uses in the conservation zone; the re- drawing of the S.P.A. boundary line allows the opportunity to develop a more flexible site plan and allows for a unified, coordinated review of the Aspen Skiing Company's entire plan for development in the area. After thorough study and investigation of the site, it is clear that numerous ski area administration functions and skier support activities logically belong in the proposed building. Putting these sorts of uses in the building instead of having higher intensity CC uses that would be permitted in the CC zone reduces impacts and a less intense land use is achieved. 3. The re- drawing of this boundary line constitutes a minor amendment to the current zoning map. The re- drawing of this line respects natural topography and represents a sincere attempt to keep new building structures at the ASPEN SKIING COMPANY BOX 1248 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PHONE 303 /925 -1220 Members of the Planning Commission June 21, 1985 Page 7 existing base of Aspen Mountain. This Conceptual Plan does not propose to construct buildings on the mountain side or to do anything which would further constrict or interfere with the skiing experience on Aspen Mountain. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this application. The members of the development team listed on the attached sheet are available to discuss any questions you might have on this application. Respectfully submitted, The Aspen Skiing Company By Peter Forsch, Project Manager ASPEN SKIING COMPANY • BOX 1248 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PHONE 303/925 -1220 Members of the Planning Commission June 21, 1985 Page 8 DEVELOPMENT TEAM Peter Forsch, Project Manager Aspen Skiing Company P.O. Box 1248 Aspen, CO Larry Yaw, Architect Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd. 210 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO Bill Kane, Planner Design Workshop, Inc. 710 E. Durant Aspen, CO Gideon I. Kaufman, Attorney Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C. 315 E. Hyman Aspen, CO plan approval /DOC8 ASPEN SKIING COMPANY • BOX 1248 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 • PHONE 303/925-1220 • BACKGROUND 23 years ago the Aspen Skiing Company began planning for a hotel at the base of Little Nell. That hotel was conceived principly using some economic parameters and, as initially planned, was too big for the site. Sensing neighborhood and community objections, that plan was never submitted and the whole concept lay dormant for a couple of years while we assessed the possibilities for that area especially in light of the capital infusion that is taking place up on the mountain. The current project before Council has been designed from the outside in. That is, we looked at the area; the surrounding uses and size of buildings; community needs, desires, perceptions and views. The result was a building that fit the site. From there we worked on the functions within that building. Even though other projects have recently received approvals we feel there remains a need for a small, luxury hotel in conjunction with a whole base area redevelopment. In addition to the hotel, the goals for the base include: 1. Moving the maintenance facility out of the base and up the hill. 2. Cleaning up the entire Little Nell site by rebuilding the base facilities and adding to those facilities such new or improved services as ski school and guest service offices, public restrooms, public lockers and ski storage. 3. Provide for ski area administration, ticket, and adjustment offices. 4. Create a grand entrance plaza that is an appropriate arrival experience to the mountain. 5. Create /maintain the base area vitality and excitement with improved food and beverage service. 6. Build either a detachable quad chairlift or a gondola to eliminate congestion and create better access to the mountain for all levels of skiers. The Aspen Skiing Company can bring to this project its considerable resources to insure a timely and quality development not subject to the financing uncertainties. CITY OF ASPEN LANEPC(SE PROCESS The application to the City for conceptual approval and S.P.A. boundary change is unique because of the adoption of a new Specially Planned Area (S.P.A.) ordinance. S.P.A. is an overlay zoning applicable only to three sites in Aspen (Little Nell base, Rio Grande property, and the Aspen Meadows property). All these sites are deemed sensitive and critical to the community. The S.P.A. conceptual plan review process affords the community the opportunity, through its City Council and the P & Z, to review the submission to determine if it should be given the go -ahead to proceed to the next steps in the process which is precise plan and G.M.P. allocation. We are now seeking conceptual approval. This step in the process is to determine whether there is anything in this submission that should not be conceptually approved, or any impacts that cannot be mitigated. The Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed this application, and, at its meeting on September 3, 1985, recommended to the City Council that it approve the conceptual plan subject to certain conditions that P & Z also recommends the City Council adopt. We expect City Council to review thoroughly P & Z's recommendations and add to, delete or amend them. With these conditions attached, City Council will then decide whether to approve or deny the conceptual plan as submitted. CONCEPTUAL PLAN - WHAT WE PROPOSE At the September 23rd Council meeting we will have a formal slide presentation of our plans, however, I have attached a copy of our press release, fact sheet, illustrative site plan and rendering for your information. The hotel will occupy most of the eastern part of the site with ground floor commercial and skier services fronting Durant Street and wrapping around the building to the west fronting what will be the Hunter and Dean Street pedestrian plazas. The area under the lift terminal will be part of the commercial /skier services /ski area administrative spaces. - 2- Our application alb; asks for a boundary adjustment to the S.P.A. overlay to include the flat area at the base of the hill. This is an order to create a unified parcel for planning and development purposes that can be taken through the land use processes as one piece, and which will contain the total base area proposed for redevelopment including the lift terminals at the base. Technically, the purpose of the hearing scheduled for September 23, 1985, is for City Council to determine whether the conceptual plan as submitted complies with the requirements set forth in the newly adopted S.P.A. ordinance that allows approval for a conceptual plan. Basically, this is a planning determination as to whether the uses and structures, from a conceptual standpoint, proposed for the site are appropriate. We are confident that most everyone would agree that the nature of the uses and structures we propose are extremely appropriate for the site, and in keeping with its historic usage. There is, however, another element that will be considered at this hearing. While it is not technically a part of this stage of the S.P.A. review process, it is most critical to our ability to proceed with our plans for the area. For this project to be built, we have to receive a G.M.P. quota allocation under the G.M.P. lodge competition for the number of units proposed for the hotel. We will be asking the City to borrow from future quotas so that we may have our quota all at once and know we will be able to build the project. This is the critical issue because the City Council must determine and give us some feedback on the public policy question of whether it wants to grant future year allocations. The Growth management Plan (B.M.P.) was developed in the mid 70's to control the boomtown type growth that could be so harmful to our valley and resort. To date, it has worked relatively well, as we have not experienced the rapid, sometime shoddy overdevelopment that has occurred in other communities. However, one of the drawbacks is that because of the highly controlled and limited development, especially in the lodging sector, there has - 3 - been little competition 'bf' incentive to upgrade lodging facilities. With an annual quota of 35 units per year, unless the developer plans a very small project, the developer has had to come back in year after year to compete for enough units to begin a project. This simply does not work from a development or economic perspective. The City Council realized this, and in 1983, awarded future year allocations to the Aspen Mountain Lodge project which in essence awarded the quotas for the years 1983 through 1987. In determining that the quota through 1987 was utilized, the City decided that even though the developers of the Aspen Mountain Lodge were going to eliminate two lodges, containing a total of 44 units, from the lodging inventory by deed restricting them for us as employee housing, this number of units was not credited back to the lodge inventory. The Planning Office had recommended that the lodge units lost from the lodging pool should have been credited to available lodge quota. If this were done, there would be quota available right now in 1985. Even if we must assume that the City Council will continue to adhere to this position and, therefore, quota will not be available until 1987, awarding quotas for these future years would be appropriate under the circumstances of our proposed project. We anticipate 1987 as the most optimistic date for groundbreaking for the Little Nell hotel, and a two year construction period. This means the doors would open some time in 1989. The hotel has 96 rooms. Thus, if we utilize a quota of 35 units per year for 1987, 1988, and 1989 there is a total of 105 units available which is more than we need for a 96 -room hotel. The awarding of the quota is consistent with when that growth will come on line. But no matter how the quota is computed, and whether it is future quota to 1987, 1989 or 1991; the fort of the matter is that there are significant community benefits to this project. We feel that the City Council would not be borrowing from the City's future, but instead insuring its future. - 4 - SUMMARY This overview is not able to cover all of the technical issues, myriad details and other opinions involved with our proposed Little Nell project. It is, I hope, a fair representation of the basic facts and issues. - 5 - • a �R.r �") ASPEN S N AMERICAS #1 SRI RLSORT OWS MAS ASPEN SKIING COMPANY INTRODUCES PLANS FOR BASE REDEVELOPMENT fri Aspen Skiing Company has initiated planning for redevelopment of facilities at Little Nell at the base of Aspen Mountain. The redevelopment is one of the most significant in -town