HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Little Nell.1988cw\ - 01
2— Little Nell CM Etc. planning memos
K9I&Y
•
•
•
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 l.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
the staging area on Durant and
material or equipment storage.
location, perhaps placing it in
utilize the southeast corner for
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
40
J
n
LJ
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
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) (1)) to insure that FAR calculations at this
stage of design are conservative.
210 SOUTH GALENA SUITE 24 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 303-925-2867
•
•
•
LEVEL 32
. N
16987 SF TOWARDS F.A.R.
10
io
ISO
C ZONE BOUNDRY
MAW
I' '�% i- !II�
VEND
"It T A
"AM
pan
TO DELON!
rr
4.1
(k)�L
21345 SF TOWARDS F.A.R.
•
I*
�/�LEVEL 12
24674 SF TOWARDS F.A.R.
I
E
•
LOCK<M• DICKER
;
[T EMPLOYEE
M AG[ pMAG
� Mf/
!• - ` KITCHEN w
Aar
1� • l�
1 �
LIFT TERMINAL A•OY■
I •
•[KYIC[ TUNNEL
DARY
-�� s[ M �•' . / " '� = � �. INASPER
TERRACE
142
IF
SKIING•: �' ,•
COMPANY
RETAIL A•r1MISTII ATION
GOAGo.- ore
�; n•
Yf Moor
I New
TE
1AMP DOWN
RM C I \ _ _ - - __ POOL ��• /.• / /• 1 ' I / ` PIPS _ TM .a
PARKING GAMAG� i"'' .� ' it• / I --y' it �+ : ' \ •\
q.
1 ANC}GULL '� r ..'"-�I --- �CMZZ�1 _ : ' �; e_'' \ • _ r _.._ I 1`M. j• IT-T - - . I
eta / - :/i �" .'%/�/� '. � - i• ii � __r�
IN
Ai A
;00-
I P-migg" mill, TO
IX
/� _ � '/��/- • / sue! ' :.ij/•.:.�.-f-: /- /, / .- —_ •� •
ol
45
METAu
RETAIL ��iiiV»7 I l
-� �rr� ♦ !!�\ `\ ♦- j-�--�-$=Ste'=lam- � r--..,�- - �- - -- / -' 1 ) I� \ ��{I-\� •
'v ' t T t,^ �• ` \.� ---*I -± �� MOAT. OF M[LL
.7KIEM MROP 0" LANE• — — — — — - — — � - —•— ._ _ \
/LEVEL 0
` - — -- - _ � S;r ram,• rIs_�.�••
21516 SF TOWARDS F.A.R.
•
? � " t(&'
TO: " Bill Dreuding,
�JO TE
MEMORANDUM
Zoning Enforcement Of:
FROM: Cindy Houben,Planning Office
RE: Little Nell
DATE: March 1,1988
T,a (..1� o/ rr .j �
aa1 tie w�s
Acq
6: 3 O 3/ 7 tv�^-'E-
G��'*—' h b, ----
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:
4!�-1) Page 4./ Area and Bulk requirements. Please verify compliance
with these requirements, except for FAR which the Planning
4 GG Office has already verified.The total building area in the CC
zone district should conform with the 83,265 square feet as
indicated on the above referenced page.. Item # 10 refers to the
(building area in the CC zone district.( The Building Dept. should
�v- have a survey which designates the C and CC zones). The foot
print of the building which is in the C zone district must
` conform specificall to the footprint as approved in exhibit 2.
1 ��am'm"YoVnd
g 7./ construction Schedule: I will confirm with Jay
of the Engineering Dept. and Jim Wilson of the building
Dept. that this construction schedule has been submitted and is
adequate. You should have an approved copy of the construction
schedule prior ,to issuance of a Building permit.
3) ` inahcial AssurahcO-s/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.
t 3 i 6�11 .hQ t o I�
Pa%e 119/ Utility! Plan: I will verify that all the utility
mmitments are in lace or have been provided for 'b the
P P Y
a g applicant. You should have a copy of a letter from either myself
or Jay Hammond verifying that this has ocurred.
�J ✓ )- Pagel 23/ I will!wetify that all access , circulation and
" CtxA-1 parking is approved by the city Engineer. You should have a
letter from myself or Jay Hammond confirming the above.
dt �1)� age �7f Miscellaneous Technical Issues: I will verify that Ile
the applicant has complied with this section. You should have a
- etter in your file from myself or Jay Hammomd verifying this.
h.
Page 26/ Building Design: I have reviewed the building for
general compliance with the precise plan regarding basic design �.
features. There is no need for you to spend additional ti a on
Items 1,2 or 3.
9) Page 28/ regarding geologic conditions/ The final structural 1.
and grading plans shall be certified by a ge_ otechnical engineer.
3)I40
183 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.r '-
10) Page 29/ There shall be only be one real fireplace in the p
lobby and the rest must be gas log types.
•l1,)''Page 29/ Please check to see that item 6 is accomplished anandd proved by Jay Hammond. You should have a lette v rifying this
prior to issuance of a building permit.ac66 /,, ! f
12 Page-29/'Pl,ease check to see that item 7 is accomplished. You
ould have a letter from Jim Wilson stating that this has been
accomplished.,
L3'
gage 30/ I will verify with the City Attorney that all the
ment documents are adequate. Please check to make sure that
you have copies of all the easement agreements.( some easements �!
are attached to the SPA) .
�1) � / � � �Y� n� '�U 1�{jULL✓1(- Cv.� C-�C [_Lt.t,�Ll-e v`- �-E: �'1' �L� , v
6d)
efo.rr
RIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FOUNDATION PERMIT: a
f t Try 5 3 / 1 � i 8 8 - 5 k-� . C.m . w � Lt tc, u -S
1) Landscaping /Page 11: The applicants must have an approved
landscaping plan prior to the initiation of construction. The /
applicants must process an amendment to the precise plan for this
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. /'
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) Page 18/ Employee Housing : I will verify that the commitments
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.
3) Page 24/ Item 3. regarding trails shall be accomplished prior
to 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.
(%�%q$Sw 6) Page 26/ Item 7. I recommend that yob send the Ski Co. a
�- letter reminding them of their obligation pursuant to this
section of the SPA approval.
Is
7) Page 30/ Item 10. A commercial trash compactor
„stalled. .—A/"
9
shall be
7 67`'
Aa--r
a ,
82 cL��X/W 3
ch.ln21
to
• MEMORANDUM F,e 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.
is 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
•
0
• Page Two
Little Nell
February 22,
•
•
Construction
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
— A 12 G�c7y ^Q
P_ 0�5
Lai
sc-
FrA--e- 0
-- �Ih7�7�
0
0
• MEMORANDUM Fig 2 6
TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering 44
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
February 22,
Construction
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
the sites to the storm system. We would require
to review the site drainage calculations
maintenance of historic conditions and that the
represent new impacts to the storm drain system.
JH/co/Memo31.88
cc: Chuck Roth
connections from
the opportunity
to verify the
project does not
RAGMAN YAW
ARCHITECTS
LTD
210 SOUTH GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303/925-2867
•
•
MEMORANDUM
To: Bill Drueding
From: John Cottle/
r�
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 W-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 Richman (w/ enclosures)
K)EF. /A3.
�57
17
FOR
MW
121 , 1.2.
coo
0
:I celi, CE, OP,
IL-------
/C
•
�ED:��
DURANT AVENUE
s is
o 10 so
•
•
•
Bea 518 RAGE 464
SPA AGREEMENT FOR LITTLE NELL BASE DEVELOPMENT
THIS SPA AGREEMENT is made and entered into this
day of, 1986, by and between the CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, municipal corporation and home -rule city
(hereinafter referred to as "City") and the ASPEN SKIING
COMPANY, a Colorado general partnership (hereinafter referred
rn
to as "Owner") . „ ; �-
�o
J� z :�o
c'> r�
RECITALS: o
U13 rn
�z
o z
-'_ X rn
o�
0o rn
1. The Owner has submitted to the City for approval,
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:
N
m
N
- 1 -
� 99
0 10 EJ�S ^5_iV ,,,rA65
• (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
• of the lands included in the Precise Plan, all in accordance
with Article VII and other related provisions of the
- 2 -
0
+�L
• 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:
• 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
- 4 -
•
•
BOOK tl1 __468
• 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
EO:f__t____1 n'
•
8.
