HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Mountain View.601 S Aspen.48A-86 s "
CITY f PEN
r
130 south galena street 2
aspen, colorado ;'81611
303-925
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 29, 1987
TO: Alan '1c man, Planning Office
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Mountain View GMP Application
Please comment on the attached letter from Doug Allen as quickly
as convenient.
PJT /mc
Attachment
ieva A`6'\ ,
\Strb 6w Lek
p.i„k. v -A l,t
�s s� i s I s a ceA s r u s-c
O c-- .1.A 110t47<1
/
Pr I. 01 f.e.Pe..: - I w � •4 ‘ 14 -' 4-4 s
` 1 ak .CSC
f .l Q_. AAA- w2 w0�✓ SV �
o f dte
52 L4-1
F42
LAW OFFICES OF
Douglas P. Allen 1 \,'` jut 231981 2 ' ,.
yyyp
COURTHOUSE PLAZA BUILDING
530 EAST MAIN STREET. FIRST FLOOR
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
(303) 925 -8800
DOUGLAS P. ALLEN
DAVID B. HERRINGTON. P.C.
July 23, 1987
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Mountain View hearing scheduled for August 10, 1987
Dear Steve:
Please be advised that we do not wish to have the mailed
notification go out to the neighboring property owners for the
above hearing as we do wish to withdraw the currently pending GMP
application.
Very truly yours,
1-,„\ L, o Q LC ■7 U '1° -rte
Douglas P. Allen
DPA /pkm
TELECOPIER #(303) 90348 925 -9398
LAW OFFICES OF
x
1 `
a , t Douglas 1P. Allen
``�I' COURTHOUSE PLAZA BUILDING
530 EAST MAIN STREET. FIRST FLOOR
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
(303) 925 -8800
DOUGLAS P. ALLEN
DAVID 8. HERRINGTON. P.C.
July 23, 1987
•• _ . '• • I DUNE
City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Mountain View GMP application
Dear Paul:
I believe the record is clear in connection with the purchase
options on the property involved in the above GMP application.
However, in order to be certain this is the case, please be
advised that that portion of the property, Lots 3 -6, Block 11,
Eames Addition, known as "the Austin property" is no longer the
subject of a valid option in favor of the applicant. Although
since the option expired we have been in negotiations with the
trustee, we have not reached agreement to reinstate the option at
this time and do not expect to be able to do so by August 10,
1987.
We would still prefer to submit a new 1897 application sensitive
to the comments of both the Planning Office and the Planning &
Zoning Commission. The agreement under which we were to do this,
however, was withdrawn by Alan Richman approximately 10 days
after the agreement was reached.
We still feel that it is critical to the integrity of the Growth
Management Plan, regardless of this application, to maintain
existing unused units for the benefit of any developer who may
apply as well as for the good of the il ligpruly . yours
D
fa e � �"�-
DPA /p
cc: Hans B. Cantrup
Thomas J. Kerwin, Esq.
TELECOPIER 1(303) RARQ 925 -9398
R LAW OFFICES OF Allll
augllas P. en
COURTHOUSE PLAZA BUILDING i ] /
� � � lu
530 EAST MAIN STREET, FIRST FLOOR - - -(
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 q
(303) 925 -0800 ' JUL 13 (981 pT
,I
u
'
DOUGLAS P. ALLEN ■ ;
DAVID B. HERRINGTON. P.C. t
.. - flfl
7 July 13, 1
Honorable William Stirling
Mayor, City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: (1) Mountain View Conceptual Subdivision
(2) Residential GMP Quota Available /Steve Burstein's Memo
to City Council of July 7, 1987
Dear Mayor Stirling:
It has been agreed with the Planning Office that due to a defect
in the notification required by the City Code that Action Item
VII(h) will be continued until the August 10, 1987 meeting for
consideration, if consideration is necessary by Council. A
related matter is Item (2) above as Steve Burstein has included
in his Mountain View Memorandum the Planning Office's rationale
against the carry -over of the unallocated 35 units of quota
presently existing, but not rationale for the carry -over which he
says may also be validly argued.
Amicus Curiae briefs are often filed in court cases as "Friend of
the Court" briefs to more fully inform courts of not only the
surrounding facts but rationale as to why a court should reach a
certain decision. I would like the opportunity, either at the
August 10, 1987 meeting or at any date prior to August 10 and
convenient to Council, to present extensive data which we have
compiled in connection with the rationale behind the existing GMP
process and the entire history since its inception in 1977.
TELECOPIER #(303) ..z 925 -9398
Q '"
Honorable William Stirling
Re: Mountain View
Residential GMP Quota
July 13, 1987
Page Two
Steve Burstein correctly states in his Memo that there are valid
arguments both for and against the carry -over. In his
assessment, however, he only deals with reasons against the
carry -over. On behalf of all other affected parties we would
like to present the case for carry -over of these units into the
present year competition. Such carry -over would eliminate the
need for appearance by Mountain View at the August 10, 1987
meeting as we would present a new scaled down application this
fall, as stated in my letter of July 7, 1987 to Steve.
n
4zc: -mid f nv �
Douglas . Allen
DPA /pkm
cc: City Council
Enclosure: 7 -7 -87 letter
;
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Mountain View Rezoning, Conceptual Submission and
Street Vacation
DATE: July 13, 1987
LOCATION: 601 S. Aspen Street, Lots 1 through 22 (including
vacated alley), Block 6, and Lots 3 through 12, Block 11, Eames
Addition, City of Aspen.
CURRENT ZONING: Block 6, Eames Addition is zoned L -2. Lots 3
through 12, Block 11, Eames Addition are zoned R -15 (PUD) (L) and
are proposed to be rezoned to L -2.
LAND AREA: 72,545 square feet. Block 6, Eames Addition - 42,545
square feet, Block 11 (Ski Co. and Austin Parcel) - 30,000 square
feet.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: HBC Investments proposes to build a 58 unit
residential project on the site. The project consists of solely
one - bedroom units approximately 1,000 square feet in size which
are intended for both short and long -term rental. A variety of
features typically found in hotels would be provided, including a
lobby, room service, breakfast area, bar and enclosed swimming
pool. Five interconnected building components would be clustered
close to the middle of the property. 124 parking spaces would be
located in an underground garage and 54 spaces (including a 30
space replacement A.S.C. parking lot) would be placed at grade
level. Dean Drive would serve as a through street, drop -off entry
and service access. Juan Street would be vacated. A new
Garmisch Circle would swing south of the development connecting
Garmisch and Aspen Streets.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: On June 16, 1987, the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission voted 4 in favor and 3 opposed to:
1) Recommend to City Council to deny the requested
rezoning of Lots 3 -12, Block 11, Eames Addition from R-
15(PUD)(L) to L -2 Lodge;
2) Recommend to City Council to deny the requested
conceptual subdivision approval for the Mountain View
project;
3) Recommend to City Council to deny the requested street
vacation of Juan Street; and
4) Recommend to City Council to not accept the proposed
cash -in -lieu payment for employee housing based on
denial of the other reviews associated with the
project.
BACKGROUND: The requested Mountain View rezoning, conceptual
subdivision and street vacation was first heard by P &Z on January
20, 1987. No action was taken at that meeting. The Mountain
View GMP Submission was scored by P &Z on January 27, 1987. The
project received 33.83 points (no bonus points), exceeding the
threshold of 31.8 points and placing third among four competitors
in the 1986 Residential GMP competition.
P &Z hearing of the rezoning, subdivision, and street vacation
requests was rescheduled for March 17, 1987. At that meeting, no
action was taken because the applicant and his attorney were not
present; and it was considered inappropriate to act without their
presence. P &Z discussed the application and options for dealing
with the application, including pursuit of an approach, outlined
in Doug Allen's March 11, 1987 letter, to allow the applicant to
substantially amend the application. A scaled -down project was
proposed through suggested conditions of approval including: 36
units total, 42,500 square feet countable floor area, reductions
in parking to a 4 space garage for tenants) providing a 30 space
Aspen Ski Company garage off Dean Street, elimination of commer-
cial use, and contamination of water, sewer, streets, trails and
employee housing commitments. Two alternative ways for P &Z to
treat the project were suggested by the Planning Office:
1) Give conceptual response to the applicant's new
commitments but recommend that the project not be
approved, and be resubmitted as part of a new GMP
application next December (or in October if the
applicant wishes to develop this site as a lodge); or
2) Allow the applicant to come back as part of the current
process with a scaled site plan and architectural
elevations showing the changes proposed and continue
conceptual subdivision review.
Planning and Zoning Commission members indicated that they were
not interested in embarking on a special process of reviewing the
Mountain View project that would allow the applicant to bring in
further amendments to the application, during which time the
disposition of GMP residential quota would be deferred. P &Z
members also gave a generally favorable response to the proposed
amendments and encouraged the applicant to follow the direction
therein initiated in preparation of any future applications.
2
However, because of many site specific issues and the potential
zone district problems, it was not possible for the P &Z to give a
definite reaction to the proposal. The Planning Office was also
troubled by the extent of modification, and implications for the
GMP and Subdivision review system.
At the June 16 public hearing, the applicant presented his
proposed modifications in considerable detail to P &Z. There was
a great deal of discussion of the merits of the suggested
approach and the specifics of the modified project. At that
meeting the Planning Office recommended against the approach and
denial of the rezoning, subdivision, and street vacation as
originally submitted. The Planning and Zoning Commission passed
the motion stated above.
It should be noted that the uncertainty in the ownership situa-
tion has been a special point of concern to P &Z members and the
public throughout the review process to date. The City Attorney
has been handling this aspect of the Mountain View application
and will be prepared to update Council if so requested.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The following discussion is an analysis of
the original Mountain View application after consideration of P &Z
member comments and public comments at the P &Z meetings.
A. Density and Bulk: The residential multi - family use proposed
is already allowed by the L -2 zoning of the lower portion of
the property. The reasons to rezone Eames Addition Block 11
(Lots 3 -12) are to increase the allowable density of the
entire assemblage of parcels and to allow this use to move
uphill from the northern edge of the property to the middle
of the ownership. Table 1 below shows the allowed density
and bulk with and without the rezoning:
Table 1
Maximum Development Allowed for Mountain View Site
Square Feet Max. Density Max. FAR
(D.U's) (s.f.)
Land Zoned L- 2(Existing) 42,545 34* 42,545
Land Zoned R- 15(Existing) 30,000 2 5.400 **
Total 72,545 36 47,945
Rezoning all land to L -2 72,545 58* 72,545
(Proposed)
3
c
* One - bedroom Units
** Duplex square footage cannot be added to the multi - family
project since multi- family is not a use allowed in the R -15
zone.
For the purpose of comparison, consider that Lift 1 contains
approximately 30,000 s.f. of Floor Area (FAR =1.05 ) and 31 units.
Timber Ridge contains approximately 18,000 s.f. of Floor Area
(FAR =1.5) and 21 units.
The proposed upzoning and increased density and floor area of
Mountain View are not appropriate, in staff's opinion, because of
the following reasons:
1. The Mountain View plan is a major departure from the
density and character allowed by current zoning, which
is for a smaller residential or lodge project and low
density short -term accommodations clustered according
to the principles of PUD. The existing zoning concept
for this tract of land is to retain lower density areas
in the lodge district toward the mountain edge; and
this concept still makes sense in our opinion.
2. The maximized density and bulk of Mountain View exceeds
that of surrounding projects and is out of character
with the neighborhood due to the applicant's having
assembled an unusually large site for this area. Floor
area of Mountain View would be over twice that of Lift
1 and four times that of Timber Ridge due to the large
site. It would also obviously be much larger than the
Holland House or Skier's Chalet to the east or the
single family residences to the west.