projects the Company has embarked upon in its history -- due to the impact it will have on the visitor to the Aspen community. Little Nell at the base of Aspen Mountain serves as ASPEN SKIING COMPANY a gateway for skiers and summer visitors and with the proposed Post Office Box 1248 improvement will showcase the quality of both the resort and the Aspen, Colorado ti through 281612 mountain rou h careful and innovative planning and integration 303/925 -1220 9 P 9 ration 9 of land use elements. Aspen Mountain Buttermilk Mountain Proposed for the site is a 96 room luxury hotel, restaurant Snowmass and commercial space and improved skier services facilities. In addition to the overall base area improvement one of the more significant details of the redevelopment include relocation of heavy equipment and grooming vehicle maintenance shop to an on- mountain location. This will reduce noise and unsightly operations in the heart of the tourist environment. Considerable landscaping to create attractive and functional pedestrian access to lifts and base area activities are planned for Hunter, Dean and Durant Street areas. Additionally, Aspen Skiing Company plans to build either a detachable quad (four passenger) chairlift or six passenger gondola on the Little Nell site to upgrade and increase lift capacity out of the area. Easier and more attractive access to retail and commercial shops will result from careful design that will facilitate pedestrian traffic flow. Among the services that will be located in the base area are lockers and ski storage, ski rentals and repairs, ski school and skier services offices, special events areas, and public restrooms. The popular Little Nell restaurant and deck area will be expanded and vastly improved. The hotel at Little Nell is conceived to be the ultimate in accommodations and service, ranking it among the best in North America. Aspen Skiing Company plans to take advantage of the expertise and experience its owners bring to the project in designing the hotel and its operation with the highest quality guest experience in mind. NEWS enhance entire base area redevelopment and hotel will ultimately ce both the efficiency and image of the area and reduce impacts on land use while creating an attractive, modern, high RELEASE quality gateway to the premier resort in the United States. LITTLE NELL BASE AREA AND HOTEL DEVELOPMENT Fact Sheet Location: Little Nell at the Base of Aspen Mountain, Specially Planned Area (S.P.A.) Commercial Core zoning. Description: 4 story building at the base of Little Nell, Aspen Mountain which will include a hotel and hotel accessory spaces along with commercial, food and beverage, and ski area operations facilities. - 77,718 sq. ft. hotel and common space - 15,668 sq. ft. hotel subgrade space - 16,078 sq. ft. commercial (replacing existing 13,396 sq. ft. commercial) - 9,976 sq. ft. ski area facilities - 77 subgrade parking spaces Improvement will require relocation of maintenance shop to an on- mountain site. Proposed uses: Hotel lodging in 96 luxury rooms Commercial retail space Restaurant and deck space Skier facilities ski school skier services offices food and beverage special events accommodations child care center lockers and ski storage rentals and repair public restrooms Architect: Larry Yaw, Hagman Yaw Architects Ltd. Site Planners: Design Workshop Inc. Legal Council: Gideon Kaufman Project Manager: Peter Forsch, Aspen Skiing Company Proposed start date: Optimum - Spring 1987 Proposed construction period: 20 month construction • - , .... e C til > 1:1 . ! I= la 4) .::. - 4 i ' 4.) E 2 - . - ,.! 44 2 : r■4 142.1 4) a 4 cc. ..4 , ::: : g • •F4 o-2 U) 0 ..-, ' : = .4 p -4 : : 2 : 2 4 - - 4- .4 4 4 – ‘ ..;:g: tueo-:Ot: 2-2- : 2 0 LU 1 'C. 1 1Z � > ) :LL '17;;' §- 1 - , 1 . . ccuT il E: -_-- - L. ELI4 _an mi I _.: _Lill —1 ; ----- ___- - _ - ----- _ .11 : 111,1I1 um i _ _______ .... ..) \,. --- - t: Rit "*. - - -- -- _ II. Ilion 4 0 up. c , • 4 , k --- _ - -, . .. _-. e in=7. _ ,, e•qe - ..-..... .IL , - - 4 ' -- -: 0 I 7. ::: aH -tr . .__I , - k. I i .0 1 '10 :1 - n--- *tx N :I 2 i . ( • la . 247 • 4 1 1 ... 7 4 IN 2 Av .;' 1 t... . - NS . , 1—• 4 -1 -1 \ 4 t- 3 . - . CM .0 1 .........4_„.:•.. ' 11 •• ...) flat r 3 W. .* I 1 -t , . . 1 1 / ,.• 'e i --1 >• - 44 l \\4 0 0 ) ir, v. ,, s ... _ ________,==,. .,_., .1. _ N., N N ,... , , is. is. .0, ---NN F '4 4 \'N ' ' . -, 1 .. .. ---. . . , . . --- N /--------Th kJ" c . t I .., 'al t ,, I- " t A N y1 ri x IV: Wirt r. iffiri`. .:<,_ 11 ill. � '' -J _ +`u I _� -,-- „gyp _ C ` -pit "NA I, .1 ��a- i� R( -l.� , 1 `'( RIl N i 1 4 d a e, s r .` 4I li a, i yam -.n ` " �J ':� it fi Y i l t. i - �{ ._ ,. ,�� ,it trir t -1 k ri4 • IN ' ,.{ ri y " T r t r ' " ik iu s � , �;; a 1 kt om i,,c ; I. 'aitli t LODGING UNITS + + + + N N co w co A a A N cn CO C) A N 0 N O CO 0 N CO 0 0 a 01 O D A , V V D O) V CO W 0 Co I CO L - - ' + , 1 1 1 n co N - -� , 1 1 w --- -- -----� I I 0 a C Vs A • G MI 1 "I rig m 0) 01 L Y T = Z 2 01 m % � 0 CO • 0 E 0) CO % < 0%1 0 . x P r m PPP'?' 4'' %; y r rrr: �:s ri CFO 0 0) F_ � 7 1 • 0 0 3 I'% p 1 O m 5S 1 �� p 4 ; $ Z L/ O a m S r 1 1• % . CO CA 2 C S O NN 4 w 5 • • S 4 -I • � C 6 • • H DRAFT CONDITIONS STATEMENT - LITTLE NELL CONCEPTUAL SPA A. In the "WHEREAS" statements, the P &Z should make findings that: 1. The proposed mix of uses is an appropriate one and meets the intent of designating this site with an SPA overlay. 2. The requested extension of the boundary of the SPA overlay into the Conservation zone provides public benefit by integrating the planning for the lifts with the remainder of the base area redevelopment plan. The redesignation meets the test of the Code due to the unique location of the parcel at the gateway to Aspen Mountain and the potential year -round recreational benefits to the community which can be provided on this site. 3. There should be findings pro or con regarding the request for future years' allocations based on the growth policy discussion. B. Following are the conditions which come from the Planning Office's memo of August 6, as modified by the P &Z's discussion of that night, and as modified by public and P &Z comments from the meeting on August 20. 1. The applicant shall work with the Zoning Official to determine whether the open space provided on the site meets the requirements of Section 24 -3.7 of the Code. (Note: The problem we identified with no open space frontage on Durant Street may be resolved by the frontage along Dean Street.) 2. The applicant shall, in the Precise Plan submission, request a variance of the project's FAR from 1.5:1 to about 1.8:1, since the land zoned Conservation does not count toward the overall project FAR. (Note: The applicant could also request a Special Review FAR Bonus to 1.7:1 by providing employee housing off -site, and would thereby reduce the extent of the variance being requested.) 3. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the parking needs of the facility to meet the demands from the lodge rooms, administrative offices, commercial spaces and skier support facilities, and should adjust the size of the parking facility accordingly. 4. The applicant shall continue to evaluate the impact of the hotel on the views of Aspen Mountain from Hunter Street, and propose any design changes which will reduce any obstruc- tions of the mountain from the corner of Cooper or Hyman Avenues on Hunter Street. Detailed architectural renderings and elevations shall be provided at the Precise Plan stage. 5. The applicant shall provide detailed grading plans for the earth work which is proposed to occur at the base area, including any activity associated with the new lifts which may fall outside of the SPA boundary, and shall identify the locations for any material deposition which is to occur. 6. The applicant shall evaluate the applicability of the City's 8040 greenline and mountain viewplane review procedures to the proposed development. Should it be found that either review procedure applies, the applicant will submit the necessary materials at the Precise Plan stage demonstrating compliance with the review criteria of the Code. 7. The applicant shall revise the site plan to indicate an auto - taxi -limo drop -off facility of adequate size, to be located within the boundaries of the applicant's property and not within the City right -of -way. 8. The applicant shall provide a detailed analysis of the proposed service yards on Spring Street and Dean Street, demonstrating that adequate space has been provided for truck stacking and that proper turning movements can be accomplished within these streets. The applicant shall also confer with the Environmental Health Department as to any air and water quality devices which may need to be installed in these areas (and in the parking facility for cars). The applicant shall work with the North of Nell and Tippler management entities and shall try to accommodate the service delivery needs of these buildings in a single location off Dean Street. Finally, the applicant shall demonstrate that the service delivery area on Dean Street will not cause safety problems for pedestrians on Dean Street or nuisance problems for the residents of the North of Nell, and that the needs of the facility could not otherwise be met by a single facility on Spring Street. 9. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the adequacy of Durant, Spring and Dean Streets to handle the vehicle traffic volumes associated with skiers, hotel guests, employees, service vehicles, and visitors to the commercial uses and shall propose appropriate mitigation measures to address any traffic problems which will result from the project. 10. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the geologic hazard on Aspen Mountain as it affects this site and shall demonstrate that any hazard posed to the property can and will be fully mitigated. The applicant shall also investigate the soils hydrology in the area to demonstrate the suitability of the site for development purposes. 11. The applicant shall provide a solution to the pumphouse relocation problem and shall agree to implement said solution at the applicant's cost. 12. The applicant shall provide detailed drawings of the new base lifts demonstrating that these buildings are visually compatible with the base area and that they will not be used for the storage of chairs or gondolas. 13. The applicant shall demonstrate how lift service will be provided on Little Nell for special events, ski instruc- tions and for secondary access to Lift 5. 14. The applicant shall provide housing for employees of the project in a manner acceptable to the Housing Author- ity. The number of employees to be housed will be determin- ed at the Precise Plan stage, based on the applicant's commitments as part of the growth management plan applica- tion. 15. The applicant shall provide a shadow study of the effects of the building along Durant Street. 