Minimum distance between
No requirement
primary and accessory buildings
9.
Percent of open space required
for building site (minimum) *
25% s
10.
External floor area ratio
1.93:1 83,265 sq. ft.
j7
(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
•
(variation)
- 5 -
•
• * 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
Is4.
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 ;o 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)
Is
13.
Mazes and skier milling areas
- 6 -
ap #
• 14. Hotel accessory retail
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:
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
gondola with associated buildings and accessory structures,
- 7 -
•
•
• 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
is
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.
• 18 months later Hotel certificate of occupancy.
- 8 -
9 B.
Detailed Construction Schedule. �'N� j ;yr: I
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
• 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 -
• t •
• 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
Engineer, represent a substantial deviation from the original
- 10 -
,4'R 74
• 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,
r
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
and shrub bed definition, a plant material schedule with
Y
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
• landscaping improvements related thereto have not yet been
completed, so long as the portion of the financial guaranty
i -1
LJ
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.
- 12 -
• 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 0wrier_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
•
be applied first to additional administrative or legal
- 13 -
•
11
• 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
• 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.
- 14 -
•
ca.,_� r.� ..
• 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
is
provided. In addition to the improvements to the lodge
- 15 -
•
• n r - 1� "i _1
BC li v'� 8 m�_- �c l _
• 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)
- 16 -
i
c, :c1_ ?1i �i Jl_i
• This figure may be amended as the low income rental guidelines are
annually adjusted.
T Ty T C, " T T.
Thirty employees (15 rooms) shall be restricted when a Certificate
of Occupancy is issued for the hotel.
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.
•
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 -
•
V
p� ;( 518 8 ^rr,
•
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 Certificate of Occupancy
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 -
•
r
518 R?
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.
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
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
electrical, telephone and cable television lines, and upgrade
- 19 -
• 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 -
\r
• 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
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 -
�,�,, �? a.'7ti
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 -
• poc
IX. OTHER COMMITMENTS BY OWNER
A. Access, Circulation and Parking.
1. Owner agrees to provide an auto -taxi -limo drop off
facility for the needs of the ski area and hotel guests as
specified on the Precise Plan (Exhibit "211). 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
• 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.
- 23 -
t n1r� 487
51-S „IJ_
• 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
is 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.
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
Is Zone II with materials consistent with that in Zone I and
- 24 -
• 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 compatibility 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
streets and alleys, planting, curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
streets, lights, traffic circulation, trails, recreation
• facilities, parking, etc. in the area of the above described
- 25 -
• 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.
7. The Owner expresses its willingness to evaluate the
4
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.
• Owner commits to provide a taxi/auto drop off facility at the
base of Lift lA by the beginning of the 1986/87 ski season.
I
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
ion the Precise Plan as Exhibit "2", and per detail elevation
- 26 -
• 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 -
0 "IS G77491-
• 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
w
. 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 Lift 5 by relocating the current Little Nell lift
(Lift 4). Conditions for the present operation of Lift 4 are
more fully set forth in Alan Richman's letter of March 18,
1986, attached hereto as Exhibit "6".
18 4. Owner agrees that only gas log type fireplaces
4r,
• 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,
Series of 1986.
6. The Owner shall submit an application to Pickin
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 (i4%), and to include
any drainage facilities consistent with the Rea Cassens
Report which the County Engineer may require.
W� 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.
- 29 -
cS- `
8. Owner hereby guarantees that the building to be
constructed beneath the gondola terminal hotel west wing
and all other commercial or office areas will not be occupied
as administrative offices, retail spaces or any other
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
. secured.
0
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 -
_.f3��
`V.. t
• 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
must, however, reasonably connect the trail system.
• 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
provided is consistent with or an improvement on the
landscaping initially provided for the Project.
- 31 -
XI. NON-COMPLIANCE AND REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS OR
0
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 -
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 -
•
•
•
amendments to this Agreement, or extensions of time as it may
deem appropriate under the circumstances. Tne 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:
Owner:
City Manager
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Aspen Skiing Company
Attention: Jerry Blann
P.O. Box 1248
Aspen, Colorado 81612
- 34 -
•
•
• with a copy to: Gideon I. Kaufman
•
i
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 -
pnn t j.�.l.J na�JC'Z•
• 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.
CITY: �Z = THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
a municipal rporationBy
Kathryn ch, City Clerk William Stirlincf, Mayor
- 36 -
E
•
• APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Paul J. Taddune, City Attorney
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, a Colorado
general partnership
By-
- _j
STATE OF COLORADO)
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
'W _1
pr r 8 n.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this., day of7= 1986, by William Stirling
DJAF?4s `Mayor, and Kat1fryn Koch as City Clerk of the City of
pep �As, State of Colorado, a municipal corporation.
..• ,' pU D��G t o
f WITNESS my hand and offic al 1.
My Commission expires:
Notar,�j Public
• STATE OF
ss.
COUNTY OF /�� x { ,Z )
•
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this .3 day of 0�' 1986, by yl/ ow
f the Aspen Sciin C
ompany, a Colorado
5 partnership. �EX�lf�S
'Q 13:0 a WITNESS my hand and official seal. 5 io
<< ,-My Commission expires:
�� (���•
Notary Public
spa agreement/ASC2
- 37 -
•a 6+ oee-- w.rus .uI
'� `'Hj� �•�"-j O �uuuiG url......you
"'911 •• j .�,...:'::: �±� � Ili,
IIIIIIUI- 'III .7i���=`:'.�:is III
di
r.. �..y s:ii3i rucirrr.
Little
Nell
Base
Development
Aspen. (;(&radn
OWNER:
A.p.n S..n9 Convany
80. 12.8
A.P.n, Co. 61612
303-925-1220
PLANNER IL
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT:
D—I9n W.rr.n.p. I..
710 E. Dw"t
A.p.n, CO. 81611
303-925-6361
ARCHITE/
1uOn.n r.
21ArenN.cd,
0 R 0061,11111
A.p*.% CO' 01611
303-925-2967
CIVIL ENGINEER
R.., CItIt 6
A..o.l.l.., I.C.
4388 S.Wlnd.rm.r. S1.
Engl—od, Co. 801 /0
303-789-4428
GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER
Cn.n .nd AS—I.l..
9e So.1 2..1
1).n..r, CO. 00223
303-744-7105
•
•
Plant List
L•44t. W4/ 4tf
Gi4YT TtaEn
o+•l..
f'rr..
f • f
h•IJ.Ja nl/�.1J�oif/h
f:f
•.-VS4 M •S4N•r.1,JM+14 14rnGEd.L^►'
fY..
EvVY//.J -Mfo1
/y+y co4Te�r♦ t,frrro.�a'
fw
.a
'AJL.Mr is
{!
a•f
Y{. Lei eJJ4
Storm Detention
L tfp6M M7 7■Ot4• ■„ow
A" r•+D. +/ w.•s.. Goy
OG4e4aoA*/ a of ••IpI 'A•O►rr
'A4_4.lG-04 W-+F -r"► e04 DD4.L
d.JD V•M1I4ew y1Y► M4014Pwe.
Pedestrian Troll
Service Area
-.E 1+0-60 ereo «
fa %X�ea.J/D v/M�OL JaW
w'�• L Cr.
ewr ".a.
IPool Courtyard
,vee Mr, .
Skier Drop Off
--{ Y..%- a+w.Dt• ... as
Slop
/U0/960 �v T G a Nvf b_L.�D
4A, wf.,. Ln teo„- do, Z.{
wet.. ww o•r
O�4e�V Wr.. �a•Mu
/6M.e••4t rV1
MtLW N•I.
L
UL
!•
etlMa� VOM V
ff.J4W Jae�4LW J■/K
L'
UL•
r/
e•tuw
foe" �7lweeD
MM.w•■•a '(p.O./.plwfiw
aW
la'I'
,c�eOt+�+eJr
•WVJ4 Va1J^WGt■�a
�
feM 4/iu J4T
tW.
'Or
M'IV.�O�L•�•t+ aMlJs+
J 4IlnQJ4 (i•�144i♦
-J4/{I.A,�Ja GI44J4A .q�if•4,•_+
n JN �r.fJW 4JWM
41a.