Rezoning criteria Section 24- 12.5(d)(1) states:
"Compatibility of the rezoning proposal with the
surrounding zone district and land use in the vicinity
of the site, considering the existing neighborhood
characteristics, the applicable area and bulk require-
ments, and the suitability of the site for development
in terms of on -site characteristics."
Staff finds that Mountain View does not meet this
criteria because the project is higher density than
that allowed by the zoning and larger in scale than
neighboring developments.
B. Residential vs. Lodge Development: As P &Z members have noted
during several meetings on Mountain View, this project
4
appears to be in part a lodge project submitted in the form
of a residential project. We believe that the reasons that
it has been submitted in the residential GMP competition are
apparently because no quota is available at this time in the
lodge category and the applicant's desire to have kitchens
in each unit. It had been difficult for the P &Z to analyze
this project through the residential GMP criteria and
compare it to other residential projects when many of the
impacts are more akin to those of lodge development. Upon
consideration of this project's components, staff notes that
there are commercial spaces that cannot be viewed as
accessory to a residential project; and, therefore, they are
illegal in Mountain View. The bar, breakfast area and lobby
are not permitted in residential projects according to
Section 24 -3.3 and must either be eliminated or serve as
grounds to disqualify the application.
C. Transition Area Concept: Both the R- 15(L)(PUD) zoning and
the "Recreations /Accommodations Transition" land use
category in the 1973 Aspen Land Use refer to the concept
that density is preferred toward the core of Aspen and
should drop off toward the Mountain. The 1973 Plan shows
this parcel to be adjacent to and just north of the general
line of the transition area, indicating that some higher
density development may be appropriate. It would be
incorrect to state that the entire site is clearly within
the transition zone as we suggested in an earlier memo to
the P &Z. We now recognize that this site does fall princi-
pally in the accommodation - recreation land use category.
However, it is obvious that the idea of lowered density on
Block 11 Eames Addition was embodied in its R -15 zoning. We
continue to find that density should not be brought south up
the hill and should not intrude into the buffer transition
area between the lodge district and Shadow Mountain open
space. Furthermore, if this property is rezoned then there
will be pressure to also rezone the Barbee property,
creating more unwarranted changes to the neighborhood.
D. Evidence of Community Need: There is no compelling evidence
of community need for the proposed rezoning. The Aspen
Mountain Lodge, Little Nell, and the Hotel Jerome addition
all have approvals for upper -end lodge development which is
the stated target market for the Mountain View Project with
construction of the Jerome addition completed and that for
Little Nell expected in 1988. It would seem prudent to
evaluate the impacts of these proposals on our services and
facilities prior to upzoning additional areas for tourist
development. This is particularly evident when looking at
the lodge quota, which has been awarded through 1990 and
which is the type of use this project most closely resem-
bles. Rezoning criteria (4), analysis of the community need
for the proposed rezoning, is not met by this proposal.
5
0
E. Street Traffic on Steep Grades: Increased density on steep
South Aspen Street (approximately 10% grade up to proposed
Dean Drive and 11% grade up the hill to the Mine Dumps)
creates added traffic and traffic problems. In a winter
storm situation the pedestrian /vehicular conflicts are
particularly problematic. The Aspen /Durant intersection is
already commonly identified as dangerous; and this problem
would be exacerbated. The 124 space parking garage would be
a traffic generator beyond that expected from the number of
units in the project. In addition, both Aspen and Garmisch
Streets are residential streets; and this project will
likely have a negative qualitative effect on the Shadow
Mountain neighborhood.
F. A.S.C. Parking: The location of the 30 parking space Aspen
Skiing Company lot presents problems for safe access and
conflicts with the Mine Dumps present footprints. Further-
more, this is an off -site solution that has not been well
integrated into the overall development application for the
Mountain View site. Other aspects of the Mine Dumps
redevelopment (including reconstruction and resident
parking) have not been presented, therefore, it is not
possible to adequately evaluate the A.S.C. parking solution
as part of this application, even though provision of such
parking is a commitment attached to the Mountain View land.
G. Site Design: The commitment to plant an abundance of new
trees and provide trails and open space are definite
amenities of this project. However, we note that there
would be a great deal of impervious surface for parking,
circulation and terraces. The site, which we previous-
ly suggested is in a transition area, would become too
urbanized because of the amount of paving and disruption of
the hillside.
H. Trails: The applicant has committed to provide a 12' wide
bike trail along Garmisch, ski trail easements, Dean Drive
pedestrian ways and sidewalks along S. Aspen Street adjacent
to the property. There appear to be conflicts in the
alignments of the ski trail through the trees and the S.
Aspen Street sidewalks in the right -of -way that should be
resolved. In addition, the applicant has committed to
construct all trails with reimbursement to the Lodge
Improvement District. It is standard with regard to
sidewalks and by extension, other on -site trails, for the
applicant to commit to pay for the construction through a
subdivision improvements agreement and guarantee.
I. Utilities and Roads: With regard to utility services and
fire protection, the project appears to be workable in
6
concept. Commitments for water and sewer improvements
represent upgrading of services in the area. Garmisch
Circle appears problematic because of the accessability to
the Barbee Property, private ownership of public access,
grade, and shading (consequently getting iced during the
cold months). More detail and additional arrangements are
necessary to evaluate this aspect of the circulation plan.
Dean Drive appears to work conceptually, with the need to
further develop this plan to accommodate the various uses
(Timber Ridge parking, through traffic, pedestrian traffic,
service and trash access, guest /resident drop -off and garage
access).
J. Street Vacation: The Planning Office offers the following
comments with regard to the proposed vacation of Juan
Street:
1) Juan Street provides access to neighbors. Vacation
would result in neighbors having to use a street that
will be privately maintained.
2) The Engineering Department supported vacation in Elyse
Elliott's memorandum of December 30, 1986 because the
applicant is creating new streets (Dean Drive and
Garmisch Circle) that could be used to connect Garmisch
and Aspen Streets. Engineering recommended that
Garmisch Circle be deeded to the City after all
improvements are made. In Elliott's January 27th
memorandum, it was noted that Garmisch Circle would not
work well to serve the A.S.C. parking lot. In addi-
tion, Garmisch Circle's intersection with Aspen Street
would not align with Gilbert Street to the east,
creating a substandard street pattern.
3) New Dean Drive would eliminate current Timber Ridge
parking and landscape improvements. However,24 spaces
would be provided for the neighborhood. The Timber
Ridge Condominium Association is not in favor of the
proposed new Dean Drive, as indicated in letters and
public testimony by Dave Ellis, president of the
Condominium Association. In Dave Ellis's January 27,
1987 letter, he states that there are unworkable
conflicts between the siting of Dean Drive, head -in
parking, a 12 foot trail and landscape islands.
4) There may be snow removal and street maintenance
problems on Garmisch Circle because of the grade and
shadow effects of Shadow Mountain.
5) In absence of subdivision approval, the vacation of
Juan Street would be unnecessary and inappropriate.
7
NEW APPLICANT COMMITMENTS: In Doug Allen's March 11, 1987 letter,
the applicant commits to a scaled -down project, including, but
not limited to the following features:
o 36 units (26 one - bedroom and 10 studio units)
o 42,500 s.f. FAR
o Withdrawal of rezoning request
o Provide a 46 parking space garage (for tenants)
o Provide a 30 parking space A.S.C. garage off Dean Drive
o Eliminate commercial uses
o Continue commitments for water, sewer, streets and
trails improvements, maintain 60% employee housing
commitment.
The modified project was further detailed in a set of plans
presented by the applicant directly to P &Z at their June 16
meeting.
The applicant agreed that many problems raised by the Planning
Office, P &Z and public were valid. This appears to be a major
effort to improve the project.
Both staff and P &Z arrived at the conclusion that the proposed
approach does not seem to work for this project. Delay in action
after a lapse of six months following the 1986 GMP competition,
and six months before the next competition leaves other potential
applicants in limbo, as well as keeping this applicant wondering
what further steps he should take for future GMP competition.
Both the Planning Office and the applicant have compared the way
in which the Aspen Mountain Ski Lodge application was processed
to the proposed Mountain View modifications. The Aspen Mountain
Lodge conceptual review entailed various applicant - proposed
conditions of approval, similar to this applicant's requested
approach. However, we find that if you accept the applicant's
commitments almost all of the parameters of the Mountain View
project, including size, building location, footprints, architec-
ture, circulation and parking arrangements and uses, would
change. This degree of change relative to project size was
nowhere near as great for the Aspen Mountain Lodge. In addition,
the P &Z scored the Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP well above threshold;
and the project was perceived to be compatible with the Short -
Term Accommodations Report, the Aspen Land Use Plan of 1973 and
other community policies and priorities. None of these situa-
tions applies to this project. Consequently, we believe that
8
•^.
✓
rejection of the Mountain View amendment does not constitute
unfair treatment of this applicant compared to the Aspen Mountain
Lodge applicant.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"Move to deny the requested rezoning of Lots 3 -12, Block 11,
Eames Addition from R- 15(PUD)(L) to L -2 Lodge;
"Move to deny the requested conceptual subdivision approval
for the Mountain View project;
"Move to deny the requested street vacation of Juan Street;
and
"Move to not accept the proposed cash -in -lieu payment for
employee housing based on denial of the other reviews
associated with the project."
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
SB.MTN
9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office M\
RE: Mountain View Rezoning, Conceptual Subdivision and
Street Vacation and the Residential Growth Management
Quot.
DATE July 7, 1987
DISPOSITION OF THE MOUNTAIN VIEW APPLICATION: The applicant for
the Mountain View project has indicated in an attached letter
that he will withdraw his application upon the condition that the
unused residential quota from 1985 and 1986 is carried -over to
the 1987 available quota. The first question for Council to
decide, therefore, is whether it will carry -over the unused quota
to accommodate the wishes of the Mountain View applicant. The
matter of quota carry -over is discussed below.
A second principal issue is the status of ownership at this time
and the owner's standing to make application for development on
this property. The City Attorney can report to you on the
ownership issue at your meeting.
In an accompanying memorandum from the Planning Office, staff
comments and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations
are presented. The purpose of that memorandum is to give Council
background information on the project and the issues that have
arisen in regard to this project. It should prepare Council to
take action if you choose not to accept the applicant's condi-
tions for withdrawal of his application.
RESIDENTIAL GMP QUOTA AVAILABLE: The annual residential quota in
the City of Aspen is set by code at thirty -nine (39) dwelling
units. According to the Code, the quota must be reduced by any
development which took place via exemptions during the year
(December 2, 1985 to December 1, 1986) and changes in use from
non - residential to residential uses. It is increased by expira-
tions of previously granted allotments and demolitions. Finally,
the quota is reduced by the allocations made to the 1010 Ute Ave.
project (16 units) and the 700 E. Hyman project (2 units).
Following is a summary of the status of the 1986 residential
quota:
1986 Residential quota: 39 units
New Construction: -18 units
Change in Use: -14 units
Demolitions: +12 units
Expirations: + 3 units
Allocations: -18 units
Total 1986 Quota Available for Carry -over: 4 units
Total 1985 Quota Which Remains Unallocated: 35 units
The City Council has the discretion to carry -over to 1987, wipe
out or take no action with respect to the unallocated 35 units of
quota from 1985 on which no action was taken last year, and the
unallocated 4 units of quota from 1986.
The Planning Office believes there are valid arguments both for
and against carry -over to 1987 of the unused 39 units. The
argument in favor of carry -over goes as follows: When the Hotel
Jerome, Little Nell and Aspen Mountain Lodge projects were
approved, their employee housing requirements were satisfied by
commitments to change the use of the Cortina, Holiday House,
Alpina Haus and Copper Horse from lodge rooms to residential
units. The Cortina Lodge has already been converted to a
residential project in conjunction with the Hotel Jerome project,
claiming 17 units from the available residential quota. The
community should be prepared to have residential quota available
for when approximately 75 units in these old lodges change to
residential units. The alternative would be to reduce the
available quota for free - market residential units and possibly be
forced to borrow from the future in the residential sector for
the employee units.