16. The applicant shall demonstrate the techniques to be employed on the roof of the hotel to manage the snowload to insure that it does not interfere with or endanger pedes- trians below. 17. The applicant shall demonstrate that an adequate setback has been provided from the land within the Park zone near the Aspen Alps. 18. The applicant shall provide a trail easement through the property connecting the Ute Avenue Trail with the base of Aspen Mountain trail and will include any required ramps for bicycles or other trail facilities in their site plan at the precise plan stage. 19. The applicant shall make every effort to increase the extent of the pedestrian gateway to the project so as to make it a more "grand" entrance to the mountain. 20. The applicant shall demonstrate that all questions as to the ownership of the Hunter Avenue right -of -way have been resolved, and that permanent guarantees of the availa- bility of Hunter and Dean Streets for pedestrian access have been provided. The applicant will also demonstrate that the boundary questions adjacent to the Tippler have been resolved, and the SPA boundary designation shall be adjusted accordingly. 21. The applicant shall provide the Environmental Health Department with detailed information on any fireplaces which will be included in the project, demonstrating their compliance with applicable Code provisions. 22. The applicant shall demonstrate at the precise plan stage that drainage from Aspen Mountain and from the development site will be retained on -site. 23. The applicant will take into account in the precise plan the historic access pattern of skiers using the land behind the Tipple Lodge as a means of getting to the Little Nell base and will demonstrate that no barriers to such access have been created. 24. Final approval of the proposed SPA boundary change shall only occur in conjunction with final approval of the precise plan for the project. 25. In the event that the growth allocations for the project shall expire, the boundary of the SPA shall revert to its prior configuration. AR.9 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Little Nell Conceptual SPA DATE: August 20, 1985 Attached for your review is a draft conditions statement for the Little Nell Conceptual SPA. This draft is based on the Planning Office's memo of August 6, as modified by the P &Z's discussion of that night. Also attached is a reprint of the SPA boundary change discus- sion and the growth policy discussion, and the summary, all from the Planning Office memo dated August 6, 1985, since these are our major topics for tonight. I have not updated this analysis since that night, but would intend to verbally address the key issues at your meeting. Please let me know if you need any additional material prior to the meeting. REPRINT OF PORTION OF PACKET MEMO DATED AUGUST 6, 1985 RE: CONCEPTUAL SPA SUBMISSION - LITTLE NELL BASE REDEVELOPMENT SPA BOUNDARY CHANGE The applicant proposes to adjust the boundary of the area designated with an SPA overlay. The applicant does not request any change in the extent of the area designated as CC. Instead, it is proposed that an SPA designation be placed over approximately 1 acre of property currently designated only as conservation. The applicant's zoning boundary change differs significantly from that which was considered and eventually denied by City Council in 1983, The extent of the area requested for SPA designation is considerably less than that previously identified and corresponds directly to that area in which the hotel, commercial and ski support facilities are to be located at the toe of the slope. In fact, by extending the boundary, we insure that the location of the lifts is considered at the same time as the remainder of the base area develop- ment. We find that the increase in the SPA boundary does meet the test of being unique and providing public benefit in that it permits integrated planning of the lift locations in conjunction with the remainder of the base area development. Without the SPA Overlay, our review of the ski lifts would be limited to the conditional use review process. The Planning Office supports the proposed boundary adjustment with the following qualifications: a. The area designated C -SPA is not used in the calculation of the FAR for the project, due to the rationale noted above. b. Final approval of the boundary change should only occur in conjunction with final approval of the precise plan for the project. Therefore, if the Planning Commission supports this request, it should forward a favorable recommendation to Council, which should accomplish a first but not second reading of the ordinance. c. In the event that final approval of the project expires, the boundary of the SPA should revert to its prior configuration until a new conceptual and precise plan is submitted. GNATS POLICY ISSUES Under the provisions of Ordinance 20, the applicants will not submit their growth management application until the precise plan is sub- mitted. Council recently changed the due date for lodge allocation submission other than L -3 from October 1 to December 1. Therefore, you can expect a lodge GMP application from this applicant on December 1 of 1985 or October 1 of 1986. Even though we are not yet reviewing the GMP application at this time, the Planning Office believes that the question of the allocation itself is a conceptual issue. Presuming for the moment that the applicant is successful in meeting the competitive threshold, we feel the Commission and the Council should inform the applicant of the likelihood of obtaining the allocation for this project. We pose this issue because of the unique circumstances associated with this year's lodge competition. As you recall, the City granted an allocation of 172 lodge units to the Aspen Mountain PUD. This allocation consisted of 32 lodge units unallocated from prior years, and the full 35 unit per year allocation for 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. In effect, the lodge quota available for this year and next year is 0. Section 24 -11.3 (b) of the Municipal Code provides that: 1 "(b) The City Council may (but need not) grant a development allotment for an entire project to be constructed over a period of years provided that each year during the scheduled construc- tion the annual allotment provided for in Section 24 -11.1 shall be reduced by the amount of construction permitted by the approval." Therefore, it is clear from the above language that the City can award an allocation to this project from the 1987, 1988 and most (26 of 35) units of the 1989 quotas. Therefore, the question for us to analyze is whether the City should, from a planning and development perspec- tive, award such an allocation. In the opinion of the Planning Office, the key consideration in awarding a future allocation is that we have approved a series of lodge projects in recent years which have not yet been occupied and whose impacts have yet to be felt. Included within this list are the following projects: 1. Aspen Mountain Lodge (275 rebuilt units, 172 new units) 2. Hotel Jerome POD (28 rebuilt units in Phase I, 11 rebuilt and 67 new units in Phase II). 3. Sardy House (19 new lodge units). 4. Nugget Lodge (35 rebuilt units, 13 new units). 5. Independence Lodge (29 new units added as a change in use from long to short term). The above projects amount to about 350 rebuilt units and 300 new units in the Aspen Lodging inventory. None of the new units have yet been occupied, and only the Nugget Lodge (Hotel Aspen) has had its rebuilt units occupied. Other projects which have recently been occupied include the 14 rebuilt and 4 new units at the Hotel Lenado, and the 35 rebuilt and 3 new units at The Aspen (Applejack) . Units which are proposed to be removed from the inventory include the 14 at the Copper Horse and 40 at the Alpina Haus. The reconstruction of old lodging units, along with the renovation of existing commercial space and the Aspen Mountain Skiing Area, are viewed as desirable developments because they contribute to the revitalization of the resort. However, the Planning Office feels that there will be significant impacts upon the community from the construction of additional lodge units at this time. We are very concerned about the impacts of the added cars upon our major streets and about the availability of on- street parking for these vehicles. We are concerned about the adequacy of our transit facilities, particularly the Rubey Park Terminal, and also about the room at our airport terminal to handle this accelerated rate of growth. It does appear, however, that we have the water and sewer capacity to handle this added number of units. It is our understanding that one express purpose of managing our rate of growth is to phase the impacts of projects on the community by insuring that numerous units are not built at once. Although we recognize the importance of renovating the Little Nell base area, having just approved the Aspen Mountain Lodge and Hotel Jerome, we find it difficult to imagine that we would add a third major hotel facility at the same time. We feel that it is in the community's best interests to allow at least the Aspen Mountain Lodge to come on line and to experience its impacts before we allow yet another facility to be constructed. Furthermore, another express purpose of our growth management system is to insure that balance exists among our growth sectors. By accelerating the rate of lodge growth at one time, we may create imbalances in sectors such as skiing and commercial space, as well as in our overall summer- winter balance. The Commission and Council should also be aware that the impacts of the Sardy House and Hotel Jerome projects on the lodge quota have yet 2 to be accounted for. When a building permit is issued for the new units in these projects, we will have to further deplete our already nonexistent lodge quota, meaning that, in effect, we have already awarded these projects the available quota for 1987, 1988 and part (16 units) of the 1989 quota. Therefore, the Little Nell Base Redevelop- ment project should be seen as requesting the remainder of the quota for 1989, 1990 and 1991 (less 3 units). SUMMARY: The Little Nell Base Redevelopment presents the community with a very important set of tradeoffs to consider. On the one hand, the community is presented with an opportunity to upgrade the entry point to its most important recreational asset. Rey improvements include the visual benefits of removing the surface parking and maintenance functions; circulation benefits of better pedestrian access to the lifts and ticketing function; and