•tl'
iICN4DGOJaaq
(• MS—o, R7i•��J.G
Im.rr...L J■•.+. L,wo
b
R-
Plant Material Lighting
�y -w .. —IL
- Y�1t•A ^'We o•.v >asa.%r r o-• =ec+.t _�tr �r 1-5 i c
SLY -W/ a 3LVV a4.•+..e I..J.: rN, 0 C?•rft'ob_i N1- of �r-•4C_.i7 �e�
�� qh -q� v-».latz/ D•• LaMY�.,.•.� N..�, e■
yro�ta.
Paving Seating
'o,', co.Isn� o• WO rjyM -s g' _t.:�--•
!PRfa,a 6.9 WAG•• tfvs.. , a'f I✓A/ 9ED c/lJt.4- ..Acar- o.`U.
Zone 1 Zone 3
• to4■ eJa wow, Of TJ{r.0•aD ale
E 4 W. C '•J aLR.ha•
1...-a•L A.•h:O4,TeafJi fOD ��IW
N.T. ..NT ><eeM "1•l 1D.{�/R1`NT
Y/eD./EMt T 'J•Ira•iLn. 4ov f�'�o'
TOFrMgt.9Wat'<.4•I AWL.
1•lotiC 3 w•.. RVD e.-
rJ r.J 1pGa ��.:► ANL �Vr p'r.
a�!"1 •'a'�`� 4( TMt< a•a.o•
1. 7er/ 04.! N Lor/I_a'f7"1C -
}ip.Ja D w.i C/ GOM0.l••/D ...
^Nt /r(/•t4. •.d4 Ld�•.t^[ti; Nµ.
LP•.r U'Ja V/ti le+a_l-b� O• =a •Pa-.
�. L.4 fYY..Ir NGw +rL�tL4 M-. %
.4LTe.i N�^r. -L{ W/�Or
H,
Mi4& • d+D M••9H.6•
ZEMO/l0 b.7 aelrLLaO•
Zone 2
Zone 4
To..a 1 M� as 7SVEO nn i. [r-�w�•
1 t;_e I. — 4E Cd•..E�t•�
..VlLL ru.Tewr_ y�THt/MN11.K+plyl
GD�_...crio^. wm. r.Ora Gin
LA•IMI•K �� iIr THG 1i+1f IRIr. oNa //
►oa-
w,_ to /a�D l- rJ_ aa_Y X
cane ereol r5+a �o+Mf H^•eaT +.•w-
rL�r P•J/ar4T "y v .fa.Vfe.
n e a.4. L
LLB ay.J-.4. 4 Z—i L Nr EE
I Di!•..tLv JT..+'7 -.l4 44
r,d•
'a✓L1'a 4+ —a LGGVYFL-•r..i
aa4ec4'a0 J•-•OaI�QJ..7 1a
FYIa../.a oI 'M1a L a.L• I heT
NG.Z H%7 -.e
f.vs ys
~GWR. LMraLT .M.
0 w.
* - Lw e+■ --w- %f.
��� II I I'` � Zone 4a
II I ��a a as Lo.-Ls-.v -.•
»�.. of 4V•Y4NLe ow T•.a A•4O
f 4.. ►.eN� e/ auG J M 4a.2G�t0
oa. oI nu L•J`V .b RC4-
�M
0•Aw �i Very••a.a a.f O• 6
/I.Ltih.
Zone 5
i. r/4a , 4- et mMn.e�aD �4
' f�40/a Me.eD+ie e.a ievetli
00
lsl.Nti•.JO•a4 •'• Tb•l alC.arha
e• r-a 6•w.e
y_ 4 bYV• Mae i/ MV • L6T s.a
rrNa■✓J■ K aeYrOwte be• .x„„
f• ■ .nv4a►4 Moser M IM
A• TV/ e1V•I wY.V NNrL
'f•ram son. o /na v�.ovJfe-
pU•J Mu(
- Planters
I1�"R•4 M'+• T!•taN qt b'•tA► ...,4. K
..ou-eo off 'n-a Gowx�s .L.Azd,-6
60
gepGe•G'•a e.G�J T'a•�.
- Stair
L4 Iai- ov •�-E-,--a•- 4'• r641A
ro ••Pi Da
- Ticket Klo{ke
"Isla, -0. M.iL.. wK�O+ Y►pee
IOJ.JO w r e{ ew.T.
M
March 2ff. 1SPA
4,9,80 {PA
SPA Precise Plan
Landscape
Development
Plan
Shoat 8 of tl
Exhibit 2
-alit:
na.l.. •c;trnHa W -ws
W RMIM TNL or.4 L{GIH.
O!!h'.Rlr'flonl MOT s WH
Nu{. 10M11.1 I
-w.x z
M
* 1
►�VlarfTPT101J ,�� � -• ����� 1 �•
Q �a� n
� T �._� .�
-M/
ndol iiwiswsiii■wwi �
ss■s■ sca■s■� ,
riiifi ■iii ■ PH
L
nc.e>r,.r v{c. win•
�rl�tcHe+ Y aa-- I j a4...c� ryv�W6 ('Yrl)
Oki
I I—ti6nW=0PuA{i
Little Nell BukWV
I
I � �
4^
I ♦ lyw .______ I
I II'------ I
T I
'YI' bald♦ 61+{Illu6 Palr, � I I I I 1
-a.aPPIG G/u'tid,� 'blcl....6�,aM1
(I(M,Ji VN�*CT •J 1
111ii- P pal- 4•
I I'41Rf—
upT{ 1 II.P•-'r /+1L••e.P•�G✓J �TL'J OJ NM/ff
ro , w+onuro DEAIO�M/JY �d
yP�� pIp,TN� pe T.le -Yuen cJd
Dirant Avenue pllLh M P1.6 �+fp `MIId MLL. y�_
aseGl��oD ro►, n1aPs owy.
N
�h1.INPorM Gaol
Ac N- e. o 11
PLpMV00 WITH
wr!6/r4. .'& IIJ6
NYh) Asp ,a0birrnu.
NI.� GPd►a y,IT�.I
NAP.
6941111 uwW p.+
45 ww m-s,Iwo Part.
6NR,1T alavilJf fTYI)
nw*o - a{'I�lylyy
GI,Nr,JP ^.A.rr ,d6'
North of Nel Bt kkV
Durant Avenue
Jh'A t•Tecise clan
Interim(Phase 1)
Landscape Plan
Shoot 4 of 6
�''� "�"N Exhibit 2
4
little nell hotel
e■EN-
■
■
■
■
little nell hotel
proposed skier drop-off ^°``"
: - 5 r• yo
I
:ic.• aN..� �r �
l�
I�jI f!YYY--+!!1� 1I�-1II1I^II� ��a'y;`b �(K yC.. • , ° �°
4120,90
SPA Precise Plan
Skier Drop-off
Exhibit 2-
HUNTER STREET '♦
I
SEESHEET,e•u,rr I I I
FOR AREA DETAIL
II.I
Li,tisMef /
SEE DETAIL"I'
J � /
zzl
J
SEE DETAIL'S'
„fie... I ` �I I I I / *"t^•!'""'' / / / % SEEDETAIL"Z"
ri.v..w• r w,e4 1 I r I I I I / I / / ee.cee4:.
—Zu�iroo:ra,TTon,Ti•_
J �� �� \ \\ I I \ \ \ rannw — �� \♦ \\ \�-SEEDETAIL"A"
J Lltr�
2 to
I s+o e•rr�[x.wur iaee4e M \\ \\
Ax J \ Kvlege \ \
GALENA STREET
\ I �
1 �
1
1
\\\\\ \ \ \\\ \ \ \\
y a Y I
I
I
I
I
�AL
•
•
�t
Exhioit 3
Sheet 1 of 4
0 0 0
SCALE 1'-30'
CONTINFINTAL
JNN
..MENTNORTH
■
!■.N.■
■
■
.■■■.■■■■.■■■■■■■■MIN■■.■..■■l
■.!MINE
■■■■..■■fiNNIM
■■.H■■■■■�I��.■■■..■..■■■■■■■■■MIN■■■■■■■■E�■■■MIN■
.�E�..■■■■■.■■!�
�mmlHmm■:I:�1!!■■■m■■!!Cm!!mClIC!!mm!lmm11lmm1!■■1■I�IIIIINlm!"�
i!!!!m'N"N'!!
'!■'miii
�
i!!!!!iiliiilimiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiii.i�i�i�i�iimmm■'iMENEM
MIMMEMIN
MIMM!!!!!!!!!M.■■
MEMO
S
��I■�■'■bll���!
�NNIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN�02111mmllllllm
!■..:!
!�■l:::m�m!!luffiffum
®NI■1■Il111lIClm!!!!!!=mmmClCl1
1111!■111111
IIIIII�IINE=�
......__e.,^:_....w exhibit 3
•
Sheet 2 of 4 C
•
•
•
I i
1
I �
I
/
I
i
I
LITTLE NELL
�\
�I
HOTEL
I
SPR/RG STREfT f. .��
I
�
�
WOODSTONE 1NN
I
I
i
_
2
e
�
!I<
i
7938
7938
7934
7930
—
-
LIr
MAM4
Ops"
L
S
"Imp
D!Y!L
PM
RT
fiR
�-
-
-
ERjj�.t
MITAY
4+
i
i
Exhibit 3
cn
Sheet 3 of 4 prak
Legal Destrption
V\\
\ \\\ BLDG. 800 ---- - -
IV
_ Use, Area and Bulk Criteria
PLANNER
/ - — - RESIDENCE
03
a ASPEN ALPS
TIPPLE `:: .•;,._.
CONDOS 'r '�«.
303-925-2857
0 _//.,...... ...« ,,CIVIL ENGINEER
N7 i•09ft MKS
"w
.f.• fs
GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER
TIPPLER __.—. ....-. --
ASPEN CLUB i /,
LODGE -� -
• ,w
,o.o•• Dean A
srs venue
I 1 .92' _....._._... _
St ��•( "Qf — .n .IOW. _
l Little Nell Hotel I ww
a ...� ..
U.. ww ww.n t N,ORTH OF NELL
Skis Dfo►-Off
/ l.. •• n. wl. ai.u.• y » r.. SPA Precise Plan
__ _ Durant Avenue _
OUo. r....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------vim ----------- -------al•lw. lY w.lv m Technical
,,o�'� --� /-------------------- ':":,:: Site Plan
«. Sheet 1 of s
�� x�oa Exhibit 3
�� �� Sheet 4 of 4
•
\\ SPA Legal Description
\\\\ \\\ \ —
Use, Area and Bulk Criteria _
RESIDENCE
a ASPEN ALPS TIPPLE
CONDOS
/ \♦ \ M79•76'
/ `■1 � y�` Terminal i ,. » »....»... ... ._._,
TIPPLER
ASPEN CLUB i = \ /J
LODGE01.
I
/ � I � � to.00• `° Dean Avenue %
1.17' eM.r■re.M M.vN/T.M■I,.r� —► •n..»..
17_wet �� TI. Nt. 17.■M
ttttY.u,nm
y Little Nell Hotel � ter
I,«eW.Nt.e"rl■11 : NORTH OF NELL , .r
RDA°.• S'P ; ��, � ,.
\ !'^•r% __--- [' .� .---_-----J eg t .wn - Iivee 7tttY YA
\ Skier Drop -Off /� "•^' ,..••-""• •_' ••••'•«••'•
_ _
1■ [[ n• 1■1. [:Llkl. - SPA Preaiae Plan
Durant Avenue LM. ■1 °■le"' '�'"'
-----------------------._�� =-------------------- --------[d.n•e u• wu.r Technical
,.� -----\ �------------------ .»",.; Site Plan
Sheet 1 of 6
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 1 •
Alpine Surveys
Is414 North Mill Street
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
75009'11"
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
14050'49"
W
241.76 FEET TO A POINT HALFWAY
BETWEEN
THE
NORTHERLY
LINE OF WATERS AVENUE AND THE
SOUTHERLY
LINE
OF UTE
AVENUE;
•
THENCE N
75009'11"
W
29.34 FEET ALONG SAID HALFWAY
LINE TO
THE
INTERSECTION
WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT
21, UTE
ADDITION;
THENCE N
38035'40"
W
16.98 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY
LINE OF
LOT
21 TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 21;
THENCE S
45021'00"
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
75009'11"
W
50.00 FEET;
THENCE N
14050'49"
E
51.30 FEET;
THENCE N
30009'11"
W
34.00 FEET;
THENCE N
75009'11"
W
235.35 FEET;
THENCE N
15030'00"
E
126.67 FEET TO A POINT ON LINE 8-9
OF THE ORIGINAL
ASPEN
TOWNSITE;
THENCE N
74023'18"
E
13.11 FEET ALONG LINE 8-9 TO CORNER
NO. 9 OF
THE
ORIGINAL
ASPEN TOWNSITE;
THENCE S
40001'52"
E
52.02 FEET ALONG LINE 1-9;
THENCE S
75009'11"
E
4.92 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY
LINE OF
LOT
R, BLOCK
98, CITY OF ASPEN;
THENCE N
14050'49"
E
10.00 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE
OF LOT R
TO
A POINT ON
THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF DEAN AVENUE;
THENCE S
75009'11"
E
60.24 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY
LINE TO
A POINT
ON THE
WESTERLY LINE OF VACATED HUNTER
STREET;
THENCE N
14050'49"
E
50.00 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE
•
TO THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER
OF LOT I, BLOCK 97, CITY OF ASPEN;
6 Exhibit 1 i
r�
•
•
Page 2
Job No. 85-121
Revised Description of Entire Little Nell S.P.A.
April 3, 1986
THENCE S 75009'11" E 75.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF LOT A, BLOCK 102, CITY OF ASPEN;
THENCE N 14050'49" 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.
�?CO'rt 518 pay- 5? 5
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen, Colorado 81611
March 18, 1986
cn
rn
-v
v
x O
N
Mr. Fred Smith
Planning Director
oz
CJZ
Aspen Skiing Company
Qo
m =
00
0060 Atlantic Avenue
rn
M
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 #4 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
the end of
the skier day. Therefore,
the conditions
of
0
• Mr. Fred Smith
Planning Director
Aspen Skiing Company
March 18, 1986
Page 2
•
PUR 518 P,v5?6
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 44 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 #4 and submit
copies of the map to the staf f 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 #4 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 #4 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 #4 or increases to the capacity of Lift #4
will require an amendment to the AMSAMP.
Mr. Fred Smith Bon 510 PX;E5?7
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 #7 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
Mountain 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
on Aspen Mountain.
. please let us know.
AR:jlr:ltr.2
•
the opening of the new Lift #4 and the gondola
If we can be of any further assistance to you
Sincerely,
ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
1
Alan Richman, AICP
Planning and Development
Director
cc: Board of County Commissioners
Tom Smith, County Attorney
John Eldert, County Manager
Glenn Horn, Asst. Planning Director
doc001/alpha/0 1�-4/13109
6-12-86/1081 •
erg 'u 51.8 PxE 524
•
PARTNERSHIP AUTHORIZATION
THE UNDERSIGNED, being all of the partners of ASPEN SKIING
COMPANY, a Colorado general partnership ("Aspen"), hereby
authorize and direct JERRY BLANK 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 .Z3, 1986.
MKDG III/MRDG IV PARTNERSHIP,
oa
Colorado general partnership
z o
�
By:
MKDG III ASPEN, INC.,
cti
w
a Delaware corporation,
General Partner
C�
QD
4 •'
cv
Y
By
4��
U
CeDa
Thoma K t ick,
Vice President
By:
MKDG IV ASPEN, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
General Partner
By : r
•
Tho a J. ilu znick,
Vice
President
LTD.,
BELVInq
anip
ni*rtnersh
C 0
•
•
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
EXHIBIT 5
Little Nell Base Development SPA Agreement
Landscape and Paving Costs
Zone 1: Planting, paving, irrigation
and street furniture
19,250 sf @ $15.00/sf $ 288,750
Zone 2: Special finish concrete 30,625
8,750 sf @ $3.50/sf
Zone 3: 10 trees @ $500 ea. _ $5,000
3,000 sf of sod or ground
cover and irrigation
@ $1.75/sf = 5,250
10,250
• Zone 4: 25 trees @ $500 ea. = $12,500
75 shrubs @ $25 ea. = 1,875
3,000 sf of irrigation
@ $1.50 sf = 4,500
1,920 sf of sidewalk
a $3.50/sf = 6,720
700 if of curb and gutter
@ $10/lf 7,000
32,595
Zone 4a: 30 trees @ $500 ea. _ $15,000
125 shrubs @ $25 ea. = 3,125
3000 sf of irrigation
@ $1.50/sf = 4,500
22,625
Zone 5: 30,000 sf of wildflower/ native
grass seeding @ $.30/sf 9,000
Total $ 393,845*
•
Includes $118,400 for Phase 1 improvements in
*
Zones 1, 2 and 5
cc
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this
� z
-v x
day�of, il,
Cl
1986, by and between the City of Aspen,
a m1W c1"e1T
GJ
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 se ., 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 2-e , 1986.