Reasons against the carry -over include the following: It appears
highly unlikely at this time that the employee housing conver-
sions associated with the Little Nell and Aspen Mountain Lodge
projects will occur during 1987. Therefore, the carry -over would
make a substantial number of residential units available for
free - market residential development. This action may negatively
effect the growth rate control policy of the City. If there are
a significant number of units available in the 1987 GMP competi-
tion, then several large scale project proposals may be enter-
tained and approved. At this time, there is a moderate rate of
residential growth in the City through development of vacant City
parcels and changes in use (GMP exemptions). The 1987 Aspen /Pit-
kin County Growth Report (draft) indicates 20 new residential
units were built in Aspen in 1986. An average of 60 units (both
lodge and residential combined) have been built per year since
1975 in Aspen. In addition, there are several residential
projects, as well as large lodge projects, that have been
approved but not yet built. We continue to question the com-
munity need for a project such as Mountain View that is designed
2
in the L -2 zone district to primarily serve high end tour-
ists. It would be prudent to evaluate the effects of those
developments that are expected to come on line in the next couple
of years before making a large residential quota available for
new development.
The staff believes that there really are two sides to this issue,
and consequently worked quite hard in an effort to develop
arguments to support the applicant's offer to you. However,
following our analysis of the pros and cons, we believe that the
carry -over is not in the best interests of the community, and
that you should review the Mountain View project on its merits as
presented. Therefore, the Planning Office recommends that the 39
unallocated units not be carried -over to the 1987 residential GMP
quota. We do not anticipate the large employee unit conversion
occurring this year; and we see no compelling community need for
making a large quota available for free - market residential
development. Overall, it appears that a large residential quota
created through carry -over would be deleterious to the City's
growth rate control.
We do not advise the approach of taking no action on this matter.
An undue amount of confusion was created over the unallocated 35
units from 1985 because no action was taken; and we recommend
that some action be taken to clear up the status of the residen-
tial quota to assist the public in planning ahead for future
projects.
Presuming that you follow the staff and P &Z recommendation
regarding conceptual submission, rezoning and street vacation,
following is the appropriate motion at the close of the hearing.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to direct the Planning Office to
prepare a resolution to eliminate the 39 residential units from
the 1985 and 1986 quotas."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: -
3
LAW OFFICES OF
DOUgilaS P. Allen JUL 7 1987
COURTHOUSE PLAZA BUILDING 'J \I y '
530 EAST MAIN STREET. FIRST FLOOR
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-8800
DOUGLAS P. ALLEN
DAVID B. HERRINGTON. P.C
July 7, 1987
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Mountain View GMP Application
Dear Steve:
This will confirm our earlier phone conversation and my agreement
with Alan Richman. It is my agreement with Alan that if HBC
Investments does not go forward with its 1986 GMP application
after scoring in excess of the threshold required to stay in the
competition but with a negative recommendation from P & Z, that
the Planning Office will recommend to Aspen City Council that all
unused units from the 1986 competition will be carried forward
into the 1987 RMF competition. We understand that by doing this
there is no special or specific claim on these units by either my
client or relating to the Mountain View property but that these
units will be available equally to all free market RMF applicants
for 1987 GMP allocations.
In the meantime we will continue to process the now - pending re-
zoning application. I will then re -apply on December 1, 1987 for
1987 units for the modified project on behalf of my client.
ord ally,
Ar L 1///
Dough P. Allen
DPA /pkm
cc: HBC Investments
TELECOPIER #13031 nee( 925 -9398
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Mountain View Rezoning, Conceptual Submission and
Street Vacation
DATE: ; June 9, 1987
BACKGROUND: On March 17, 1987 the Planning and Zoning Commission
discussed the Mountain View application and options for dealing
with this application. No action was taken in large part because
Mr. Cantrup was absent; and it was considered inappropriate to
act without his or his representative's presence.
The focus of P &Z's discussion was to determine whether the
Commission is interested in pursuing an approach to allow the
applicant to substantially amend the application. As you may
recall, in Doug Allen's March 11, 1987 letter, a scaled -down
project was proposed through suggested conditions of approval,
including: 36 units total, 42,500 square feet countable floor
area, reduction in parking to a 46 space garage (for tenants),
providing a 30 space A.S.C. garage off Dean Street, elimination
of commercial uses, and continuation of water, sewer, streets,
trails and employee housing commitments.
At that meeting the Planning Office presented in a neutral manner
two alternative ways for the P &Z to treat the Mountain View
project:
1) Give a conceptual response to the applicant's new
commitments but recommend that the project not be
approved, and be resubmitted as part of a new GMP
application next December (or in October if the
applicant wishes to develop this site as a lodge); or
2) Allow the applicant to come back as part of the current
process with a scaled site plan and architectural
elevations showing the changes proposed and continue
conceptual subdivision review.
The Planning and Zoning Commission members indicated very clearly
that they are not interested in embarking on a special process of
reviewing the Mountain View project that would allow the appli-
cant to bring in further amendments to the application, during
which time the disposition of GMP residential quota for 1985,
1986 and 1987 would be deferred. P &Z members also gave a
generally favorable response to the proposed amendments and
encouraged the applicant to follow the direction therein initi-
ated in preparation of any future applications. However, because
of many site specific issues, and potential zone district
problems, it was not possible for the P &Z to give a definite
reaction to the proposal.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Attached is the Planning Office March 11
memorandum on Mountain View giving staff analysis of the original
(58 unit) application and the amendment concept. In this
memorandum, the Planning Office recommended that P &Z recommend to
Council denial of rezoning, conceptual subdivision and street
vacation. Issues leading to this recommendation include the
large scale of the project for the subject site, the transition
concept of development at the base of Aspen Mountain, evidence of
community need, ability of adjacent streets to service the
project, neighborhood impacts, and urbanization of the site.
Following is a summary of the staff comments:
1) The Mountain View project would contain 58 one - bedroom
units within a 72,545 sq.ft. structure (FAR) on 72,545
sq.ft. of land. The proposed upzoning from R -15
(PUD) (L) to L -2 would allow the applicant to increase
the density and floor area and to move the use up the
hill. The Planning Office finds that this plan is a
major departure from the density and character allowed
by the current zoning. The concept of the present
zoning of the parcel is to retain lower density areas
in the lodge district toward the mountain edge; and
this concept still makes sense, in our opinion. It
also appears that the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan concept
of the "Recreation /Accommodations Transition" land use
category, recommending that density decrease up the
mountain, is embodied in the R -15 zoning. Finally the
buffer transition area would be intruded upon by the
proposed development.
2) The maximized density and bulk of Mountain View exceeds
that of surrounding projects and is out of character
with the neighborhood due to the applicant's assemblage
of an unusually large site for this area, and due to
the open character of the land along the mountain.
Staff finds that Mountain View does not meet the
rezoning criteria with regard to "compatibility of the
proposal with the surrounding zone district and land
use in the vicinity" (Section 24- 12.5(d)(1)).
3) Other projects with the same stated target market for
upper -end tourist accommodations have recently been
approved, including the Hotel Jerome addition, Little
Nell and Aspen Mountain Lodge. There is no compelling
evidence of community need for the proposed rezoning,
which would accomplish upzoning of additional area for
2
tourist development. This is particularly evident when
looking at the lodge quota, which has been awarded
through 1991, and which is the type of use which this
project most closely resembles.
4) Increased density on steep South Aspen Street (10% to
11% grade) would create added traffic and traffic
problems. The pedestrian /vehicular conflicts are
particularly problematic during the ski season. The
124 space parking garage would be a traffic generator
beyond the needs of the project. Traffic and noise
effects would be felt on both Aspen and Garmisch
Streets through a residential neighborhood. In
addition, safe access would not be provided to the 30
space A.S.C. parking lot, to be relocated to S. Aspen
Street on the Mine Dumps property, given the problems
of Aspen Street grade and the poor configuration of
proposed Garmisch Circle as it would come close, but
not service the lot. The ASC parking lot is also not
adequately incorporated into the plan as the lot's
location appear to conflict with the Mine Dumps
footprints, and plans for redevelopment of that
property have not been presented for evaluation.
5) Regarding the site plan, we note that there would be a
great deal of impervious surface for parking, circula-
tion, terraces and buildings. The amount of impervious
surface and disruption of the hillside is not compat-
ible with the transition area concept. We note that
the applicant has committed to plant many new trees and
provide trails which would somewhat offset the disrup-
tion. However, we still find that this degree of
urbanization of the site is not consistent with the
present nature and future plans of the area.
6) Street vacation presents problems for public access to
neighbors, elimination of current Timber Ridge parking
and landscape improvements, snow removal, street
maintenance and linkage of Garmisch Circle with S.
Aspen Street to serve the ASC parking lot.
Also discussed in the memorandum were alternative approaches to
handle the applicant's proposed new commitments. We believe that
this effort to down -scale the project and incorporate design
changes in response to P &Z, Planning Office and public concerns
appears to have merit. However, upon consideration, staff
concluded, as did P &Z, that there are serious problems in
continuing conceptual subdivision review. We noted that the
integrity of both the GMP and subdivision review processes could
be disrupted. The process would "evolve" to create a very
different project than that which was reviewed for GMP alloca-
tion. The quality of review may suffer from the incremental
3
approach suggested. Furthermore, because of the limited quota
and the potential for "carry over" or "borrowing" it is essential
to treat applications expeditiously so that other potential
applicants can plan ahead for their GMP submittals. Extending
the process further at this late date would be contrary to the
best interests of these other landowners.
Based on discussions with the applicant and his attorneys on June
8, it is understood that the applicant would still like P &Z to
endorse the conceptual subdivision amendments and recommend
conceptual approval. We anticipate that the applicant will also
request a work session with P &Z to discuss this approach.
The Planning Office recommends P &Z to take action on the Mountain
View application at your June 16 meeting. Both staff and P &Z
arrived at the conclusion that the proposed approach does not
seem to work for this project, and we continue to believe that
the reasons given remain valid. Delay in action after a lapse of
six months following the 1986 GMP competition, and six months
before the next competition leaves other potential applicants in
limbo, as well as keeping this applicant wondering what further
steps he should take for future GMP competition.
As discussed in the March 11 memorandum, the Aspen Mountain Lodge
conceptual review entailed various applicant - proposed conditions
of approval, similar to this applicant's requested approach.
However, we find that if you accept the applicant's commitments
almost all of the parameters of the Mountain View project,
including size, building location, footprints, architecture,
circulation and parking arrangements and uses, would change.
This degree of change relative to project size was nowhere near
as great for the Aspen Mountain Lodge. In addition, the P &Z
scored the Aspen Mountain Lodge GMP well above threshold; and the
project was perceived to be compatible with the Short -Term
Accommodations Report, the Aspen Land Use Plan of 1973 and other
community policies and priorities. None of these situations
applies to this project. Consequently, we believe that rejection
of the Mountain View amendment does not constitute unfair
treatment of this applicant compared to the Aspen Mountain Lodge
applicant.