recreational benefits of improved skiing and commercial facilities at the base area. There are a variety of technical issues which must be addressed to insure that the project "can be planned and developed in a manner which provides the greatest public benefit" as is the purpose of its designation as an SPA. Issues to be resolved include parking, open space, FAR, hazards, transit, service delivery, employee housing, utility relocations, roads, grading and visibility. None of these issues is technically beyond resolution, although they do tend to indicate the magnitude of the impacts this project will have on the community. The growth policy issue, is, in our opinion, a threshold question with regard to this project. Although we could defer consideration of this issue until such time as the project has been scored and an allocation is pending, we feel this is the wrong course to take. The applicants will be expending a great deal of time and effort if this conceptual SPA is approved. We feel that they deserve the full benefit of our thinking at this time, before further studies are authorized. Furthermore, we think that the issue of future allocations is crucial to the basic concept proposed herein and is justifiably to be consid- ered at this time. As noted above, the Municipal Code provides a mechanism by which a future lodge allocation can be granted to the applicants. It is the Planning Office's recommendation that an allocation which will take the lodge quota through the year 1991 not be granted to this project. We feel that the community must take the time to evaluate the direct and secondary impacts of the growth which we have approved, based on experiencing the effects of these projects. To add yet another project to the backlog of approved units is, in our opinion, poor planning, and contrary to our adopted growth policies. If the Commission concurs with our finding that the issue of future allocations is integral to the conceptual SPA review, we recommend that you recommend to the Council the denial of the hotel portion of this project. We stronly support and recommend approval of the reconstruction of the commercial, administrative and skier support spaces, the replacement of the base lift, the upgrade of the pedes- trian circulation corridors and the removal of the maintenance facilities from the base area. If, on the other hand, the Commission feels that it is preferable to evaluate the issue of future alloca- tions in the context of the precise plan, following its GMP scoring, then we feel the entire conceptual SPA can be approved, with numerous conditions based on the review comments herein. Any such approval should be strictly conditioned on the finding that no reliance is being given as to the project's ability to obtain the full lodge quota requested at this time. This approval will also have to be withheld at least until such time as we conduct the duly noticed public hearing on the proposed SPA boundary change, scheduled for your next regular meeting on August 20. 3 DRAFT CONDITIONS STATEMENT - LITTLE NELL CONCEPTUAL SPA A. In the "WHEREAS" statements, the P &Z should make findings that: 1. The proposed mix of uses is an appropriate one and meets the intent of designating this site with an SPA overlay. 2. The requested extension of the boundary of the SPA overlay into the Conservation zone provides public benefit by integrating the planning for the lifts with the remainder of the base area redevelopment plan. 3. There should be findings pro or con regarding the request for future years' allocations, to be determined by tonight's discussion. B. Following are the conditions which come from the Planning Office's memo of August 6, as modified by the P &Z's discussion of that night. 1. The applicant shall work with the Zoning Official to determine whether the open space provided on the site meets the requirements of Section 24 -3.7 of the Code. (Note: The problem we identified with no open space frontage on Durant Street may be resolved by the frontage along Dean Street.) 2. The applicant shall, in the Precise Plan submission, request a variance of the project's FAR from 1.5:1 to about 1.8:1, since the land zoned Conservation does not count toward the overall project FAR. (Note: The applicant could also request a Special Review FAR Bonus to 1.7:1 by providing employee housing off -site, and would thereby reduce the extent of the variance being requested.) 3. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the parking needs of the facility to meet the demands from the lodge rooms, administrative offices, commercial spaces and skier support facilities, and should adjust the size of the parking facility accordingly. 4. The applicant shall continue to evaluate the impact of the hotel on the views of Aspen Mountain from Hunter Street, and propose any design changes which will reduce any obstruc- tions of the mountain from the corner of Cooper or Hyman Avenues on Hunter Street. Detailed architectural renderings and elevations shall be provided at the Precise Plan stage. 5. The applicant shall provide detailed grading plans for the earth work which is proposed to occur at the base area and shall identify the locations for any material deposition which is to occur. 6. The applicant shall evaluate the applicability of the City's 8040 greenline and mountain viewplane review procedures to the proposed development. Should it be found that either review procedure applies, the applicant will submit the necessary materials at the Precise Plan stage demonstrating compliance with the review criteria of the Code. 7. The applicant shall revise the site plan to indicate an auto - taxi -limo drop -off facility of adequate size, to be located within the boundaries of the applicant's property and not within the City right -of -way. 4 8. The applicant shall provide a detailed analysis of the proposed service yards on Spring Street and Dean Street, demonstrating that adequate space has been provided for truck stacking and that proper turning movements can be accomplished within these streets. The applicant shall also confer with the Environmental Health Department as to any air and water quality devices which may need to be installed in these areas (and in the parking facility for cars). The applicant shall work with the North of Nell and Tippler management entities and shall try to accommodate the service delivery needs of these buildings in a single location off Dean Street. Finally, the applicant shall demonstrate that the service delivery area on Dean Street will not cause safety problems for pedestrians on Dean Street or nuisance problems for the residents of the North of Nell. 9. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the adequacy of Durant, Spring and Dean Streets to handle the vehicle traffic volumes associates wit skiers, hotel guests, employees and visitors to the commercial uses and shall propose appropriate mitigation measures to address any traffic problems which will result from the project. 10. The applicant shall provide a detailed, technical study of the geologic hazard on Aspen Mountain as it affects this site and shall demonstrate that no hazard can and will be fully mitigated. 11. The applicant shall provide a solution to the pumphouse relocation problem and shall agree to implement said solution at the applicant's cost. 12. The applicant shall provide detailed drawings of the new base lifts demonstrating that these buildings are visually compatible with the base area and that they will not be used for the storage of chairs or gondolas. 13. The applicant shall demonstrate how lift service will be provided on Little Nell for special events, ski instructions and for secondary access to Lift 5. 14. The applicant shall provide housing for employees of the project in a manner acceptable to the Housing Authority. The number of employees to be housed will be determined at the Precise Plan stage, based on the applicant's commit- ments as part of the growth management plan application. 15. The applicant shall provide a shadow study of the effects of the building along Durant Street. 16. The applicant shall demonstrate the techniques to be employed on the roof of the hotel to manage the snowload to insure that it does not interfere with or endanger pedes- trians below. 17. The applicant shall demonstrate that an adequate setback has been provided from the land within the Park zone near the Aspen Alps. 18. The applicant shall provide a trail easement through the property connecting the Ute Avenue Trail with the base of Aspen Mountain trail and will include any required ramps or trail facilities in their site plan at the precise plan stage. 19. The applicant shall make every effort to increase the extent of the pedestrian gateway to the project so as to make it a more "grand" entrance to the mountain. 20. The applicant shall demonstrate that all questions as to the ownership of the Hunter Avenue right -of -way have been 5 resolved, and that permanent guarantees of the availability of Hunter and Dean Streets for pedestrian access have been provided. 21. The applicant shall provide the Environmental Health Department with detailed information on any fireplaces which will be included in the project, demonstrating their compliance with applicable Code provisions. 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Conceptual SPA Submission - Little Nell Base Redevelopment DATE: August 6, 1985 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) requests concep- tual SPA approval for the redevelopment of the Little Nell base area. The applicant also requests that the boundaries of the area designed as SPA be expanded. Presently, the SPA Overlay covers that portion of the site (about 43,000 square feet) which has a "CC" - Commercial Core zone designation. The applicant requests that the SPA be expanded to include about 45,000 additional square feet which is now designated "C" - Conservation, with no change in the C -zone designation being requested. APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: There are several sections of the newly adopted Ordinance 20 which are particularly pertinent to the appli- cant's request, including the following: "Section 24 -7.2 Procedure for Designation of Sites as SPA (a) Parcels of land shall be designated with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay or the boundaries of parcels already designated with an SPA shall be adjusted only following the procedures and requirements for amendments to the zoning map described in Article XII of this chapter, and by submitting a conceptual plan for development of the parcel, as described below." (c) In designating parcels with an SPA overlay, the Planning Commis- sion and City Council shall make findings as to the unique characteristics of the parcel which justify its designation with an SPA overlay, including how the parcel complies with the intents and purposes of this Article." "Section 24 -7.3 Conceptual Plan (a) An applicant for any site designated, or proposed to be designat- ed with an SPA Overlay shall submit a conceptual plan, for the purpose of establishing the objectives which the SPA designation is to achieve. The conceptual submission shall include a statement of the intent and a conceptual description of the type of development which is proposed to take place on the parcel, including but not limited to use categories, overall project density, and design concepts to be employed. The applicant shall consult with the Planning Director as to the submission requirements prior to the submission of the conceptual plan; however, as a general guide, it is not intended that the submission go into the technical detail required of conceptual subdivision or conceptual PUD." in my opinion, the key points regarding conceptual review which are contained in the above statements are as follows: 1. Adjustment of the boundaries of an SPA requires that rezoning procedures (i.e., public hearing before P &Z, Ordinance adoption by City Council) be followed. (Note: Due to an oversight by the Planning Office, the P &Z public hearing is scheduled for August 20 and not tonight.) 