- 1 -
•
•
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
By B,�' �-
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Paul J. Taddune,
r \\'Ci4X43�,t orney
:. S2Af.:
(-pndor agr/ASC2
c 1a►
ATTEST:
Kathryn S och,
City Cle
- 2 -
•
•
cia
rn
"q
�
-K
r
o
;K51-8
r
nrt •�'l �
•�
Z 7D
.
o
� m
AGREEMENT
-o
o z
�rn
v�
THIS AGREEMENT,
is made as of the date
Coo
last
m
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 � at Page � 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 5-)J' 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
• herein as Exhibit "A"
lines and facilities
Site Plan.
form annexed hereto and incorporated
for all as built easements for utility
as generally shown on the SPA Technical
N
co
N
cn
-t.
- 1 -
(0
(0 C�Q
Pun
• 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,
seals this
OWNER:
WHEREOF, the parties
day of
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, a
Colorado general partnership
By\�
have set their hands and
1986.
CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado
municipal c rporation
By_
(NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ON FOLLOWING PAGE)
- 2 -
c•
(.0
•
•
0
STATE OF COLORADO)
) ss.
0Mt9TY-.,OF PITKIN )
..•.•.•The , foroi�ng instrument
"'ci�ay e- o f 1986,
of AISPEN SKIING
Cox 5 8 mrsE51-9
was ac owledge-d before me this
by
CORPO TIONG, a Colorado general
' 7r WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires:
Notary Public
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of • _ z_F'� 1986, by William L. Stirling as
�jM4yc6'r and Kathryn- . Kofch as City Clerk of the City of Aspen,
-Colors-do.
0 TA
- WITNESS my hand and official seal.
C My commission expires:
easement agr/ASC2
40�ajfPublic`
- 3-
r •
r
rn
'ter
N
y
( h
Z)6
a
6
bGQ,t 1n_�
•
.a
CJ
EXHIBIT "A"
CD
"J Y'
-a
c�
o z
C31
GRANT OF EASEMENT
v =
cn
cam
m
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 Lit
tle
Nell Base Development recorded in Book 6-IS-_ 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, day of; ?. 1986.
- 1 -
0 GRANTOR:
•
•
COO 518 ?Ai t 52�1-
ASPEN SKIING.COMPANY, a
Colorado general partnership
B
STAT -OF_ OLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
,T,h'o. forgoing instrument was acknowle ged before me this
,. cla �d-f 1986, by as
o ASPEN SKIING C PANY a o orado general
zto}r r p, Grantor.
—
`%� al� ,WITNESS my hand and official seal.
ii'i.'•. .•'
F • ...... ���' My commission expires:
Notary Public
easement grant/ASC2
- 2 -
E
anon PAGE 5?�
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 N4L�5_0/
Base Development recorded in Book �S' at Page Z
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:
Dated this �_ day of
GRANTOR:
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY, a
Colorado general partnership
By
1986.
cn
'o
rnv
r-
N
,o
cc
� rrt
u
cTl j_
-v
o z
C.FI
�
� m
C7
c
m
ara
,70
• (NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ON FOLLOWING PAGE)
- 1 -
•
•
J�ox 5 �_ �k4 `��
• STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
�J
•
The foregoing instrument was acknowled ed before me this
day of 1986, byas
of -ASPEN SKIING CQMPAN a Colorado general
partnership, G ntor.
WITNESS my hand and official seal. A
My commission expires:
Notary Publi
trail easement/ASC2
- 2 -
i'I;;i�ll�l►�'�I ;1'II'11111�1 1'�L1._.I.�..�.•i!!
i i . I I l i l I I I I •-I•I• I -I I i I I I!
i; I I I
I
.� II j�illlll� !�! 1il1 I iiill'`IIIII IIII(1II�II� i�llll
i I I l i l! I I I I I I I I I I I I• I I I I I I I, I I I I I ,
.� . I I;•v ,' .' I' �-i . i t � i i . I I I I 11 1 1 I; 1 I i 1 I I I' I I
/�•- p F PI
I .. I I II%Y/'�7 I': I�•-�� i" i I I I I ! I I I 1 �! I ! I � ! ! 1 1 I
. I I I � I I i.� ' �� � i I I � A'I� - I G•�.1-4'� ! I I I 1 � �, j �+P�-L� i� I I
T"'
' i .i j � 1�1 ,� I� a�StalaN� i I I I, I I EArI , I i i• i !! �, l i I I I' I I I I I i l
' i I
';'i�''j��l !I i�..i I' I � lil '~i�lljilllllililll111111•i II
IL617!
I 1 1 i I 1 1 I,' waTb2 1 I I, I ~! —I I •! I I i 111 i i !'. � I i i l l l y I L ! � I I
Hj�►17e- 2
�j T r r T
61
orric
P-A To
��'S ` I I _. i •---.__._.._1..._..�_`I ;��= 1 I •�'�� I 1 S "fir ; I' I i I
1�-! ! i I I I I I
orric
I I 1 I I i
I`� , I I I • �:�I' 1 I i __-_ � I �� I I I I i 1 I
' {
I
I '
_ ._. _.___._._.-_.. �...-rac aflwr.�w., fUfto1•f.)141 N�[IfV[T:'�YIrY'a�'�—ti'�•�•-'Yi�.r a[KL_-�J
•; i �' I I I i i,� I i I , 1, I,' I I I I I I 1 I I
, , . . . i . . . .
'A III
• I � ( I 1 l I I' I; i� j l l l I I I I I I I I ! I I! I I I 1 1 „ I I
i !
i I I � I l i! I I:_ •. i .! , i I i l i--- -- c.
7 A 1'RJ ', } I} I I I i I' I I i' I I I! I I I I I•!! I I
H-A u 1.,1 n--V
S7 Yt
e-31 r-33 I �
1
T#L I
j1L�CC3{J� p�Ltl�!� I t'
N
a . GCS 20 cr'" z �:
(ram.
Q� ,, � \(�� � � � L 6..y� "s a' - •{': n :+: � t•n t,A..G . u.1
S.LA l� I
'i37;l;tl t�
15
'""; ,-1' - I'j i • ~ I Z�.�iGI�S�1� �/.:-vr-A
7 n ,..
T, ►� i i I �, I , i! ,
i III' t _ri l ,�O,l` ..., •- 1r-,-, ,
• -•i-• -- -• 1 t..., I. I I, ..+-r- ! I I I I� j! I . , i I r I i 1
• j , � ; +•;� , !� I I -+ � ,. ; y..I I ; i i - j � 1 i I i ' . , I � I !. , , , I I + � I '
. i r I I I ! , r i I, I I I �' + ' i i j�( -r- TT"r'`-- - �{-^-I-�-•_"T_ � I 1 I
, , ! + I � • I ; - - I I .i i i I 1 i ' � � ' , � � I ��,L�I .{�ii �.\//I i i I ! �l.i /'i 1.1� (ayv1+�� � 1 �a,, �'?�I 1
i' ,' !' 1 I �" r I - I 11 I 'I i I I I i I ' I i: I i I I' 1 � '/yi��Y�{•� � I � /� ��'i �, � I i
4i i I
q'(J�'� jT71 I i 1
-r-t-._. •-i-- .I� �.•.• T1 �_;_I. �_. _j i �' � �;� i j i� I -�i�• �,I I j i i I. 1; �'_+. i I i�' I I I
I �
Fell
• . ' , I , I i ' � � � � C-'/' 1 �. I , ; � I � I ' !