RECOMMENDATION ON REZONING, CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION, STREET
VACATION AND CONSIDERATION OF CASH -IN -LIEU FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING:
The Planning Office recommends P &Z to:
1) Recommend to City Council to deny the requested
rezoning of Lots 3 -12, Block 11, Eames Addition from R-
15(PUD)(L) to L -2 Lodge;
2) Recommend to City Council to deny the requested
conceptual subdivision approval for the Mountain View
project;
4
3) Recommend to City Council to deny the requested street
vacation of Juan Street; and
4) Recommend to City Council to not accept the proposed
cash -in -lieu payment for employee housing based on
denial of the other reviews associated with the
project.
sb.mtview
5
1 _
• cl-, /p / E --(
(2 /
M r: L.. 0 ( 7) idi i 1 CC' (;• v :,:), i
■
ro
fl !
( !"---
[ I
.--i.
/I; I I)
fu,.. , 1- i - -- : ft-• re_ c
5 + re - i V A 4.7 A ': t.--4)
1 ' I
.4--2 o t j a,r, /...-__. 4 t C- --
- ----- _—_ ---
I I cp A f. ) - 1 4/ 41
j) 11% i Pr. Jf.) d 4:-..y.:,..,) :
/
/ Ai
HP f
i J
. i Ai
r.(t Lr c r 0 c c c !.- rr .-- ,,,,,t,.' I i f.) V lc `( a 4) V , 440 (1-} - 1
t 1 1 i 1 P)
\ A
1 A
( 1 1 '
t r- Li 1, ex.- 7 ,.,-, : ,.., e t-
t V \
o ,
n
. 1-Y I ' .44. 2 r i .) - ' 1
i
L
_ • , e , Pc ti
.- i et(
, s ' r
2 4 ed f 2 '' tr / ' 1 ...t./ ‘ I ,
I „..,„
,
91 i -i r (.- p If :1 - 11,
• L
-,-
I , P 1- , . ,
1 '
/ - -
I _ ----....
, -.I • I " \
L. k f)
1 t
In
/ t ( 4
U t
iv ', .• —,! L ,,,) f. ‘ : , , z . -I ,.■ ,. I ,
( ;1 Ai ‘ / .)t-I 1
? 1
/ ), , . 7 fi."C, ,
1 „' 1 7-
,-„,.. 1 J s <10 k . r ',,, e• / ,
HBC Investments EigI5OV I
Box
Aspen, CO. 81611 MAY 2 61
May 24, 1987
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Mountain View GMP application, Rezoning,
Conceptual Submission and Street Vacation
Dear Mr. Burstein:
In view of the failure of the Planning Office to understand
the Conditions for Approval offered on behalf of HBC Investments
on March 11, 1987 by Mr. Douglas P. Allen, I have retained Mr. A.
Thomas Elliott, Jr., a Denver attorney with the firm of Kerwin
and Elliott, 222 Milwaukee, Denver, Colorado 80206 (303) 355 -7100
to act on our behalf concerning the above application. Mr. Allen
will also continue to represent us in this matter, but Mr.
Elliott will act as Special Counsel at the hearing scheduled for
the evening of June 16, 1987.
Our offered Conditions of Approval were not understood by
the Planning Office (as shown by the reference in your memorandum
of March 11, 1987 to the "scaled-down 36 unit project ").
Further, there has been a seemingly relentless uncommunicability
of the Planning Office with this Applicant and his
representatives concerning this application. We are, therefore,
withdrawing the Conditions of Approval offered by Mr. Allen's
March 11 letter.
We request that the hearing on ancillary applications
incident to the GMP go forward. The GMP application has already
been scored successfully and should be held in abeyance until the
proper conclusion of the ancillary reviews. Then, allocation of
the appropriate units should occur. This should include
allocation of those units which the City committed not to remove
from the available units and to make available for current
allocation through City Attorney Paul Taddune (as confirmed in
Mr. Allen's August 9, 1986 letter to Mr. Taddune).
We and Mr. Elliott will be discussing with you next week
your suggested procedure for submitting acceptable Conditions for
Approval reached by negotiations as has been done with other
applications. We, of course, remain willing to agree to
Conditions for Approval as in any land use approval process;
however, some meaningful dialogue with the Planning Department is
necessary to arrive at Conditions for Approval.
Your are authorized to contact Mr. Elliott at the address
and telephone number shown above on my behalf concerning this
matter.
:z::
CC: Mr. A. Thomas Elliott, Jr„ Esq.
Mr. Douglas P. Allen, Esq.
Mr. Paul Taddune, City Attorney
2
CO y
gnu t9 a -as.fa .4.
5CYO £jt c
*ten, - 4z.‘„ ds6 //
(.903) ,P2S- dd00
PAUL TADDUNE
City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Mountain View GMP Application
Dear Paul:
Commerce Savings Association and John Roberts., Jr. have now
conceded the present viability of the Cantrup option and that
question no longer need be an issue in the Cantrup rezoning and
GMP application process.
yeiy� truly yours
// / /
C 7 y�
( ,!,ors / ' � �
Dougla P. Allen
DPA /pkm
cc: Hans B. Cantrup
.�.( j n / (303 92 5 -9.994
iJi Gregory C. Gomon
P.O. Box 980
:1612
Aspen Planning & Zoning Dept.
Aspen City Hall
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gentlemen:
This letter pertains to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing
dated March 17, 1987 regarding the proposed Mountain View Residential
Project.
As a permanent resident of Aspen I have been following the
developments of this proposal with interest over the past several months.
Please note my observations and comments.
On March 17th the Aspen Planning and Zoning Department reviewed in a
Public Hearing the proposed Mountain View Residential subdivision as
submitted by HBC Investments. As members of the Commission are aware,
just a few days prior to the scheduled hearing the applicant submitted a
revised proposal which outlined changes he wished to make to the
previously submitted and reviewed land use proposal. As the Commission
must also be aware the changes to the original proposal are significant.
The original proposal as submitted by HBC Investments proposed 58 one
bedroom, two bath units without kitchens. The new revised proposal plans
for 36 units of which 26 units are one bedroom and 10 units are studios.
In addition, the on -site amenities such as: front desk reception area,
lobby, breakfast area, lounge, health facilities, and indoor - outdoor
swimming pool with swim -up bar have all been eliminated. The 124 car
underground parking garage has been reduced to a capacity of 46 cars, and
the new revised proposal provides an additional parking garage off Dean
Street with a capacity of an additional 30 cars. How will this additional
structure be integrated into the proposed project? Will it be above
ground or below ground? Will the entrance be seperate and private or will
it be a common entrance to be shared by the tennants of the lodge? How
will the anticipated left -over space, in what was to be a 124 car parking
garage, be utilized in the proposed project?
I wish to bring to the Commission's attention a telephone conversation
I had with Mr. Sam Hyatt on March 6th. Mr. Hyatt was introduced to me as
the pricipal architect on the Mountain View Project. At that time I
expressed to him my surprise that the units did not have kitchen
facilities. He said that the plans he was working on would indeed have
kitchenettes installed in each unit. I casually mention this because none
of the documents show or mention kitchens in each unit of the Mountain
View Project.
I have had an opportunity to review the plans for the Mountain View
Project and, although I am in no way schooled in architectural design or
drafting, one observation came to mind. I am not questioning the
integrity or intentions of HBC Investments or their investors, I am simply
presenting an observation. Based on the floorplans submitted prior to
Doug Allen's letter dated March llth ( the only floor plans available and
submitted), it would appear the configuration of each unit would allow
for the possible permanent separation of each room into two almost
identical units thereby doubling the number of units in each building. Is
this a possibility and if so is there anything prohibiting this expansion
from occuring at a future date? If a doubling of units should occur at a
future date, how would this affect density and services in this part of
town?
Please note an additional observation. With the proposed abandonment
of Juan Street and the "privatization" of proposed Garmisch Circle, I
anticipate some major problems. The original plans called for relocating
Juan Street from its present location but still providing access to Aspen
Street, thereby insuring an alternate route for vehicles. As the new
proposal would indicate, Juan Street would not exist. I have to question
whether there would be adequate fire safety for the neighborhood and the
base of Shadow Mountain should Juan Street be abandoned. Regarding
Garmisch Circle, which would now become a private drive providing access
to the residential houses at the base of Shadow Mountain, I wonder whether
the change from city maintenance to HBC Investments maintenance of the
access road really is in the best interests of home - owners in the area.
If you still question whether this is a significant change in the
original proposal please note Steve Burstein's comments from Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission Memorandum dated March llth. "The present
dilemma of this application is that, while major changes have been
proposed to improve the project, the level of detail is inadequate and
major problems remain..." Please note an additional statement made by
Steve Burstein, "Mountain View commitments change almost every parameter
of the project and are not well documented in graphic form." I question
whether there are in fact improvements in the proposed project if the
details of the changes are so sketchy that the staff is unable to make any
recommendations.
While it would appear the applicant is proposing a smaller project, in
reality the size and dimensions are the same, as indicated by the drawings
submitted for review. All of these changes have been presented without a
decrease in the actual square footage. Regardless of whether the proposal
is of the same size and dimension as originally proposed, I think you
will agree that the changes to the original Mountain View project are of
such a significant magnitude that it is no longer appropriate to view this
project as the original one submitted for staff and commission review.
Two final questions I wish to address. First, in Doug Allen's letter
dated March 11, 1987, he states that the applicant is withdrawing his
request for re- zoning of land presently zoned R -15. I fail to understand
how a multi - family lodge project which encompasses this entire site can be
proposed, much less built, without a zoning change on that portion which
is presently designated for Duplex use only.
Second, there was a question as to whether the applicant had "Clear
Title" to all of the property which was proposed for development. We know
the issue of Juan Street has not been resolved. But, has the applicant
been able to prove he has clear title to all the property involved? If so
my question has been answered, but, if not I must ask... why not resolved
by this time? Is it possible for an individual who does not own property
to propose developing and rezoning another's land? Again, if this issue
has already been resolved, then please disregard this point.
I have raised a number of pertinent questions which must be adequately
addressed at the next scheduled hearing for the Mountain View Project.
But, most important is the issue of whether this new revised proposal so
significantly changes the original project as reviewed by the Planning &
Zoning Commission and its staff, that it must now be considered a new
project and subject to the review process as stipulated under the
provisions of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Code. I think you will agree
with me that it is a significantly different project than originally
proposed and should be considered in the next review process as an
entirely new project. In the interests of fairness and due consideration
of other applicants whose projects are being held up until this issue is
resolved, I think it is in everyone's best interests to pass this project
along to a future date when HBC Investments can present a professionally
laid -out and submitted proposal for P & Z review.
Respectfully,
Gregory C. Gomon
e \y ap �l
it (; I MAR 1 61987
March 14, 1987 L CJ
To: Aspen Planning and Zoning
Steve Burnstein
From: Mary Barbee
Re: Douglas Allen letter of March 11, 1987
I was not aware that the responses of P &Z to a developer constituted conditions
for approval. This would seem to circumvent much of the process of public
input and the general provisions for approval of projects.
The absence of complete drawings for the letter make response difficult. My
remarks will be directed at what I assume to be a combination of previous
submissions, considerably changed the information of the letter.
1. Reduction of the number of_units is commendable. If however the 26 one
bedroom units remain the same configuration as previously presented the reality
of only 26 units (plus 10 studios) remains questionable. A one bedroom unit
designed for 2.5 persons (or whatever that exact number is) that contains two
full bathrooms and entry from the living room and the bedroom onto the Public
hallway presents an architectural design unconvincing of a one bedroom nrovsion.
To represent the intent of a one bedroom unit for the limited number of People
appropriate a design confirming such intent is important.
This is also essential with the number of parking units being provided.
7. It is suggested that the Public facilities and services commitment has
been reduced. That reduction is confirmed by the statement "substantially
as submitted" but is not specified. Consideration of any proposal has to
be with complete information not suggested or alluded to information.
If the areas remarked upon are those to be covered there is substantive
information lacking . . i.e. fire protection issues etc.