2. If P &Z supports the alteration of the Little Nell SPA boundaries, it must identify "the unique characteristics of the parcel which justify its designation with an SPA overlay." Therefore, we must make such findings with respect to the new area requested for designation if we are to support this request. 3. Conceptual SPA is a very broad review process, intended princi- pally to identify the overall type and form of development which is to take place on the parcel. In this respect, it is closer to a zoning process, which establishes the uses and area and bulk requirements for a parcel, than a subdivision or PUD process, which deals with design standards and technical feasibility of the project. These detailed concerns are more properly to be addressed at the precise plan stage which follows conceptual approval by Council. PLANNIIG OFFICE REVIEW: The Planning Office review of this project can be broken down into the following categories: 1. Major design issues, including referral comments; and 2. Growth policy issues. Following this review, a summary of the pros and cons of the project is presented, and a Planning Office recommendation is made. For a detailed summary description of the project and an analysis of the existing deficiences of the base area, we refer you directly to the materials provided by the applicant. MAJOR DESIGN ISSUES: 1. Use - The conceptual plan is the appropriate time to review the use categories proposed for the project. The uses proposed in the Little Nell Base Redevelopment are as follows: o Hotel - 96 rooms (approximately 77,700 sq. ft. above grade and 15,700 subgrade). Included in the hotel are various subgrade spaces serving skiers such as lockers and rest - rooms. o Commercial - Approximately 16,100 sq. ft., of which about 13,400 sq. ft. is requested for verification as existing space. (Note: This square footage is included in the above hotel size estimate.) o Ski Area Support Facilities - Approximately 10,000 square feet of subgrade space, some of which is a reconstruction of existing space (note: the applicant should clarify the breakdown of uses within this space and how much is a rebuild of existing offices and support areas for the purposes c:f establishing the commercial quota for which the applicant will be applying). This area is principally ski administration space, but also included in this category are the new lifts at the base area, for which no FAR has been provided. o Parking - 77 subgrade spaces are proposed, at a rate of .7 spaces per room (96 x .7 = 67) plus 10 spaces for key employees, in an area of about 30,000 square feet. The Planning Office believes that the proposed mix of uses is an appropriate one for this SPA site. The hotel use is a condition- al use in the CC zone, while the commercial uses are permitted in this zone. The ski area support facilities are an appropriate use of the land in the Conservation zone district. More will be said about the appropriateness of the proposed uses in the section of this memo concerning the proposed boundary change to the SPA overlay. However, at this point it is clear that the intrusion of the hotel and commercial area into the portion of the site zoned C, with an SPA overlay requested, would be a variation in the uses allowed in that district. 2 2. Area and Bulk Requirements - The key area and bulk requirements of the CC zone district which apply to this development are as follows: o Maximum Height - 40 feet - The building has been scaled at 46 feet to the top of the roof and appears to be able to meet the 40 foot limit to the midpoint of the roof. Final determination of compliance would be made at the precise Ilan stage. o Percent Open Space - 25% - If we include both the present and proposed SPA areas, the site contains about 88,862 square feet, of which 61,003 square feet are to be kept in open space (approximately 68.5% open space). However, according to the definition of open space in Section 24 -3.7 (d), open space must be open to the street and unobstructed from ground level and have a minimum street frontage of 100 feet and a minimum depth of 10 feet. The purpose of these provisions is to provide visual relief along the street from the mass of the buidling. Since the pedestrian plaza is not within the applicant's ownership, there is no area along the Durant Street frontage which meets this provision. Therefore, technically, the applicants have provided no open space relief for the project from the street, although significant open space is provided at the rear at the base of the ski runs which does substantially benefit the public, and within the plaza itself. The applicant will have to address this problem by either (a) obtaining title to the land included within the pedestrian plaza, (b) changing the design along Durant Street, or (c) requesting an open space variance for the provision of 0% open space. o External FAR - 1.5:1 - There are two possible methods to calculate the external FAR for the project. First, the FAR can be calculated based on the existing CC /SPA site, which would involve 43,124 square feet of lot area and 77,718 square feet of building, amounting to an FAR of 1.80:1. A second approach would be to include in the calculation the area zoned C, and proposed to have an SPA overlay placed on it. In this case, the site would be 88,862 square feet and the FAR would be 0.87:1. Based on the precedent set in the review of the Aspen Mountain Lodge, the land zoned C should not be included in the FAR calculation, since the uses proposed (hotel, commercial) are not permitted or condition- al uses in the C zone. Therefore, the applicant is request- ing a variance from the CC FAR from 1.5:1 to about 1.8:1). o Parking - There is no requirement for parking for lodging or commercial uses in the CC zone. There is also no parking requirement for lodge uses in the C zone, but the Code does require that parking for "all other uses," (i.e., the commercial space) receive Planning Commission review. Both the Engineering Department and the Planning Office have serious doubts about the adequacy of 77 spaces for a project of this magnitude. The application references "recent downtown parking studies" (presumably those for the Aspen Mountain POD) to justify this level of parking provision. We would like to see additional study of this issue to justify that the parking needs of the lodge rooms, adminis- trative offices, commercial spaces and skier support facilities are being met by this proposal. We would also note that the building is proposing to displace approxi- mately 30 parking spaces which now exist on the property, although only about 10 of these spaces are used year- round. 3. SPA Boundary Change - The applicant proposes to adjust the boundary of the area designated with an SPA overlay. The applicant does not request any change in the extent of the area 3 designated as CC. Instead, it is proposed that an SPA desig- nation be placed over approximately 1 acre of property currently designated only as conservation. The applicant's zoning boundary change differs significantly from that which was considered and eventually denied by City Council in 1983, The extent of the area requested for SPA designation is considerably less than that previously identified and corresponds directly to that area in which the hotel, commercial and ski support facilities are to be located at the toe of the slope. In fact, by extending the boundary, we insure that the location of the lifts is considered at the same time as the remainder of the base area development. We find that the increase in the SPA boundary does meet the test of being unique and providing public benefit in that it permits integrated planning of the lift locations in conjunction with the remainder of the base area development. Without the SPA Overlay, our review of the ski lifts would be limited to the conditional use review process. The Planning Office supports the proposed boundary adjustment with the following qualifications: a. The area designated C -SPA is not used in the calculation of the FAR for the project, due to the rationale noted above. b. Final approval of the boundary change should only occur in conjunction with final approval of the precise plan for the project. Therefore, if the Planning Commission supports this request, it should forward a favorable recommendation to Council, which should accomplish a first but not second reading of the ordinance. c. In the event that final approval of the project expires, the boundary of the SPA should revert to its prior configuration until a new conceptual and precise plan is submitted. 