Fell;
I+ I i I I � �! I-_ I �+ I '! I r I � 1 .j 1'� I I• � I I 1 � 11+ 1
• r i l ; 1 !_ + I � 1 I I j I l i i' 11 I: i I! 1 I� I' i l" 1� 1+' I I'" , I I I
•I�-I' I� t ( I t i i ! , ( , I . . � ; I l I '�,%111 �, , I , I � '•j"r ��j � I I � , '
;lt;l' 11 i jl.. � i'i�Fl Il jI1'I ,i• '; EIIII'` I 1 ' I I � I:
, I_;, I I' I ! I S I I l, ! I 1 I I I •'! , I+
cc)
,, r �I I i t I• t r r 1�� I l l l l l i� j j i l l �� i l l i' I,_ I I' I � I .1 " I
i i I I i � ! ' 1 1 � 1 � I i ' ;`' �,; + ! i A � � i ( � I I' 1►.) �" r' ` -• 1 � 11 ; ) r.- '(Y1 'r" � � `I : -�-+��
; I I I , I 1 ;� I i - � ! ., , I � i!I ` , I` i• c,r. t--f..' . , n • r � ' �!' K 1 ' '
j I, ' 1 ' � •' { I � 1 � I• i I � + ! i I i , i � ' i Y/ ' �� I �,et" i� �`ti \I � I � ' i � , � , ; I ! I � � � ; I
I I � I 1 .• I' I ,
I, ' ' ( I • I I ' + I , , I I � I msw � , "`•t' ►+"x': �.',.`� r ``./'til►i � I , 1 I
i+� t� I j I' ��✓�� `r 1... ! .. '
f' 11 i I ,j I I
1..�.._._ _ _
H Y M A N
z78882
z 7897.3
t Pool
•VF
-J
N JIF1
�9Q 7 ---
--
-
- -- ----
---
K
sr_ Pool
7897.0
01
ti z 7898.4 '
-- 77
- - - -- - - - - x791
'00
•�AVENUE
497'0(�o
"rn
N
(Y
m
ILr
m
D
C� •
Y
)0.9
�'_ /
7899
% 7899.1
Il
ASPEN*PITKIN&EGIONAL BUILDI*G DEPARTMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Alan Richman Planning Director D
� I JON 2 5 I%_.
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:
517 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303/925-5973
mail address:
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
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
Work Session Aspen City Council March 19, 1986
Forsch told Council they applicant has increased the on -site
parking from 77 to 118 spaces, which is in excess of the
recommendation of the transportation consultant. This is the
maximum number of spaces that can physically be accommodated on
site.
Bill Kane presented 3 site plans to show the initial
submission of summer 1985, the precise plan submission December
1985, and the final plan with requested changes. Kane pointed
out the original submission has 96 rooms; the project now has 92
rooms and the commercial floor area has been reduced. Kane said
in the original plan the building was set back 6 feet from
Durant. There were reservations about visual impact and the
shading of the street, and lack of room for accommodating
vehicular drop off.
Kane showed Council the toe of the slope and that the
applicant has tried to keep the building on the more urban part
of the site rather than go up the mountain. The constraints of
the project are the hill on the south side and the need for open
space on Durant street. Kane showed the next submission which
had the building 16 feet off Durant street and have angle parking
on Durant street using public and private land. Kane said the
final plan has the building 26 feet off Durant street. The drop
offs are 100 percent on private land. There is no change to the
travel lanes of Durant street.
2
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
I
Work Session Aspen City Council March 19. 1986
trail will have to be moved because of the launching mechanism
for the gondola and will go below the gondola building. The
winter cross country trail will be higher up the mountain.
Kane presented the shading on Durant street at various times
and compared to the North of Nell building. Kane showed that
Durant street will be in the sun on December 21st and the North
of Nell casts a shadow to the other side of the street. Kane
said the Hunter street intersection will be reinforced as a
pedestrian arrival point for the mountain. Kane said the street
level of the building is set back 8 feet to visually widen the
entrance.
Kane said the Little Nell lift will be replaced with a
triple chair. Kane explained the operation of the gondola and
the uphill capacity of 2000 skiers per hour. The gondola
building will be about 2500 square feet. Larry Yaw told Council
the applicants are still collecting technical information for the
gondola building, sot he design is not fixed. Mayor Stirling
asked what the north side of the building will look like. Yaw
said one consideration is to have the entryway on the north side.
People will have to walk up about 4 feet. Yaw suggested having
glass on the north side for more interest. Yaw told Council
during the review process, the building will be designed.
Forsch pointed out that moving the building back off the
street an additional 20 feet makes the building read as about
4
Work Session Aspen City Council March 19, 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
0
Work Session Aspen City Council March 19. 1986
cliff face of the mountain. Forsch said they are attempting to
keep the lift as low profile as possible. Forsch told Council
the new Little Nell lift will accommodate special events, ski
school and secondary access to the Bell Mountain chair. The new
Little Nell lift won't operate until 10 a.m. because of the
forest service interpretation of uphill capacity. Forsch told
Council they are balacing this lift between skier convenience,
views, access. Council requested the applicant have a rendering
of the gondola building at a future meeting. Forsch said SPA
allows for variations; however, they have tried to stay within
the zone requirements. Forsch said the mazing area will serve
both the Little Nell lift and the gondola. Forsch said the
Little Nell terminal will be up at the top and just a bull wheel
will be at the bottom. Forsch said both the gondola and the
hotel are very ambitious projects. The Skiing Company plans to
have the gondola open in December.
Council left the work session at 7:05 p.m.
6
VAYEN
SQUARE
5
Aspen Ski Company
Aspen, Colorado
Attn: Peter Forsch
Dear Peter,
K X M/_.,�
January 1986
jAN 2 I G86 b
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
co:ric, co 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 detriment9to the town and,
in- a- self serving sense, to the view planes of soar` -of" 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. postu.x'&. Experience of some
of our owners and Board members who have served--on-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.
617 Fast Cooper Avenue e Aspen. Colorado 81611 e 303-925-1000
condominium hotel at little nell
5. Traffic congestion and skier drop-off areas are major concerns
to us. We do not feel that the additional ten feet of building
setback with an island in the Durant right-of-way is enough to alleviate
these problems.
6. Your r,w lifts and runs have greatly enhanced Aspen Mt. for
skiers. The planned gondola or detachable chair will be another im-
portant step for Aspen to continue to be one of the top ski resorts
in the world. We encourage you to continue these improvements and
expansions. We think they have much higher leverage on your success
(as will as ours)than the addition of a 100 room, $20 million dollar
unprofitable hotel.
In summary then, —Peter, we support your desire to do some devel-
opment at Little Nell, but not what you are currently propos�i-rrg.
It is just too much building on that piece of land to be in the best
interest of Aspen. The potential impact of its unprofitability fright-
ens us. The attitude of many townspeople that_-alnything is OK if a
gondola is installed strikes us as short sighed.
Ow
Again, we appreciate your activities to keep us abreast of the
plans and status of the development and we would like the opportunity
to work with the Ski Company to achieve a mutually acceptable, viable
and enhancing development at Little Nell.
For the Board of Directc;.3,
John C. Taylor
�.. Vice President
- Aspen Square
cc: Aspen Town Council
Aspen Square Board of Directors
George Laswell !'
JT/ml
p L9c5 19nd��
CRILWFORD PETROLEUM COMPANY
3401 EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD 0 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 park 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 ning Commission •
January 9, 1986*
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
q` .
JOHN D. LASALLE
SPENCER F. SCHIFFER
LASALLE & SCHIFFER, P. C.
ATTOBNEYS AT LAW
434 EAST GooPER AvENuE
ASPEN, CiOLORADO 81611
February 4, 1986
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Aspen Skiing Company, SPA Precise Plan
Dear Commission Members:
AREA GODS 303
TELEPHONE 025-2043
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 & 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 truly, yours,
Spencer F. Schiffer
SFS:Ijk
cc: Sirous Saghotoleslami
Alan Richman ,/
Gideon Kaufman, Esq.
•
February 25, 1986
Aspen City Council
Aspen Planning and Zoning
Pitkin County Commissioners
FEB 2 81986
I am 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!
Sincerely,
Jw I
Terri Hart
•
•
LAW OFFICES
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR.
THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
SUITE 109, 201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR.
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III r' TELEPHONE (303) 925-7116
19
February 28, 1986
�rMAR -
Q
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 . W �.ar`d T,
P
JE
SPORT OBERMEYER 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.
T
rdially yours,aus F. ermeyer
esident
KFO:kac
P.O. BOX 7848 92 ATLANTIC AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-5060 TX. 45-998
•
•
JOHN D. LASALLE
SPENCER F. SGHIFFER
LASALLE & SCHIFFER, P. G.