8. Without full design proposal the statement of improved quality design
cannot be justified.
d. The neighborhood will be subject to previously cited concerns with height
of buildings enhanced by moving the structures higher into the mountain
site line even further impacting the view line with structures. Nice the tree
got consideration.
4. The request for vacation of Juan Street has not been dropped. The
developer continues to ask the city to vacate a public throughfare so the
development may place buildings on the street location. As a property owner
on Juan street I oppose the vacation of the public street for this purpose
and would ask that my remarks from previous communications on this topic
be considered still.
Juan street has provided an essential alternative road for the uphill traffic
of Aspen Street. To delete this and provide for Dean as a main street creates
a considerable traffic congestion at Dean and Aspen. This intersection would
then have to handle all traffic created from the West on Dean Street, the
parking lot traffic of Dean Street, the parking of the development and within
very few feet the traffic of the main intersection of Durant and Aspen. One
does not have to use much imagination to feature the traffic backed up Aspen
street in the late afternoon.
This developer states in the opening sentences of his remarks that these
proposed conditions are predicated on the "comments of the Planning Office . .
citizen comments and P &Z commission input" . .
I find the alterations in the road completely ignoring the issues of greatest
opposition to the previous proposals . . . that of private ownership; no
addressing of the one bedroom design issues; no increased sensitivity to
height and placement of the buildings etc. etc.
I suggest this is so substantially changed that it can only be treated as
a totally new project and should adhere to the provisions of P &Z in that
regard.
��hs g. - gig 24.
dee. �� 58I £ aS pp � t Ye. �
% en. Ttaloica., d /67/
(303) an ddOO
/March 16, 19:
Mr Steve Burstein
Aspen Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: P & Z scheduled consideration of Mountain View
on March 17, 1987
Dear Steve:
This will confirm our earlier conversations regarding the
scheduling conflict that has arisen as a result of continuance of
the Commerce Savings foreclosure No. 87 -5 and Civil Action No. 87
CV 61 in Garfield County, Colorado. These cases have been
consolidated with previous Civil Action No. 86 CV 186 and 86 CV
6, all of which affect the property the subject of this
application.
John Roberts, Jr., Commerce Savings Association, the local Aspen
attorneys, Denver attorneys and Texas attorneys representing the
various parties have been ordered to appear before the Court in
Glenwood Springs on Tuesday, March 17, 1987 to address all
matters between the conflicting claims of these parties.
As a result of this both Mr. Cantrup and myself will be required
to be in attendance at these hearings which are scheduled for the
entire day until they are completed. Not only will we not be
able to be in attendance on Tuesday evening but will not have the
time to make the necessary final preparations for such hearing.
As you mentioned previously the next available date is in mid -
May. Please continue this hearing until that date and defer any
and all discussion which was planned for tomorrow evening until
the continued and rescheduled hearing in May. This will also
serve the dual purpose of conforming to your Planning Office
recommendation to not act on this request until other reviews are
completed. Thank you.
V tr uly yours 7
iougl s . Allen
DPA/ .m
cc: Hans B. Cantrup
. S, ua . / (30,9) #P5- .93.9d
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Mountain View Rezoning, Conceptual Submission and
Street Vacation
DATE: March 11,1987
LOCATION: 601 S. Aspen Street, Lots 1 through 22 (including
vacated alley), Block 6, and Lots 3 through 12, Block 11, Eames
Addition, City of Aspen.
CURRENT ZONING: Block 6, Eames Addition is zoned L -2. Lots 3
through 12, Block 11, Eames Addition are zoned R -15 (PUD) (L) and
are proposed to be rezoned to L -2.
LAND AREA: 72,545 square feet. Block 6, Eames Addition - 42,545
square feet, Block 11 (Ski Co. and Austin Parcel) - 30,000 square
feet.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: HBC Investments proposes to build a 58 unit
residential project on the site. The project consists of solely
one - bedroom units approximately 1,000 square feet in size which
are intended for both short and long -term rental. A variety of
features typically found in hotels would be provided, including a
lobby, room service, breakfast area, bar and enclosed swimming
pool. Five interconnected building components would be clustered
close to the middle of the property. 124 parking spaces would be
located in an underground garage and 54 spaces (including a 30
space replacement A.S.C. parking lot) would be placed at grade
level. Dean Drive would serve as a through street, drop -off entry
and service access. Juan Street would be vacated. A new
Garmisch Circle would swing south of the development connecting
Garmisch and Aspen Streets.
CURRENT STATUS OF PROJECT: Action by P &Z on the requested
rezoning, conceptual subdivision, and Juan Street vacation was
tabled on January 20, 1987 to several meeting dates, finally
rescheduled for your March 17, 1987 meeting.
During the delay period, the issue of property ownership was
further discussed by the applicant and the City Attorney. The
approach arrived at was that consent must be obtained by all
interested parties in the land (ie. John Roberts and Commerce
Savings and Loan) to join in this application prior to any
approvals granted by the City. Consent has not yet been obtained
and the applicant states he is working on the matter. Conceptual
subdivision and other reviews of the Mountain View project are
being brought forward to the P &Z at this time with the recommend-
ation by the City Attorney and Planning Office that the applicant
must demonstrate clear ownership of the property prior to
Council's hearing of conceptual subdivision and rezoning.
The applicant has also proposed a number of conditions of
approval for conceptual subdivision in Doug Allen's March 11,
1987 letter (attached). This commitment changes a number of
project parameters; and staff comments on these new features of
Mountain View will follow our analysis of the original applicat-
ion.
BACKGROUND: No action was taken by P &Z on the requested rezon-
ing, conceptual subdivision and street vacation on January 20,
1987. The Mountain View GMP submission was scored by P &Z on
January 27, 1987. The project received 33.83 points (no bonus
points), exceeding the threshold (31.8 points) and placing third
among four competitors in the 1986 Residential GMP competi-
tion.
Allocation of units to Mountain View has been postponed by City
Council pending: (1) the P &Z's review of ancillary applications
of the Mountain View project, (2) a decision by Council on
whether to carry -over unused residential quota from 1985 or to
grant future -year allocation of 1987 units, and (3) disposition
of the appeal to GMP scoring filed by the 1001 project applicant.
A. Previous Commission Action On Rezoning: On April 19, 1983,
the Planning and Zoning Commission received a request from
the Aspen Skiing Company to rezone Lots 7 -12 Eames Addition
Block 11 to L -2. Action was tabled and never resumed. From
the minutes of that meeting, it appears that P &Z was not
favorably inclined to zone the property L -2 because of (1)
the absence of a development proposal at the time, (2)
removal of parking, (3) no change in the neighborhood
warranting the upgraded rezoning, and (4) incompatibility
with the Aspen Land Use Plan's concept that the R -15
(PUD)(L) zone is a transition zone for lower density. The
Planning Office recommended denial of that rezoning request.
B. Previous Commission Action On 601 S. Aspen: The Mountain
View application is a significantly different submittal for
the same tract of land as the 601 S. Aspen 1985 GMP applica-
tion submittal. 601 S. Aspen did not meet the threshold
number of points in P &Z's prior scoring, making it ineligi-
ble to receive allocation. Consequently, the rezoning
request, conceptual subdivision, and Juan Street vacation
were not heard by this Commission.
2
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The following analysis is a recap of the
Planning Office January 20 memorandum. Further considerations of
the project resulting from P &Z's meetings, public comments and
additional staff review are also presented.
A. Density and Bulk: The residential multi - family use proposed
is already allowed by the L -2 zoning of the lower portion of
the property. The reasons to rezone Eames Addition Block 11
(Lots 3 -12) are to increase the allowable density of the
entire assemblage of parcels and to allow this use to move
uphill from the northern edge of the property to the middle
of the ownership. Table 1 below shows the allowed density
and bulk with and without the rezoning:
Table 1
Maximum Development Allowed for Mountain View Site
Square Feet Max. Density Max. FAR
(D.U's) (s.f.)
==
Land Zoned L -2 42,545 34* 42,545
Land Zoned R -15 30.000 _2._ 5.400 **
Total 72,545 36 47,945
Rezoning all land to L -2 72,545 58* 72,545
* One- bedroom Units
** Duplex square footage cannot be added to the multi - family
project since multi - family is not a use allowed in the R -15
zone.
For the purpose of comparison, consider that Lift 1 contains
approximately 30,000 s.f. of Floor Area (FAR= ) and 31 units.
Timber Ridge contains approximately 18,000 s.f. of Floor Area
(FAR= ) and 21 units.
The proposed upzoning and increased density and floor area of
Mountain View are not appropriate, in staff's opinion, because of
the following reasons:
1. The Mountain View plan is a major departure from the
density and character allowed by current zoning, which
is for a smaller residential or lodge project and low
3
y
density short -term accommodations clustered according
to the principles of PUD. The existing zoning concept
for this tract of land is to retain lower density areas
in the lodge district toward the mountain edge; and
this concept still makes sense in our opinion.
2. The maximized density and bulk of Mountain View exceeds
that of surrounding projects and is out of character
with the neighborhood due to the applicant's having
assembled an unusually large site for this area. Floor
area of Mountain View would be over twice that of Lift
1 and four times that of Timber Ridge due to the large
site. It would also obviously be much larger than the
Holland House or Skier's Chalet to the east or the
single family residences to the west.
Rezoning criteria Section 24- 12.5(d)(1) states:
"Compatibility of the rezoning proposal with the
surrounding zone district and land use in the vicinity
of the site, considering the existing neighborhood
characteristics, the applicable area and bulk require-
ments, and the suitability of the site for development
in terms of on -site characteristics."
Staff finds that Mountain View does not meet this
criteria because the project is higher density than
that allowed by the zoning and larger in scale than
neighboring developments.
B. Residential vs. Lodge Development: As P &Z members noted
during the last meeting on Mountain View, this project
appears to be in part a lodge project in the guise of a
residential project. The reason that it has been submitted
in the residential GMP competition is apparently because no
quota is available at this time in the lodge category. It
has been difficult for the P &Z to analyze this project
through the residential GMP criteria and compare it to other
residential projects when many of the impacts are more akin
to those of lodge development. Upon consideration of this
project's components, staff notes that there are commercial
spaces that cannot be viewed as accessory to a residential
project; and, therefore, they are illegal in Mountain View.
The bar, breakfast area and lobby are not permitted in
residential projects according to Section 24 -3.3 and must
either be eliminated or serve as grounds to disqualify the
application.
C. Transition Area Concept: Both the R- 15(L)(PUD) zoning and
the "Recreations /Accommodations Transition" land use
category in the 1973 Aspen Land Use refer to the concept
that density is preferred toward the core of Aspen and
4
r'
should drop off toward the Mountain. The 1973 Plan shows
this parcel to be adjacent to and just north of the general
line of the transition area, indicating that some higher
density development may be appropriate. It would be
incorrect to state that the entire site is clearly within
the transition zone as we suggested in an earlier memo. We
now recognize that this site does fall principally in the
accommodation- recreation land use category. However, it is
obvious that the idea of lowered density on Block 11 Eames
Addition was embodied in its R -15 zoning. We continue to
find that density should not be brought south up the hill
and should not intrude into the buffer transition area
between the lodge district and Shadow Mountain open space.
Furthermore, if this property is rezoned then there will be
pressure to also rezone the Barbee property, creating more
unwarranted changes to the neighborhood.
D. Evidence of Community Need: There is no compelling evidence
of community need for the proposed rezoning. The Aspen
Mountain Lodge, Little Nell, and the Hotel Jerome addition
all have approvals for upper -end lodge development which is
the stated target market for the Mountain View Project with
construction of the Jerome proceeding and that for Little
Nell expected in 1987 or 1988. It would seem prudent to
evaluate the impacts of these proposals on our services and
facilities prior to upzoning additional areas for tourist
development. Rezoning criteria (4), analysis of the
community need for the proposed rezoning, and (6), whether
rezoning will promote the health, safety and general welfare
are not met by this proposal.