4. Project Visibility - There are at least three aspects of the project's visibility which we believe are of concern to the community. First, there is a concern about the historic ability of residents and visitors to view the base of the mountain from various points in town. In my opinion, the view corridor up Hunter Street provides the least cluttered sight lines which must be preserved. I have reviewed a computer simulation prepared by the applicants which will be available at your meeting. This simulation appears to demonstrate that because of the pedestrian plaza, the hotel will not cause a significant impact on the Hunter Street view. However, I have asked the applicants to move the reference point for this view back down Hunter Street from Durant to Cooper and even to Hyman to better evaluate this impact, and feel that this information should be available at the conceptual review stage. Detailed architectural renderings and elevations would not be expected until the precise plan stage. A second visibility question has to do with the regrading of the Little Nell slope. I have been informed that either the new quad lift or the gondola will require an extensive flat area to allow the lift motors to bring the chair or the gondola up to the necessary minimum speed. We will need to see a detailed grading plan to evaluate the extent of the cut which will be required and to obtain a clearer idea of the degree to which the historic appearance of the base of the mountain will be altered. A final visibility question has to do with the City's mountain viewplane and 8040 review criteria. It appears that a portion of the site may technically fall within the Cooper Avenue viewplane, or possibly even be affected by the Courthouse or Wheeler viewplanes. It also is unclear from the applicant's presentation whether or not the project falls within 50 yards below the 8040 greenline. The applicant should study these viewplane and 4 greenline concerns and, if review is required, submit the necessary documentation at the precise plan stage of review. 5. Circulation - Several conceptual circulation issues have been raised by our review of the conceptual site design. First, the resolution of the Board of County Commissioners approving the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan (AMSAMP) requires that the taxi - limo -auto drop -off facility at Little Nell be maintained. We do not see where provision for this facility has been made on the conceptual drawings. The applicant also has not made provision for the 46 off - street, skier automobile parking spaces required to mitigate the effects of the 1,300 daily skiers -at- one -time capacity increase on Aspen Mountain. However, this requirement can be met either at the base of Little Nell, through a cash contribution, or through an off -site solution by ASC. A second circulation question has to do with the location of service delivery areas on Spring Street, opposite the Woodstone Inn, and on Dean Street, behind the North of Nell building. These two entrances are intended to serve the vehicles bringing goods for the hotel - commercial facility, and for the restaurants on the mountain, respectively. The City Engineer questions whether it is appropriate to have two such service yards, or if a single area can be provided to consolidate these operations. Given our recent experience with the Aspen Mountain Lodge service yard on Monarch Street, we want to insure that these facilities impact the least number of sur- rounding residents. We would like the applicant to demonstrate that adequate room has been left for stacking trucks within the service yards and for making necessary turning movements, without causing interference with traffic on either Spring Street or Dean Street. With respect to overall traffic circulation, the applicant has irovided us with no information whatsoever on the adequacy of Durant, Spring and Dean Streets to handle the traffic volumes from skiers, guests, employees and users of the commercial spaces. We would insist that such technical information be provided in conjunction with precise plan review. One of the most positive aspects of the applicant's proposal is the improvement to pedestrian circulation which is expected to result form the plazas on Hunter and Dean Streets. The applicant appears to have given thoughtful attention to the placement of the ticket booths, the lift and the entrance to the mountain. We are conceptually pleased with this effort, but note that neither Dean Street nor Hunter Street is owned by ASC, although the applicant states that it does have easements over these pro- perties. The ASC must clarify its intent with respect to these right -of -ways at the time of precise plan review, and provide us with copies of these easements as soon as possible, since without these areas, there is certain to be inadequate access for pedestrians to the mountain. We also need to clarify the kinds of vehicles which will be permitted on Dean Street, since the applicants already intend to have service vehicles here, and possibly emergency (fire, ambulance, etc.) vehicles as well, which could affect the pedestrian character of the street. 6. Miscellaneous Technical Concerns - From our review of the Aspen Mountain PUD it has become clear that we must take a much closer look at geologic hazards in the review of any development at the base of Aspen Mountain. It is our recommendation that a con- clusive, technical study demonstrating that no hazard is posed to this project, or that any hazard can be fully mitigated, be provided prior to the review of the precise plan. A memo has been received from Jim Markalunas of the Aspen Water Department noting the presence of City water pumping facilities in the east half of Hunter Street. Jim feels that relocation of 5 this facility is technically possible and should not be an impediment to the project. Technical details of the proposed solution to this problem should be provided at the precise plan stage. There appear to be no problems whatsoever with the provision of sewage disposal service for this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Several aspects of the base area plan relate to commitments made during the review of AMSAMP. First, ASC committed to a general- ized design for the lift structure at the base which would insure that it not be a large, obtrusive building in which hundreds of chairs would be stored. Compliance with this condition should be demonstrated at the precise plan review stage. The applicants also committed to provide lift service on Little Nell for special events, ski instructions, and secondary access to Lift 5. The applicants agree at this time to provide such service via a mid -way unloading station (if a detachable quad chair is implemented) or via a relocated number 4 lift (if a gondola is implemented). Finally, the applicants agreed to removing the snowcat mainte- nance shop from the base area and relocating it to the mainte- nance facility on the mountain. Accomplishment of this commit- ment will significantly improve the look of the base area, as will the consolidation of the snowcat loading dock function in a much less obtrusive location. Both of these commitments are contained in the conceptual SPA plan. One amenity requested by the Planning Office but not made a condition of approval by the County was the provision of public ski storage facilities on site. We felt that such storage would be an auto disincentive by making it easier for people to travel about town without excess baggage before and after skiing. We are pleased to see the inclusion of public lockers and ski lockers in the hotel plan. We would like the applicant to clarify that these lockers will be available for public overnight storage of skis, boots and accessories. A last technical issue is that of employee housing. The app- licants have put this issue off to the precise plan review stage, and indicate that the requirements will be satisfied at an off - site location. The Planning Office does not object to this approach at the conceptual stage, pending review of the location, quality and quantity of the proposed housing. GROWTH POLICY ISSUES Under the provisions of Ordinance 20, the applicants will not submit their growth management application until the precise plan is sub - Fitted. Council recently changed the due date for lodge allocation submission other than L -3 from October 1 to December 1. Therefore, you can expect a lodge GMP application from this applicant on December 1 of 1985 or October 1 of 1986. Even though we are not yet reviewing the GMP application at this time, the Planning Office believes that the question of the allocation itself is a conceptual issue. Presuming for the moment that the applicant is successful in meeting the competitive threshold, we feel the Commission and the Council should inform the applicant of the likelihood of obtaining the allocation for this project. We pose this issue because of the unique circumstances associated with this year's lodge competition. As you recall, the City granted an allocation of 172 lodge units to the Aspen Mountain PUD. This allocation consisted of 32 lodge units unallocated from prior years, and the full 35 unit per year allocation for 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. In effect, the lodge quota available for this year and next year is 0. Section 24 -11.3 (b) of the Municipal Code provides that: "(b) The City Council may (but need not) grant a development allotment for an entire project to be constructed over a period 6 of years provided that each year during the scheduled construc- tion the annual allotment provided for in Section 24 -11.1 shall be reduced by the amount of construction permitted by the approval." Therefore, it is clear from the above language that the City can award an allocation to this project from the 1987, 1988 and most (26 of 35) units of the 1989 quotas. Therefore, the question for us to analyze is whether the City should, from a planning and development perspec- tive, award such an allocation. In the opinion of the Planning Office, the key consideration in awarding a future allocation is that we have approved a series of lodge projects in recent years which have not yet been occupied and whose impacts have yet to be felt. Included within this list are the following projects: 1. Aspen Mountain Lodge (275 rebuilt units, 172 new units) 2. Hotel Jerome PUD (28 rebuilt units in Phase I, 11 rebuilt and 67 new units in Phase II). 3. Sardy House (19 new lodge units). 4. Nugget Lodge (35 rebuilt units, 13 new units). 