ATTOI msys AT LAW
434 EAST COOPER AVENUE
ASPEN, CiOLORADO 81611
March 20, 1986
Gid n Kaufman, Esq.
315 E t Hyman Avenue
Aspen, lorado 81611
AREA GoDE 303
TELEPHONE 025-2043
MAR 2 119g6
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 O.
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,
Spenq'er F. Schiffer
SFS:ljk
cc: Sirous Saghatoleslami
Peter Forsch
Alan Richman /
LASALLE & SCHIFFER, P. C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
434 LAST COOPER AVENiTE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81011
JOHN D. LASALLE
SPENCER F. SCHIFFER
HAND DELIVERED
March 18, 1986
anning and Zoning Commission
Ci of Aspen
130 th Galena Street
Aspen, C orado 81611
RE: Aspen Skiing Company SPA Precise Plan
Dear Commission Members:
AREA CODE 300
TELEPHONE 825-2040
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 & 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:Ijk
cc: Sirous Saghatoleslami ZX
Alan Richman, Planning Director
Gideon Kaufman, Esq.
Peter Forsch
Paul Taddune, Esq.
0
•
0
ME DRANDU M
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
� • g
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRJ : Hal Schilling, City Manag �
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning an evelopment Director
RE: Little Nell Conceptual SPA
DATE: November 11, 1985
SUMMARY: The Planning Off ice 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.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to approve Resolution No. 3S (Series of
1985) ."
"Move to read Ordinance — (Series of 1985) ."
"Move to approve on first reading Ordinance No. L_ (Series of
1985.11
U
_— RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
L RESOLUTION NO. 33
:12:—
(Series of 1985)
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONCEPPUAL APPROVAL �..
1 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 Fell 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, 1i'85 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 Fell Ease 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 2.4-7.2 (C) of the Code due to the unique
location of the parcel as the summer and winter gate%.,ay 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
multi -year _allocation to the project upon approval of the
appl icant ' s preci se pl an, 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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
110I.7, THEREFORE, BE rr RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
That Council does hereby grant concertual SPA approval to the
Little Nell Base Redevelopment Plar., subject to the following condi-
tions:
1. The applicant shall amend the site plat to provide open
space along thelen tri o t e Durant Street frontace of the
hotel, so as to create a courtyard of at least 10 feet in
depth`The open space requirement shall be considered in
coordi—nation wit rather than i'n a-M itien to the area En 6e
set aside for the on -site drop-off facility require _-
conc?ition 07 belcw.
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 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. 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 chances 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 fcr the
earth work which is proposed to occur at the b<.oe area,
including, any activity associated with the base of the new
lifts which may fall outside of the SPA boundary, anal shall
identify the locztions for any material deposition which is
to occur.
G. The applicant shall evaluate the applicability of the City's
8040 greenline and mountain viei:•plane review procecures to
the proposed development. Should it be found the.t 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 ir.Cicate 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
itr for-hot61 aueSts. As -the Council is concerned' bout
maintaining adequate traffic flows on Durant Avenue, it is
e;,pected that the at-�plicant will address the proper location
for this facility within the project's property boundary.
2
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 bell 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.
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 mitication
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, including,
but not limited to ambulances and fire tru-Eks.
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 S. 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_pecly to t e City w ich lift _system is
intended to be installed prior to review of the Precise Plan
by the City Council, also giving the Planning_Office
adequate time to review t _e_ proposa�and obtain referral
comments from other_ agencies prior to the initial_ esentd_-
Lion of tale 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.
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 the' U 113ing`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-roundtrail 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 in the Precise Plan submis-
sion that all questions as to the ownership of the Hunter
treet 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 th_e
pedestrian access issue has been resolved to t e City's
itisfaction. The applicant will -also demonstrate tit the
boundary questions adjacent to the Tippler have been
resolved, and the SPA boundary designation shall be adjusted
accordingly.
2.1. 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 bountain 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.
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.
Pated:
1985 .
William L. Stirling, [Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do
certify that the forcooing 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.
AP.. 81
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerl:
5
ORDINANCE NO. (p I
(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.
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.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
GMP ordinance/DOC2
William L. Stirling, Mayor
�m
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 22z:
ORDINANCE NO. 53
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, EXPENDING
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 leaves
Section 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 DESCRIPPION 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.
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.
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
4 day of (S<-��'-���J , 1985, at 5: 00 P.M. in the
City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
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
1985.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this
, 1985.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
AR.11
day of —
William L. Stirling, Mayor
- 1 •
•
I. Proposed Responses To P&Z CQ�di
A. Open Space:
1. Kane to meet with "zoning official" to determine
compliance
B. FAR Compli-aance:
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. Park a Needs:
1. Bill Eager, TDA retained and underway; November 1,
report deadline
2. Kane, Forsch to coordinate and review draft report
D. Visua_,1 Impact - C Pate Silnt�iati-aw
1. DWI to produce a view from Hyman and Hunter
2. Put color 8x10 prints in GMP submission package
E. D€tai-IedSrading F1 ice:
1. DWI to prepare at 1"=50' for Little Nell slope
from #4 midway to base. 2' contours. Revise
Aspen Mtn. road.
F. 8040 G.resnline, Mountain Vieplane:
1. DWI (D. Ellis) to review and prepare submission
for P.P, G.M.P.
G. Drop_of-f
1. B. Eager to review and prepare
2. Ellis to review turning movements with Yaw
H. Servic__Yard Design:
1. P. Forsch, Yaw, Kane to resolve design approach
2. Yaw to incorporate in building design
I. Street Sapacities-
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. Pumphosl.,se_
1. D. Ellis to coordinate preliminary engineering
design with REA/Cassins.
L. Base Lift_Buu-i Idina:
1. Yaw to produce elevation to match hotel
M. Lift _Service.
1. Fred Smith to provide technical memo for inclusion
in submission
N . Em o ee_ Hg ue iwcj--�
1. J. Curtis to prepare plan and coordinate with
housing authority
0. Shadoh Study_
1. DWI to prepare computer simulation for sun/shadow
2. Define pedestrian circulation
P. Roof lan/SbpwfbeddiDcj-z
1. Yaw to prepare roof plan and snow shedding area
maintenance plan
Q. Park LaI►d_ EDcroacInent_
1. Yaw should show precisely that building does not
encroach beyond property line
R. Trai __Ea gDgDt__
1. Show trail to existing Tippler parking lot (DWI)
S. aG teway�_"More�ra�
1. DWI will better define the landscape plan for
Hunter, Dean
T. Hunter Street Qw e-hipi
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. Firep-laces, Eny-iro-Dznental Health
1. No fireplaces proposed or if so, only natural gas
will be used
V. Storm Drainsa P aD_
1. Rea/Cassins to prepare storm draingae plan
2. Budget and proposal required
W. Eistoric_Access_Tatt_e_rn_:
1. Regrading and service will keep this area open
anyway
X. Legal CoDd ti4�s___No_.Acti9DR�auire�3�.
Y. HeiahtLimitation_
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. re aration_Of_Precise_PlaSubmission
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)
0
0
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
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 "O" 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 "O" 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
- P
01
c
/-t /c7//T, IZI5
3
............ +
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manager )zr`yv-
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Off ice
RE: Continued Public Hearing - Little Nell Conceptual SPA
DATE: October 30. 1985
SUMMARY: The Planning office recommends that the Asper. City Council
grant conceptual approval to the Little Nell SPA, subject to the
conditions in P&Z Resolution #85-18, as proposed to be modified
herein, and that you indicate your conceptual opposition to the
applicant's lodae 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 meetina_, 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 SPA 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 consic'_erable 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
f ollows:
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 19701s.
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.
0
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
development, 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.
RECONNENDATION: 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 #85-18, 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 . 2 5
5
•
E
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 For sch 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 Asper, 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 -
ME MURAN DU M
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU : Hal Schilling, City Manag r
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office NK
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.
14E1DRANDU M
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU : Hal Schilling, City Manager (�
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office V�9�
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.
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
pillows per unit) n„ (�� k �o -A 1
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:
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
F7
L-A
14E1DRANDU M
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manager
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
kK
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 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. 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 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.