E. Street Traffic on Steep Grades: Increased density on steep
South Aspen Street (approximately 10% grade up to proposed
Dean Drive and 11% grade up the hill to the Mine Dumps)
creates added traffic and traffic problems. In a winter
storm situation the pedestrian /vehicular conflicts are
particularly problematic. The Aspen /Durant intersection is
already commonly identified as dangerous; and this problem
would be exacerbated. The 124 space parking garage would be
a traffic generator beyond that expected from the number of
units in the project. In addition, both Aspen and Garmisch
Streets are residential streets; and this project will
likely have a negative qualitative effect on the Shadow
Mountain neighborhood.
F. A.S.C. Parking: The location of the 30 parking space Aspen
Skiing Company lot presents problems for safe access and
conflicts with the Mine Dumps present footprints. Further-
more, this is an off -site solution that has not been well
integrated into the overall development application for the
Mountain View site. Other aspects of the Mine Dumps
redevelopment (including reconstruction and resident
5
parking) have not been presented, therefore, it is not
possible to adequately evaluate the A.S.C. parking solution
as part of this application, even though provision of such
parking is a commitment attached to the Mountain View land.
G. Site Design: The commitment to plant an abundance of new
trees and provide trails and open space are definite
amenities of this project. However, we note that there
would be a great deal of impervious surface for parking,
circulation and terraces. The site, which we have previous-
ly suggested is in a transition area would become too
urbanized because of the amount of paving and disruption of
the hillside.
H. Trails: The applicant has committed to provide a 12' wide
bike trail along Garmisch, ski trail easements, Dean Drive
pedestrian ways and sidewalks along S. Aspen Street adjacent
to the property. There appear to be conflicts in the
alignments of the ski trail through the trees and the S.
Aspen Street sidewalks in the right -of -way that should be
resolved. In addition, the applicant has committed to
construct all trails with reimbursement to the Lodge
Improvement District. It is standard with regard to
sidewalks and by extension, other on -site trails, for the
applicant to commit to pay for the construction through a
subdivision improvements agreement and guarantee.
I. Utilities and Roads: With regard to utility services and
fire protection, the project appears to be workable in
concept. Commitments for water and sewer improvements work
very well. Garmisch Circle appears problematic because of
the accessability to the Barbee Property, private ownership
of public access, grade, and shading (consequently getting
iced during the cold months). More detail and additional
arrangements are necessary to evaluate this aspect of the
circulation plan. Dean Drive appears to work concept-
ually, with the need to further develop this plan to
accommodate the various uses (Timber Ridge parking, through
traffic, pedestrian traffic, service and trash access,
guest /resident drop -off and garage access).
J. Street Vacation: The Planning Office offers the following
comments with regard to the proposed vacation of Juan
Street:
1) Juan Street provides access to neighbors. Vacation
would result in neighbors having to use a street that
will be privately maintained.
2) The Engineering Department supported vacation in Elyse
Elliott's memorandum of December 30, 1986 because the
applicant is creating new streets (Dean Drive and
6
Jr"'
Garmisch Circle) that could be used to connect Garmisch
and Aspen Streets. Engineering recommended that
Garmisch Circle be deeded to the City after all
improvements are made. In Elliott's January 27th
memorandum, it was noted that Garmisch Circle would not
work well to serve the A.S.C. parking lot. In addi-
tion, Garmisch Circle's intersection with Aspen Street
would not align with Gilbert Street to the east,
creating a substandard street pattern.
3) New Dean Drive would eliminate current Timber Ridge
parking and landscape improvements. However,24 spaces
would be provided for the neighborhood. The Timber
Ridge Condominium Association is not in favor of the
proposed new Dean Drive. In Dave Ellis's January 27,
1987 letter, he states that there are unworkable
conflicts between the siting of Dean Drive, head -in
parking, a 12 foot trail and landscape islands.
4) There may be snow removal and street maintenance
problems on Garmisch Circle because of the grade and
shadow effects of Shadow Mountain.
5) In absence of subdivision approval, the vacation of
Juan Street would be unnecessary and inappropriate.
RECOMMENDATION ON REZONING AND CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION: The
Planning Office recommends P &Z to recommend City Council to deny
the requested rezoning of Lots 3 -12, BLock 11, Eames Addition and
conceptual subdivision for the 58 unit residential development.
NEW APPLICANT COMMITMENTS: In Doug Allen's March 11, 1987 letter,
the applicant commits to a scaled -down project, including, but
not limited to the following features:
o 36 units (26 one - bedroom and 10 studio units)
o 42,500 s.f. FAR
o Withdrawal of rezoning request
o Provide a 46 parking space garage (for tenants)
o Provide a 30 parking space A.S.C. garage off Dean Drive
o Eliminate commercial uses
o Continue commitments for water, sewer, streets and
trails improvements, mountain 60% employee housing
commitment.
The applicant agreed that many problems raised by the Planning
7
r
Office, P &Z and public were valid. This appears to be a major
effort to improve the project. As you can see from the attached
three page letter and the new "site plan ", this is a very concep-
tual approach. Staff believes that the approach has merit;
however, the lack of detail makes it impossible for us to review
the new project parameters. In particular, a new site design and
architectural elevations are essential for this modified applica-
tion to be considered complete. To show the old footprints for a
58 unit project (with commercial space) juxtaposed (no smaller in
size) for a 36 unit project is misleading and unacceptable.
There is a major zoning problem affecting the sketchy site plans
submitted. The building is placed partly on the R -15 portion of
the parcel; and the zone district does not allow for multi - family
residences.
Given that we do not have realistic footprints for the 36 unit
building, we cannot evaluate whether it is prudent to rezone
Eames Addition, Block 11 to L -2 so to allow for the proposed Dean
Drive and the scaled -down 36 unit project in the center of the
project site.
The present dilemma of this application is that, while major
changes have been proposed to improve the project, the level of
detail is inadequate and major problems remain that would make
conceptual subdivision approval inappropriate, in staff's
opinion.
ALTERNATIVES: Two courses of action should be considered by P &Z:
1) Give a conceptual response to the applicant's new
commitments but recommend that the project not be
approved, and be resubmitted as part of a new GMP
application next December (or in October if the
applicant wishes to develop this site as a lodge); or
2) Allow the applicant to come back with a scaled site
plan and architectural elevations showing the changes
proposed and continue conceptual subdivision review at
this time.
The Planning Office believes that there is a danger to the
integrity of the GMP and subdivision review system in allowing
this project to extend further. As the process evolves, outside
the Code regulations relating to GMP, the City is more and more
likely to give special treatment to this project over other
projects, which would not be fair to all parties. Furthermore,
the quality of review may be negatively affected as the project
changes incrementally and we become less and less clear as to
what project we are reviewing. For these reasons, we recommend
that P &Z recommend denial of the requested conceptual subdivision
and street vacation. A new application should be submitted for
8
the 1987 GMP competition along the lines proposed herein, but
providing the necessary detail to evaluate the plans and includ-
ing proof that the applicant has the right to apply for develop-
ment of this land.
We would like the Commission to be aware that the Planning Office
had indicated to the applicant that we would be willing to
consider the approach of developing new applicant - proposed
conditions of approval. This approach was used in the Aspen
Mountain Lodge Project during the conceptual review stage.
However, unlike the Aspen Mountain Lodge's revised commitments,
the Mountain View commitments change almost every parameter of
the project and are not well documented in graphic form. Upon
review of Doug Allen's letter of March 11, we realized that this
approach does not work for Mountain View because it implies a
very different project (similar to 601 S. Aspen of 1981) with new
building location, footprints, architecture, circulation and
parking arrangements, none of which have been submitted for
review.
CONSIDERATION OF CASH - IN - LIEU FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING: The applicant
has committed to provide cash -in -lieu for the equivalent of 60%
low income employees at $20,000 per employee.
HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority recom-
mended approval of the proposed cash -in -lieu payment, calculated
to be at current guidelines $3,060,000, as documented in Ann
Bowmans' December 19, 1986 memorandum (Attachment E); however,
the Housing Authority has not had a chance to review the revised
project commitment.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the P &Z to
not act on this request until other reviews are completed.
SB.MTN
9
�o .04. 24.
L861 Firm
£9& &ate
(305) a /5- -6W°
arch 11, 1987
in
Aspen Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Mountain View
Dear Steve:
Based upon the comments of the Planning Office in your memo to P
& Z relative to the above application, citizen comments and
Planning & Zoning Commission input we have intensively researched
and determined that the following conditions to approval will be
acceptable to the developer and we are willing to so commit:
1. Reduce the request for the number of units from 58
units to a partial allocation of 36 units.
2. Partially reduce the applied for FAR from 72,500 to
42,500 square feet as follows:
(a) 26 one bedroom = 32,500 FAR
(b) 10 Studios = 10,000 FAR
Total 42,500 FAR
3. Withdraw the rezoning request from the GMP
application. Thus the need to further address rezoning is
eliminated. Due to the fact that only 36 units are available (or
in the event that the appeal of 1001 Ute is not successful 39
units), we will accept a reduction in units applied for to 36
from 58.
4. Drop the request for vacation of Juan Street and
creation of Garmisch Circle and merely relocate Juan Street down
the hill to the north to abut it with the small portion of Dean
Street that presently exists, thus creating a susbstantially
increased width for Dean Street. We would dedicate to the City
a totally new right -of -way for Dean Street that at its narrowest
at the east end is 75 feet in width and at its west end 100 feet
in width of new right -of -way. Thus the total right -of -way at its
west end is in excess of 150 feet in width. By locating the new
Dean Street along the contour lines of the hill it is
substantially a level street with only enough change in elevation
to allow proper drainage. The developer presents four traffic
circulation alternatives within the right -of -way proposed above,
any one of which is acceptable. In our opinion A. is the best
J. �r ofre , . , (3 4 5P 5 :93.9 d
Steve Burstein
Re: Mountain View
March 11, 1987
Page Two
alternative.
5. Reduce the size of underground parking garage from
124 spaces to 46 parking spaces.
6. Eliminate any uses typically associated with hotel
facilities such as bar and dining room and merely retain an on-
site property management office to facilitate the short -term
rentals anticipated for these units.
7. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. Although the pro-
posed development has been drastically reduced in both unit count
and size, the public facilities and services commitment by the
developer has not been proportionately reduced but remains
substantially as submitted.
a. The same water lines and sewer lines previously
committed will be installed.
b. The same storm drainage commitment will be
maintained except that due to the fact there is no Garmisch
Circle there will of necessity be no curbs and gutters in that
area.
c. As noted above, the parking garage will be
reduced to 46 parking spaces for the development itself plus the
physically separate 30 Ski Company parking spaces, highly visible
down the hill from its present location and underground so that
weather problems are eliminated. Thus the Ski Company parking
has improved location, access and visibility for the day skier
(per plan).
d. The road commitment is as shown above.
8. QUALITY OF DESIGN. Quality of design is improved
because the project is smaller, but;
a. The energy commitment remains unchanged.
b. The trails commitment remains unchanged with the
trail remaining in substantially the same location except that
Garmisch Drive has been deleted and thus the trails will
generally follow the borders of the property.
c. Due the reduction in the project and the
r
s s
Steve Burstein
Re: Mountain View
March 11, 1987
Page Three
deletion of Garmisch Circle the net green space will be slightly
increased and paved area substantially reduced.
d. Most previous adverse comment related to
neighborhood compatibility and site design, both of which are
significantly improved by the reduction in number of units and
the moving of the buildings 25 feet further up into the hill from
the existing Timber Ridge and Lift One complexes. This is
possible due to the deletion of Garmisch Circle. The existing
group of 70 -year old trees in the northwest corner will be
preserved.
e. Proximity to support services remains unchanged.