5. Independence Lodge (29 new units added as a change in use from long to short term). The above projects amount to about 350 rebuilt units and 300 new units in the Aspen Lodging inventory. None of the new units have yet been occupied, and only the Nugget Lodge (Hotel Aspen) has had its rebuilt units occupied. Other projects which have recently been occupied include the 14 rebuilt and 4 new units at the Hotel Lenado, and the 35 rebuilt and 3 new units at The Aspen (Applejack) . Units which are proposed to be removed from the inventory include the 14 at the Copper Horse and 40 at the Alpina Haus. The reconstruction of old lodging units, along with the renovation of existing commercial space and the Aspen Mountain Skiing Area, are viewed as desirable developments because they contribute to the revitalization of the resort. However, the Planning Office feels that there will be significant impacts upon the community from the construction of additional lodge units at this time. We are very concerned about the impacts of the added cars upon our major streets and about the availability of on- street parking for these vehicles. We are concerned about the adequacy of our transit facilities, particularly the Rubey Park Terminal, and also about the room at our airport terminal to handle this accelerated rate of growth. It does appear, however, that we have the water and sewer capacity to handle this added number of units. It is our understanding that one express purpose of managing our rate of growth is to phase the impacts of projects on the community by insuring that numerous units are not built at once. Although we recognize the importance of renovating the Little Nell base area, having just approved the Aspen Mountain Lodge and Hotel Jerome, we find it difficult to imagine that we would add a third major hotel facility at the same time. We feel that it is in the community's best interests to allow at least the Aspen Mountain Lodge to come on line and to experience its impacts before we allow yet another facility to be constructed. Furthermore, another express purpose of our growth management system is to insure that balance exists among our growth sectors. By accelerating the rate of lodge growth at one time, we may create imbalances in sectors such as skiing and commercial space, as well as in our overall summer - winter balance. The Commission and Council should also be aware that the impacts of the Sardy House and Hotel Jerome projects on the lodge quota have yet to be accounted for. When a building permit is issued for the new units in these projects, we will have to further deplete our already nonexistent lodge quota, meaning that, in effect, we have already 7 awarded these projects the available quota for 1987, 1988 and part (16 units) of the 1989 quota. Therefore, the Little Nell Base Redevelop- ment project should be seen as requesting the remainder of the quota for 1989, 1990 and 1991 (less 3 units). SUMMARY: The Little Nell Base Redevelopment presents the community with a very important set of tradeoffs to consider. On the one hand, the community is presented with an opportunity to upgrade the entry point to its most important recreational asset. Key improvements include the visual benefits of removing the surface parking and maintenance functions; circulation benefits of better pedestrian access to the lifts and ticketing function; and recreational benefits of improved skiing and commercial facilities at the base area. There are a variety of technical issues which must be addressed to insure that the project "can be planned and developed in a manner which provides the greatest public benefit" as is the purpose of its designation as an SPA. Issues to be resolved include parking, open space, FAR, hazards, transit, service delivery, employee housing, utility relocations, roads, grading and visibility. None of these issues is technically beyond resolution, although they do tend to indicate the magnitude of the impacts this project will have on the community. The growth policy issue, is, in our opinion, a threshold question with regard to this project. Although we could defer consideration of this issue until such time as the project has been scored and an allocation is pending, we feel this is the wrong course to take. The applicants will be expending a great deal of time and effort if this conceptual SPA is approved. We feel that they deserve the full benefit of our thinking at this time, before further studies are authorized. Furthermore, we think that the issue of future allocations is crucial to the basic concept proposed herein and is justifiably to be consid- ered at this time. As noted above, the Municipal Code provides a mechanism by which a future lodge allocation can be granted to the applicants. It is the Planning Office's recommendation that an allocation which will take the lodge quota through the year 1991 not be granted to this project. We feel that the community must take the time to evaluate the direct and secondary impacts of the growth which we have approved, based on experiencing the effects of these projects. To add yet another project to the backlog of approved units is, in our opinion, poor planning, and contrary to our adopted growth policies. If the Commission concurs with our finding that the issue of future allocations is integral to the conceptual SPA review, we recommend that you recommend to the Council the denial of the hotel portion of this project. We stronly support and recommend approval of the reconstruction of the commercial, administrative and skier support spaces, the replacement of the base lift, the upgrade of the pedes- trian circulation corridors and the removal of the maintenance facilities from the base area. If, on the other hand, the Commission feels that it is preferable to evaluate the issue of future alloca- tions in the context of the precise plan, following its GMP scoring, then we feel the entire conceptual SPA can be approved, with numerous conditions based on the review comments herein. Any such approval should be strictly conditioned on the finding that no reliance is being given as to the project's ability to obtain the full lodge quota requested at this time. This approval will also have to be withheld at least until such time as we conduct the duly noticed public hearing on the proposed SPA boundary change, scheduled for your next regular meeting on August 20. AR.42 8 W© MOVE!) ws - 2,. MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Aspen /Pitkin Planning Director FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineer DATe: July 22, 1985 RE: Little Nell Conceptual S.P.A. Submission Having reviewed the above application for conceptual Specially Planned Area (S.P.A.) approval for a proposed lodge at the base of Little Nell, the City Engineering Department would offer the following comments: I have attempted to review this application while differentiating between appropriate conceptual S.P.A. concerns and those issues that are more detailed in nature. Items that are of a conceptual nature include: 1. ACCESS The conceptual plan incorporates two separate service access points. One, off of South Spring Street servicing the bulk of the lodge and one off of Dean Street east of Galena where there will be substantial truck activity delivering supplies and removing trash for the restaurant operations serviced by the snowcats. I am concerned that both locations will create a significant impact and that it would be best to consolidate those service access points. 2. PARKING The application references "recent downtown parking studies" in justifying 77 parking spaces for 96 lodge rooms, administrative offices, commercial space and skiers. I would certainly like to review those studies but I suspect they do not cover projects of such mixed usage. I am quite concerned over the adequacy of the proposed parking and would recommend, at a minimum, some indication of the applicant's commitment toward transit - related alternatives. 3. SETBACKS Establishment of the S.P.A. will involve the establishment of setbacks for the structure. Given the slope- roofed design shown in the elevations, I would suggest the architect confirm the adequacy of the setbacks to anticipate safe pedestrian routes in areas where snow may fall from the structure. Page Two Little Nell Conceptual S.P.A. Submission July 22, 1985 Concerns outside the realm of conceptual S.P.A. include: a. Availability of utilities and resolution of any utility conflicts (particularly water). b. Geological hazard potential. c. Durant /Spring Street parking and transit impacts. d. Relocation of the pumphouse facility. e. Regrading at the base of the Nell slope. While I am aware that these items are most appropriately addressed at precise plan, I would present them now for inclusion in subsequent applications. JH /co /LittleNellConcepSPASub ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT f) OWIE MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN RICHMAN, PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: LITTLE NELL SPA CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION DATE: JULY 15, 1985 111 ,/ This memo is to briefly respond to your request for comments concerning the above. I have contacted both Pete Forsch of the Aspen Skiing Company and Dave Ellis of Design Workshop concerning the location of our pumping facilities in the east one half of Hunter Street. As I understand it, it is the intent to use Hunter Street as a pedestrian corridor. Since our pumping facilities are located in the street, above ground, it will be necessary to relocate these facilities to an inconspicuous place nearby. I have discussed the possibilities of relocation with Mr. Forsch and Mr. Ellis and we do feel that the City's facilities can be relocated in order to accommodate the project. This will take some doing and is not without technical difficulty, but it can be accomplished and I foresee no reason why our facilities should be an impediment to the project. We have discussed some preliminary concepts and I believe the most viable would be the relocation of the above ground facilities, leaving the existing below ground facilities in place. Further elaboration of the concepts at this point in premature, since some preliminary design and engineering work is needed to determine the best solution. JM:ab SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C. D © ( J\ ATTORNEY AT LAW l 434 Ewa- COOPER RADO Yle A � ASPEN. COLOn SEP 2 519 13031825.2043 HAND DELIVERED September 23, 1985 Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Little Nell Conceptual SPA Application by the Aspen Skiing Company_____ Dear Mayor Stirling and Council Members: I represent the Kettle Corporation, owner of the Copper Kettle and Tippler. Enclosed is a copy of a letter dated August 21, 1985 to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which I ask be made a part of your record as well. The letter states my client's support for the above - referenced application by the Aspen Skiing Company. Although the letter contains certain reservations and qualifications, I understand that all of the concerns expressed will be resolved to the satisfaction of my client prior to submission of the precise SPA Plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission. We believe it is in the best interests of this community for you to approve the Conceptual SPA Application and to encourage the Aspen Skiing Company to move forward with its plans for the master planning and upgrading of the facilities at the base of Little Nell. Among other things, we believe that the Lodge Growth Management Plan is an anachronism which artificially imposes constraints on our ability to enhance the desirability of this city to tourists. It should not be used to preclude the Aspen Skiing Company from developing a small full service hotel at the base of our most important resource, Aspen Mountain, particularly when it has made the first important step by upgrading the ski facilities on that mountain. Very ruly our:, / / / 1 ` 1 S cer F. Schiff:y, P.C. SFS:ls cc: The Kettle Corporation Alan Richman, Planning Director Gideon Kaufman, Esq. Jerry Blann Peter Forsch • � SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 404 EAST COOPER ASPEN. COLORADO 11611 13011025.2043 HAND DELIVERED August 21, 1985 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Little Nell SPA Boundary Change and Conceptual SPA Application by the Aspen Skiing Company Dear Commission Members: I represent The Kettle Corporation, owner of the Copper Kettle and Tippler. My client supports the Application by the Aspen. Skiing Company to extend the SPA Zone as well as the Conceptual SPA Plan which has been submitted with the following reservations, and on the condition that the concerns be resolved to the satisfaction of the Kettle Corporation prior to submission of the Precise SPA Plan: 1. Some of the plats which have been available for inspection in the Planning Office indicate that the Aspen Skiing Company is claiming that part of the property within its boundary is, in fact, property which belongs to the Kettle Corporation. The apparent dispute thereby created will be addressed by separate letter to you containing legal descriptions and verification of the ownership by the Kettle Corporation. 