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 f or 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
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
proj ect . 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
proj ect' 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-
•
i
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
0
been asked in Condition #18 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 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. 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 #22 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 #11 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 #12 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
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 ISSUES
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
E
C7
•
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 `
��, W A� � �9 O k. d � � . $ � S 5.,*
In the opinion of the Planning Office, one key consideration
in awarding a f uture 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) . N-e f
5. Hotel Aspen (13 new units) .
The above projects amount to about 350 rebuilt units and over 400
new 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
cL�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 and to deduct 4 units
from the residential quota.) Lk �;c \Ic
The Council should also be aware that the Code (Section 2 -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 BaseRedevelopment project could be seen as
pp
\S of �6� 980\
•
•
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
is one indication of the impacts of the 96 unit allocation
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.
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 1 i st , 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?
We recognize that the project before us offers some very appeal-
ing amenities with respect to the very dilapidated area at the
--�� base of our mountain, just as the Aspen Mountain PUD offered us
�nr•�� 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
0
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-I/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 tie
lodge sector. � � k \,� �, ^�
B
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 �,,�~"� oK�,,., S w
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 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
this project in the
ment sectors?
the likely growth which will spin off from
skiing, commercial and residential develop -
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 prei se
development plan is before you.
AR.12
�..oCv-
S' �
15
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
InQ leave
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 f eet, 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 leaves
Section 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.
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
100 leaves
INTRODUCED,
READ AND ORDERED
published as
provided by law by
the City Council
of the City of
Aspen on the
day of
, 1985.
ATTEST:
William L. Stirling, Mayor
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of
, 1985.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATT EST :
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°09111" 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 14050149" 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 38035140" W 53.51 feet to the Northwest corner of said
Lot 21;
thence S 45021100" 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 75009111" W 50.00 feet;
thence N 14050149" E 51.30 feet;
thence N 30009111" W 34.00 feet;
thence N 75009111" W 237.00 feet;
thence N 15030100" E, 125.50 feet to a point on Line 8-9 of the
Original Aspen Townsite;
thence along Line 8-9 N 74023118" E 14.15 feet to Corner No. 9 of
the Original Aspen Townsite;
thence along Line 1-9 S 40001152" E 52.02 feet;
thence S 75 09111" 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 75009111" E 60.24 feet along said Southerly line to a
point on the Westerly line of vacated Hunter Street;
thence N 14050149" E 50.00 feet along said Westerly line to the
Southeast corner of Lot I, Block 97, City of Aspen;
thence S 75009111" E 75.00 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot A,
Block 102, City of Aspen;
thence N 14050149" 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.
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 dell 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,
I.
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 applicant -to 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 E
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.
6
0
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 affect,, -
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 mousing 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. pol'_-ential 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 Fettle 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.
ATTEST:
r
J
Rim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk
AR.8
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
By ( �Vllk ad4-"�
C. Welton A d4rson, Chairperson
4
0
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
0060 ATLANTIC AVENUE • AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER • BOX 1248 • ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 a 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 i ted,
Peter Forsch
Project Manager
PF:dm
ASPEN MOUNTAIN 0 BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN • SNOWMASS • BRECKENRIDGE
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 Appl.iction. The
uses in the neighborhood surrounding the subject property are
mixed and varied including short-term residential, lono-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 0 BUTTERMILK MOUNTAIN 0 SNOWMASS 0 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 -his
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 303/925-1220
Members of the Planning Commission
June 21, 1985
Page 3
Section 24-7.1 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) , aiid (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-_1`arkingreg irement fo_ 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
dP'k;Plnhmer?i- envic7J()nPd fn.r_ the new..hntel..__wlll 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 thF Cr intact; we anticipate
requesting approval for variations from several zoning
standards. In t-he 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 as 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 higrer
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 constitu=es 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
3une 21, 1985
Page 7
existing base of Aspen Mountain. This Conceptual Plan does
riot 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
7
•
•
BACKGROUND
2} 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 mountaui.
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 LANDIRSE 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 a9 asks for a boundary adjustme0to 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 -
t,nan littler rmmr%atitinno inventive to uoarade lodaina 41,11ities. 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 -
SUM
MARY 0 •
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 -
ASPEN
AW CAI 1. SKI RESORT
SNOWMASS
11
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
Post Office Box 1248
Aspen, Colorado 81612
303/925-1220
Aspen Mountain
Buttermilk Mountain
Snowmass
NEWS
RELEASE
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY INTRODUCES PLANS FOR BASE
REDEVELOPMENT
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
a gateway for skiers and summer visitors and with the proposed
improvement will showcase the quality of both the resort and the
mountain through careful and innovative planning and integration
of land use elements.
Proposed for the site is a 96 room luxury hotel, restaurant
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.
The entire base area redevelopment and hotel will ultimately
enhance both the efficiency and image of the area and reduce
impacts on land use while creating an attractive, modern, high
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
0
LmCm Lai + 1 - •p _LLIIIIlJ___ __
_ _.
_ •. -- ,�• ® � ... � r ,�(i: �r.+_ •<,� - -- - 1 - .�. - ILLUSTRATIVE
ZIII n* *, •' t T ;a SITE PLAN
5 5
P-j
�� •. -
r c boo- o
..
545
510
475
440
405,
0 370
ASPEN G. M. P. LODGING
GROWTH HISTORY AND PROJECTIONS
335
D 300
z
O265
J
230
D •E
--
195
1
I
9 160
125 j
I
90
I
I
72 B I
54 * J
t
36 A t
18 000,00
A. Aspen Inn - 36 units
B. Lodge at Aspen - 31 units
C. Carriage House - 26 units
D. Aspen Mountain Lodge - 114 units
(172 - 44 Alpine Haus, 14 Copper Horse)
E. Sardy House - 19 units (exempted)
F. Little Nell Hotel
G. Little Nell - Start of Construction
H. Little Nell Opening
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
YEARS
0
•
A.
DRAFT CONDITIONS STATEMENT - LITTLE NELL CONCEPTUAL SPA
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
proj ect . 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.
GROWPH 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, 1986 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 1.4 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. 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.
3
A.
B.
DRAFT CONDITIONS STATEMENT - LITTLE NELL CONCEPTUAL SPA
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.
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.
1.1
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 REOUEST: 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 sf,all 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, zr_c1 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.
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
?. 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 cats -got ies 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 ff e::tz,h]ishing 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
d(4 ELrd nati on of compliance would be made at the precise
11 an 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 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-
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
proj ect. 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
greenl ine 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 bloodstone
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
1-rovic'•ec' us with ro 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 sXciaJ 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
tt,eir growth managernent application until the precise plan is sub-
r,-Jttec'. 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 J.o0ge 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
0
•
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
hFAU6'- 2iron
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Richman, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Director
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Enginee r
DATe: July 22, 1.985
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.
D
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
•
•
MEMORANDUM
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
TO: ALAN RICHMAN, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: LITTLE NELL SPA CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION
DATE: JULY 15, 1985
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
•
•
HAND DELIVERED
SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C. D @ V v
ATTORNEY AT LAW V
434 EAST COOPER
AspzN. COLORADO 81611 SEP 2 5 I985 i.
13031925.2043 �' J
September 23, 1985
Aspen City Council
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Little Nell Conceptual SPA Application
by_the_As�en_Skiin�_Company_�____M
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 wi 1 1 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 Nel1. 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 jerruly
mountain.
VourS. Schiff V,P.C.
SFS:ls
cc: The Kettle Corporation
-"Alan Richman, Planning Director
Gideon Kaufman, Esq.
Jerry Blann
Peter Forsch
0
HAND_DELIVERED
SPENCER F. SCHIFFER. P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
434 EAST COOPER
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
(303) 925.2043
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
b�_the_As�en_Skiinjr,_Com2any
Dear Commission Members:
I represent The Kettle Corporation, owner of the
Copper Kettle and Tippler.
My client supports the Application by the Aspen.
Ski ing Company to extend the SPA Zone as wet 1 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
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
abi 1 i ty to enhance the desi rabi 1 i ty of this Ci ty 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 improves 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.
SFS:ls
cc: Alan Richman, Planning
Gideon Kaufman, Esq.
The Kettle Corporation
Aspen Skiing Company
Very ma
e er FP.C.
Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manag
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
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.
RECORNENDATION: 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. 2 8
2
•
•
DOMMUS & 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 hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 ❑ 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.
11-Sincerel
ti
J seph Wells, AICP
JW/b
cc: Aspen City Council
John Roberts
Robert Callaway
Alan Novak
Mike Holbrook
Art Daily
608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 ❑ telephone: 303 925-6866