9. Employee housing commitment remains unchanged at 60%
of total development, restricted to low income price guidelines
and low income occupancy limitations.
Should you require any further information or clarification,
please contact me before the scheduled Tuesday meeting.
47,1y
'
A
Douglas P Allen
D PA k
/P
/
agar ea in e 94 Mo.
c - o oso S
seen, -C Ora cPf699
(cia9) .925 -d'OD
February 9, 1987
Y C�F lj r -
Mr. Alan Richman ' ►' -
Director, Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen,l CO 81611
i
Re: Residential GMP Competition —
Dear Alan:
From our previous conversation it is my understanding that
scheduling conflicts in the above process have occurred due to
the volume of applications and information required in connection
with each this year. I further understand that you have
scheduled the meetings required to complete the process as
follows:
1. Mountain View Rezoning, Subdivision and Street
Vacation tabled from February 10, 1987 to a future
date.
2. February 23, 1987. City Council Subdivision
consideration for 700 East Hyman, 1010 Ute
and 1001 Ute.
3. March 9, 1987. Mountain View Rezoning, Sub-
division and Street Vacation consideration
by City Council.
4. March 23, 1987. Unit allocations for the
eligible applicants other than Mountain View
by City Council.
Please be advised that the applicant for Mountain View approval
has no objection to the above scheduling although the allocations
to the other applicants will not be made until late March of 1987
and to Mountain View until a later date after the necessary
related approvals are obtained.
✓fie / (.90.9) 925 -9.996
Mr. Alan Richman
Re: Residential GMP Competition
February 9, 1987
Page Two
I do need to meet with you as soon as possible regarding specific
scheduling of various items on the Mountain View application.
ordi' ly,
0auglas7A1 en J_______
DPA /pkm
cc: Hans B. Cantrup
- - '
-_~
----_-- .
_ !\
•
Date: 02/05/87 �[Q ()���
�
TO: ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
"
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 816
FROM: John W. Barbee
REF: MOUNTAIN VIEW Su mission, 12/01/86
SUBJECT: Comments on Rezoning and Proposed Street vacation by
Applicant
[I would appreciate it if these brief, but, T believe, important,
comments were read at the scheduled hearing" I am also providing
copies to be passed around to each member.]
I want to summarize and point out what I consider important points
to be considered in your decisions related to complying with the
Applicant's requests:
1) The Garmisch Circle proposed by the Applicant is not the
one represented on most of his maps and in his descriptions in the
Proposal and in his discussions of the impacts/benefits. The
Aternative Garmisch Circle (which does not adjoin the Mine Dumps
property and does not cross the Barbee Property lying along the
south edge of Block 11) significantly changes the Applicant's
proposal, and has not been addressed adequately by him. As David
Ellis also points out in his January 27, 1987, comments, the
Applicant's proposed alignment(s) with Gilbert and trails will be
untenable. There will also be no possibility to utilize the Mine
Dump property for a skier loading/unloading area because of no
access from Block 11" The Applicant was aware of the lack of any
agreement to acquire the Barbee Property long before the Dec" 1,
1986 filing deadline and still included it in his proposed plans. I
consider this a fatal flaw in the proposal in itself.
2) The proposed Alternative Garmisch Circle is not an
improvement over the presently existing Juan St. access. Unlike the
present street which occupies only a portion of its full
right-of-way width and could be expanded at a future date, the
proposed Garmisch Circle could not be expanded. Users and adjacent
landowners could be faced with a street over which they had no power
to expand, modify or access through the normal channels. Their only
alternative would be costly, and probably lengthy, litigation.
3) As an adjacent property owner and resident, I believe that
my rights of access and egress will be at high risk of being
violated if our public street is closed (S^ Garmisch from Dean St.
and Juan St.) and is "replaced" with a privately owned and
maintained "public access" road. Who do I go to when the road is
not properly maintained? How do I get the access I need for future
developments on my property? I absolutely oppose the vacation of
Juan and S. Garmisch as proposed and implied by the Applicant.
P & Z ltr. (cont'' Page 2
4) If the proposed rezoning is approved, the remaineder of
Eames Addition adjacent to and adjoining the rezoned lots and nearby
L-2 areas should also be considered as presently inappropriately
zoned Residential and should be considered and approved for higher
densities in the future"
AS an adjacent property owner of very long standing, I strongly
object to the street vacation and "spot re-zoning" proposed by the
Applicant. It seems that the only real reason for the closure of
Juan St. and S. Garmisch and the rezoning of Block 11 is to serve
the pleasure and use of the Applicant, not the needs and rights of
the public nor neighborhood property owners and users,
INA BENZINS, M.D.
6030 E. 1ST AVE. FEB � I , d
DENVER, COLORADO 80220
PHONE 333 -9188 - _
February 7, 1987
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen Planning Office
130 So. Galena
City of Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Mountain View GMP
Re- zoning application
Dear Mr. Burstein:
As an owner of a condominium in the Timber Ridge Association, I
wish to lodge a strong protest against the re- zoning application
of Mountain View GMP.
The applicant has incorporated under a very appealing title, the
Mountain View GMP; yet, in its essence, the name defeats its claim
since this re- zoning plan would inflict a negative environmental
impact on the Aspen mountains by blocking the beautiful view of
the mountains which have attracted tourists not only from the USA,
but have also won world -wide acclaim.
This applicant has repeatedly claimed improved traffic flow as
a result of this re- zoning. This contention is a mere "wishful
thinking'' based on the assumption of another property, but without
which the proposed intersection would be worse off, because it would
create a hazardous offset intersection which does not meet the city's
design standards.
Specifically, in reference to my own property, the parking spaces
now available, would be encroached upon, and the general traffic
will prove more than congested; thus, affecting the rental desira-
bility of my property.
In the absence from the State of my son, Juris Berzins, who is on
the Board of Directors of Timber Ridge Association, I am also voicing
his objections to the proposed re- zoning plan for the reasons stated
above.
Very truly yoVrs,
or
Ina Berzins, MD
1
IB:vle
cc: Mr. David Ellis
President, Board of Managers
Box 3633
Aspen, CO 81612
MEMORANDUM e Jpx 2 8 1987
�i
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Department
FROM: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department
DATE: January 27, 1987
RE: Mountain View - Garmisch Circle
It has come to our attention that the location of Gramisch Circle
has been changed. This changes my comments of December 30, 1986
to the following:
Garmisch Circle cannot be used to access the Aspen Skiing Company
lot. This is a less convenient access because the Aspen Skiing
Company employees will either have to drive up Aspen Street which
is very steep or turn from Garmisch Circle onto Aspen Street.
All other comments remain unchanged.
EE /co /MountainView.GarmischCircle
SG uTHPOINT CONDOMINI uM
H(I J, a re
205 EAST DURANT, #SP • ASPEN, COLORAD 81611 h
O I
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
JAN-28 1981 II
FROM: Southpoint Condominium Association !,!,
• William Dunn, President and the Board of Managers tln f
of the owners — -°
RE: Mountain View Project
January 1987
The Southpoint Condominium Association objects to the
Mountain View project as presented. Our major concerns are
described below. We ask that you consider this memo for the GMP
allocation hearing and for the continuation of the hearing on
rezoning.
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD is a primary concern to
the residents. a) If the Garmisch Circle alternative is
considered to be the only viable alternative offered, serious
questions are raised about the set -backs and on space on the
southeast building as shown on the site design. b)The
intersection of Garmisch, Aspen, and Juan streets will be an off
set intersection. This raises concerns about safety and ease of
traffic flaw. c) Serious traffic problems now occur at the
corner of Aspen and Durant. Additional personal and commerical
traffic from the Mt. View project will aggravate the situation.
PARKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD is now a problem during peak holiday
periods, World Cup, and on powder mornings. The City has had
under review major changes (possible ski club and ski museum) to
_ the Willoughby Park area between Monarch and Aspen on Dean which
would eliminate most of parking currently there.
While the Mountain View project lists parking spaces in
excess of those required by code, the impact of the proposed
relocation of the Ski Company parking lot is not addressed. From
a map it would appear that such a relocation would displace
current tenant parking at the Mine Dump units, and possibly some
structures currently used'as employee housing.
REQUEST FOR REZONING A PARCEL FROM R15L(PUD) TO L2 if granted
would increase the maximum allowable density and height allowed
on the parcel. While this might be justified along Aspen Street
the :western end of the property is a transistional zone and
should be maintained as R15 against the mountain. The rezoning
changes would not be compatible with the neighborhood as it now
exists.
Scoring for the allocation of GMP units requires careful
evaluation to protect the intent of the GMP and the planning
process. Is it in the best interests of the community and fair
to other applicants holding clear title to ignore the problems of
confused ownership and the tangled legal status of a piece of
property being evaluated?
Thank you for your attention.
. SIIAW
Construction
C J a nuary 28, 1987 j
Mr. Welton Anderson, Chairman
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: MOUNTAIN VIEW
Dear Mr. Anderson:
It has come to my attention that Shaw Construction Company has been named
contractor for the referenced project.
Please be advised that we have had no discussions with Mr. Cantrup or his
councel regarding this specific project. As of this time there is no agreement
whatsoever between Mr. Cantrup and ourselves relative to any construction
anywhere.
1 am writing this letter to suggest the City attempt to verify and /or enforce
statements made in G.M.P. applications. I am concerned if credence is given
proposals not based on fact. In this case Mr. Cantrup, without our consent,
has apparently used our name and reputation to curry favor for this project.
My motivation for this letter comes from my long term interest and involvement
in Aspen and my desire to see the very best projects selected and built under
the c rent Growth Management Plan.
' y
'-rote G. 5';
sv
Horizon Park Plaza
743 Horizon Court, Suite109
Grand Junction, Colorado81506
303/242 9236
•Y
JAN 28 1987 "'
MEMORANDUM I
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Douglas P. Allen for Mountain View
RE: Residential - - GMP Scoring
DATE: January 27, 1987
_=
INTRODUCTION: This memo is to clarify and correct some of the
comments of the Planning Office as well as to take issue with
others, relative to various aspects of the recommended scoring of
the Mountain View project. My comments will be in the same order
as those contained in the Planning Office memo. For brevity,
unless otherwise stated, supporting information verifying the
Planning Office's comments will be found in the corresponding
section of the GMP application starting with page 17 and ending
with page 56.
1.a. WATER SERVICE: Rating 2
COMMENTS: None
1.b. SEWER SERVICE: Rating 2
COMMENTS: None
1.c. STORM DRAINAGE: Rating 2
COMMENTS: None
1.d. FIRE PROTECTION: Rating 2
COMMENTS: None
1.e. PARKING DESIGN: Rating 2 (Planning Office Rating: 0 )
COMMENTS: Based upon a careful review of other previous project
applications such as The Ski Company Hotel, The Aspen Mountain
Lodge, The Lodge at Aspen and our previous experience with the
1
(7)
601 Aspen project last year with the comments made by both the
Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission, comments
last year ranged from "parking plan totally inadequate" to no
comment regarding the adequacy plus comments to the effect that
the Aspen Skiing Company parking commitment should be retained in
the form of surface parking. In this application we have
addressed all of the previously- stated concerns.
By way of clarification, the parking garage will not serve non -
project needs nor will it become a public garage. If this is of
great concern to the City, this point may be covered in
conditions to final approval.