2. We have reason to believe that the hydrology of the soils in the area is such that extensive excavation and foundation work as now proposed could have an adverse effect on the property .owned by The Kettle Corporation. 3. The area intended to be excavated and used for underground storage of cats and other equipment creates concerns regarding safety of k • City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 21, 1985 Page Two pedestrians and skiers, access by pedestrians and skiers to and from the Tippler, adverse effects from potential use of that area by the equipment, the height of any walls in connec- tion with the storage area, aesthetic problems created thereby, deliveries to and from that storage area from Dean Street or other locations, and surface drainage. 4. The proposed treatment and use of Dean Street is unclear and since that is the only access for deliveries to the Tippler and Copper Kettle, it is of concern to The Kettle Corporation. 5. The height of the roof of the proposed building which is now intended to house the Ski Company offices is of concern from an aesthetic point of view, with respect to skier and pedestrian access to and from the Tippler, and potential drainage problems which might result from snow melt from the roof onto the property of The Kettle Corporation. We have discussed the foregoing with representatives of the Aspen Skiing Company, and have been assured that they will be addressed to our satisfaction; however, we want the record to reflect those concerns and to be sure that they are properly addressed before final approval is given by the Planning and Zoning Commission. We understand that the Planning Office has raised concerns regarding the Growth Management Quota System which could conceivably preclude your full consideration of the SPA Plan. We think thatis most unfortunate. In our view the Lodge GMP is an anachronism. Rather than control growth, the entire GMP system has created an undesirable disparity among residential, commercial, and lodge facilities. While we still do not have one first class full service hotel, we clearly have an overabundance of commercial space and residential units. The Lodge GMP imposes artificial constraints on our ability to enhance the desirability of this City to tourists. The free market and the economic feasibility of hotels should rather determine how many hotel rooms are built. City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 21, 1985 Page Three When the Aspen Skiing Company improvds the quality of skiing on Aspen Mountain with a major capital investment and increases the capacity of the mountain by 1,300 skiers, it seems incongruous that it could be precluded from improving the base facility with, among other things, a small full service hotel. Very , my you s, 7 •e 'er F. chifi -r, P.C. SFS:ls cc: Alan Richman, Planning Director Gideon Kaufman, Esq. The Kettle Corporation Aspen Skiing Company MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manag= FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director NIQ RE: Dates for 1985 GMP Submissions DATE: July 8, 1985 SUMMARY: Council should choose among the alternatives listed below regarding the dates for 1985 GMP submission,, BACKGROUND: The Municipal Code provides the following annual dates for the submission of applications for growth management allocations: August 1 - Commercial October 1 - Lodge December 1 - Residential The Planning Office has been approached by representatives of the Little Nell and Aspen Meadows projects seeking changes in these dates for 1985 only. The Little Nell representatives would like to see both the commercial and lodge dates changed to December 1, while the Aspen Meadows representatives have asked that the dates for all categories be changed to March 1 of 1986. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The recently adopted SPA Ordinance ( #20 of 1985) provides that submissions for growth management allocations on sites with an SPA overlay must be made in conjunction with precise plan submissions. Due to the length of the process of adopting Ordinance 20, applicants do not have adequate time to process their conceptual submissions prior to the annual submission dates. Therefore, unless the dates are changed for 1985, these projects will be delayed until the fall of 1986 for their precise plan /GMP review. Since this issue surfaced, the Planning Office has been contacted by another individual in the CC /C -1 zone who may apply for a commercial allotment on August 1. Therefore, any change contemplated for this date could adversely affect the plans of at least one other property owner. ALTERNATIVES: Choices available to the City Council include the following: 1. Move the dates for the CC /C -1 commercial competition and the lodge competition for all zones except the L -3 zone district to December 1. 2. Move the dates for the CC /C -1 commercial competition, the lodge competition for all zones except the L -3 and the residential competition to March 1. 3. Waive the requirement that GMP allotment applications must be accompanied by a precise plan for lands within an SPA overlay. 4. No action. Factors to be considered by Council in taking any action should include the following: 1. We have already placed a notice in the paper that we are accepting applications for the August 1 date, since we routinely provide such notice 30 days in advance of the due date for applications. 2. Changing the dates will certainly add to the confusion of our application process, particularly if we change them only for certain zones. 3. It could be argued that waiving the requirement for concur- rent submission of GMP and precise plan applications is warranted for this year only, since this provision has only recently been placed into the Code. However, all of the benefits associated with this rule (particularly the need to review the precise plan before deciding on a multi -year growth allocation) would then be lost for the two most important parcels with an SPA overlay. 4. If we do not change the dates for this year, we will lose valuable time in dealing with two critical parcels in the City. On the other hand, since Council has already allo- cated lodge units into the future, this delay may only help to bring us into better conformance with our planned rate of growth. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office has no preference whatsoever with respect to this issue. We are prepared to process this year's applications under any alternative which Council may choose. AR•28 2 Doremus &weLLs an association of land planners • June 24, 1985 Alan Richman Director Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Alan: As you know, through the settlement of the Cantrup bankruptcy, John Roberts' joint venture has acquired the Aspen Meadows parcel in the West End. On behalf of the owners, we have for some time been following the City's consideration of new regulations for sites designated with an SPA overlay. It has been anticipated that following adoption, the owner can begin the process of developing a proposal for the Meadows site that will incldue all of the affected parties, even though the new regulations obviously do not resolve all of the outstanding land -use issues regarding the site. One unresolved issue is the manner in which growth management procedures will be applied to the proposal. As we have discuss- ed, in the past the question of whether the Institute would be required to obtain a GMP allotment in order to proceed with development at the Meadows was left unresolved. It is clear, however, that the City allowed the Institute to proceed through the approval process nearly to final approval without requiring the filing of a GMP application and this may be an indication that the City at the time was leaning toward an exemption under certain conditions. In the event that the City requires the current owners to obtain GMP allotments, it certainly is not possible to complete the Conceptual SPA step of the new regulation and then file a GMP submission by the current deadline for GMP. We therefore agree that it will be necessary to extend the GMP submission deadlines. • 608 east Nyman avenue n aspen, colorado 81611 s telephone 303 925 -6866 Alan Richman June 24, 1985 Page Two We disagree that an extension to December 1 is adequate however, in light of the requirement under the new regulation that the Precise SPA Plan, which requires a level of detail similar to Preliminary PUD and Subdivision, be filed with the GMP submission. We believe that a period of at least 6 to 7 months will be required to prepare and process a Conceptual SPA Plan and that the preparation of a GMP /Precise Plan will require an additional 10 to 12 weeks. Therefore, we do not believe that an adequate Precise Plan for the Meadows could be filed prior to March 1 of next year. We request, then, that the City either extend the GMP submission deadlines for all categories to March 1 or, in the alternative, grant applicants for SPA sites the option of filing GMP Submis- sions separate from the Precise Plan. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerel , I J seph Wells, AICP 9 JW /b cc: Aspen City Council John Roberts Robert Callaway Alan Novak Mike Holbrook Art Daily ■ [1 608 east hyman avenue a aspen. colorado 81611 L telephone 303 925 -6866