Although .there is an auto disincentive policy in Aspen we must
face the fact for at least the present and the forseeable future
the parking problem will be with us. Perhaps approval of the
railroad, coupled with an efficient trolley or tram system in the
central core area will alleviate some of the automobile problem,
but in the meantime we feel that based upon previous comments and
surveys of visiting tourists that it is totally appropriate to
provide more parking rather than less especially as we are
targeting family groups. Our parking design improves the quality
of service in the area.
The best feature of the parking plan for Mountain View is that it
does have excess rather than deficient capacity. Due to the fact
that the site is so large the architects have determined that it
was very feasible to have, for the first time in Aspen, an
adequate parking facility for a project. In order to make this a
first class project we made the threshold determination that all
guest parking was to be in the underground garage and not to be
crowded onto the surrounding streets as is so prevalent.
Frankly, we are amazed at the Planning Office comments relative
to an adequate parking facility. Quite simply, parking is a
perennial problem in Aspen and we have addressed it with this
application.
By this design all of the parking spaces on South Aspen Street as
well as the 24 newly- created parking spaces on Dean Street will
be available for the general public. The Aspen Skiing Company
will continue to have 30 surface spaces available for its use at
a location with less walking distance to Lift 1 -A.
The Planning Office comments that 15,000 square feet of the site
is paved for roads and parking. This is because the streets for
the public benefit are being provided within the developer's
property to the extent of totally replacing Juan Street with
Garmisch Circle plus adding the new 9,000 square foot extension
to the now non - existent Dean Street. Please keep in mind that
Garmisch Circle is not used at all for the development but is
created and constructed by the developer solely to improve
2
circulation in the neighborhood. The only paved surface on the
project site other than that provided for public roads is the
5,000 square foot arrival and departure ports de coche area which
is being built totally on our property and not in the street.
This is an excellent plan to handle arrivals and departures out
of the public roads and without public cost. Co- existing off
this area and out of sight inside the building is the service
area for delivery trucks and refuse removal with adequately
engineered turning radiuses.
IN SUMMARY, OUR PARKING PLAN ALLOWS GENEROUS PARKING UNDERGROUND
AND OUT OF THE WEATHER WHERE IT IS A VERY REAL AMENITY, LEAVES
42% OPEN SPACE ON THE SITE, TOTALLY MEETS ALL PARKING NEEDS OF
THE PROJECT, BOTH AS TO TENANTS AND EMPLOYEES WITHOUT THE USE OF
ON STREET PARKING AND MAINTAINS THE ASPEN SKIING COMPANY PARKING
LOT IN A SUPERIOR LOCATION.
l.f. ROADS: Rating 2 (Planning Office Rating: 0 )
COMMENTS: The Planning Office begrudgingly admits that there is
adequate capacity on both Garmisch and Aspen given their width
and traffic volume to handle the additional traffic. This must
be conceded as the referral from the Engineering Department so
stated. The creation of the new Garmisch Circle directs traffic
to the project approximately 100' up Garmisch Street to Dean
Drive with substantially less grade, into the arrival area and
then into the garage. Employees and residents will not be using
South Aspen Street to access the project.
It is correct that South Aspen Street does have a steep grade,
almost identical to that of Monarch, Mill and Galena. However,
Aspen Street is wider. Both the City Engineer and the Lodge
Improvement District Engineer want to have the transit facility
above Dean Street. Mountain View cars, if they were to use
Aspen, exit it before the steep portion. While some visitors may
continue to use Aspen Street to access Lift 1 -A, they will either
be parking in the newly- created 24 spaces at the bottom of Aspen
Street where the grade is less or will merely be subject to the
same constraints that presently exist on Aspen Street except that
the Skiing Company parking lot is now in a more favorable
location.
The lessened grade of Garmisch Circle certainly improves the
quality of service in the area. Keep in mind that this area is
part of the "Recreation /Accommodations" area, intended to be
developed as a matter of City policy, with lodge and multi - family
units and not left as vacant land. There is intensive
development both to the north and south of this site and
projected additional development to the south, west and east on
3
the presently underdeveloped property to the east and the west.
Regarding the dedication to the public of Garmisch Circle and
Dean Drive, it was thought by the developer that the dedication
to the public for use of both newly - created streets would be
looked upon very favorably by both staff and Planning and Zoning
as the construction and maintenance obligation would be that of
the developer and not the City thus creating a substantial public
benefit to the community.
To clarify the situation regarding Dean Drive, it does not exist
at the present time, having been largely vacated by District
Court action. It is not correct that any additional section of
Dean Drive will need to be vacated. As stated in the
application, the applicant will grant "a perpetual easement for
public use ", for both Garmisch Circle and Dean Drive.
The vacation of Juan Street and its replacement by Garmisch
Circle absolutely does not preclude access to the Barbee
property. The new alignment not only maintains the existing
access to the Barbee property but creates availability and
flexibility on the part of the Barbees to access their property
from additional locations along the new Garmisch Circle.
IN SUMMARY, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SUPPORTS THE NEW GARMISCH
CIRCLE AS THE GRADE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVED OVER ASPEN STREET,
AND NEIGHBORHOOD CIRCULATION IS IMPROVED. THE DEDICATION, USE
AND MAINTENANCE QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THE RAOD SYSTEM MAY BE ALL
ADDRESSED AS SEEN FIT BY P & Z AS CONDITIONS OF FINAL APPROVAL
AND THUS BE A REAL BENEFIT TO THE QUALITY OF SERVICE IN THE AREA,
MERITING A SCORE OF 2 POINTS.
2.a. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY: Rating 2-3 (Planning Office
Rating: 1)
COMMENTS: We have addressed previous Planning Office comments
and reduced both mass and unit count. As mentioned previously,
lands to the north, south and east of the site are zoned L -2, all
with densities either available or in actual use ranging from 1:1
to 1.75:1 in the South Point, Timber Ridge and Lift One
developments. Although not required by the 1973 Aspen Land Use
Plan, the actual effect of the development of Mountain View will
. be to create a less dense environment with more open space than
exists in South Point, Lift One, Timber Ridge, and Shadow
Mountain complexes. Regarding the "single family homes" in the
neighborhood, the only such home not on the development site
itself is the existing Barbee residence. The Barbees have
publicly stated that their land is available for redevelopment.
Thus it is incorrect to characterize the present interim use
4
pending redevelopment of the property, as a single family
neighborhood. The "small lodge" to the east is the Skiers Chalet
which is the same 28 -foot height as the proposed Mountain View
although on a smaller site and with smaller square footage. To
characterize the total height of the Mountain View building with
a reference point of Dean Drive as done by the Planning Office is
totally inappropriate. If y1944 apply the same reasoning to the
Aspen Mountain Lodge itsiggi 'id be over 80 '. The actual Code
height of the proposed Aspen Mountain Lodge is 42 ' versus the
Mountain View actual Code height of 28 '. Not only are the
Skiers Chalet and the Shadow Mountain buildings the same height
but due to the fact they are 'substantially south and up the hill
they will still dominate the streetscape above the Mountain View.
The project unequivocally does not intrude upon the buffer
transition area. The amenities associated with Mountain View are
of those types sought by tourist families, the targeted market
for Mountain View, and are intended solely for the use of
residents of Mountain View. They have resort kitchens to appeal
to family use.
IN SUMMARY, WE HAVE ADDRESSED EVERY ITEM WHICH WAS CRITICIZED IN
LAST YEAR'S APPLICATION BY LESSENING MASS, UNIT COUNT AND SQUARE
FOOTAGE OF THE MOUNTAIN VIEW. BY DOING SO WE HAVE ACTUALLY
CREATED A TRANSITION AREA FROM THE AREA BELOW UP TO LIFT 1 -A AND
CREATED OUR OWN BUFFER ZONE BY CONCENTRATING THE BUILDING
ELEMENTS WITHIN THE CENTER OF THE SITE. THE CRITERIA FOR
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY HAVE BEEN MET BY THE DEVELOPER WITH AN
EXCELLENT DESIGN FOR THE RECREATION /ACCOMMODATIONS AREA MERITING
A SCORE OF 3 POINTS.
2.b. SITE DESIGN: Rating 2 (Planning Office Rating: 1 )
COMMENTS: The Planning Office is quite complimentary about many
aspects of the site design. However, the statement regarding the
increase in open space as a result of the vacation of Juan Street
is not correct. The 15,000 square feet of Juan Street vacated is
replaced by 15,000 square feet of new Garmisch Circle, all 15,000
square feet on the applicant's property. An additional 9,000
square feet, all on the applicant's property, is included in the
new portion of Dean Drive designed, built and maintained by the
applicant. The "impervious surface for at grade parking and
' circulation" is an amenity rather than a detraction from the site
in that all circulation, arrival and departure required for the
project is contained within the project and not on public rights
of way.
We have reconfigured the open space to be more usable and
visually available to the general public and substantially
5
increased building setbacks.
The Planning Office states that a major design flaw is the
location of the Aspen Skiing Company parking in conflict with the
Mine Dumps footprints. This statement is not correct. You will
note from attached Exhibit "A" that there is no conflict with the
existing Mine Dumps Apartments. It is correct that the Mine
Dumps units may be reconstructed without GMP competition. No
reconstruction plans exist at present. The only present plan is
to burden the Mine Dumps property with the ASC parking and trails
as indicated in the presentation. If the property is either sold
or redeveloped the trails and parking will be retained as a title
exception and covenant affecting the land. The Planning Office
also unequivocally states that the surface relocation of the ASC
parking is a positive feature of the site design.
IN SUMMARY,' WITH THE DESIGN ALTERNATIVE FOR GARMISCH STREET,
THERE STILL REMAINS 42% GREEN SPACE, THE ASC PARKING IS
MAINTAINED IN A BETTER LOCATION, NEIGHBORHOOD CIRCULATION IS
IMPROVED. ALL OF THE POSITIVE ITEMS MENTIONED IN THE PLANNING
OFFICE'S COMMENT MERIT A SCORE OF 3 FOR AN EXCELLENT DESIGN OR AT
THE VERY MINIMUM A SCORE OF 2 FOR ACCEPTABLE NEIGHBORHOOD
COMPATIBILITY.
2.c. ENERGY: Rating 3 . (Planning Office Rating: 2)
COMMENTS: Planning Office comments on 1010 Ute Avenue which
received a Planning Office rating of 3 points stated that the
Code requirements with respect to energy conservation were
exceeded by at least 25 %. Mountain View's energy conservation
commitment exceeds standards by an average of 37% as verified by
the Roaring Fork Energy Center. In conversations with Mr. Steve
Standiford of the Roaring Fork Energy Center subsequent to the
Planning Office's scoring, Mr. Standiford stated that "your
project is as good or better than any of the others as far as
energy conservation." He further stated that the fact he was
unsuccessful in contacting the energy consultatnt did not create
any problem in him assessing and concluding that the energy
program is an excellent one.
SUMMARY: THE DEVELOPER HAS MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL COMMITMENT TO
MAXIMIZE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY AND USE OF SOLAR ENERBY SOURCES.
SUCH CAN EASILY BE MADE A CONDITION OF FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. ALL
OF THIS INDICATES AN EXCELLENT DESIGN AND MERITS A RATING OF 3.
2.d. TRAILS: Rating 3 . (Planning Office Rating: 2)
6
r
COMMENTS: In creating an excellent design for trails this
applicant as well as any other applicant is limited in dealing
with only the property controlled by applicant. You will note
from the Barbee letters that any attempt to correlate the trail
system on the applicant's property with that owned by others is
criticized and discouraged by them. The optimal route may be to
the west but that is for the Barbees to deal with as it is on
their property. Subsequent to the issuance of the Planning
Office memo I met with Steve Burstein and pointed out to him that
his statement that the trails would not be built by the applicant
is incorrect as on page 42 of the application it specifically
states that the trail will be constructed by the applicant to
Nordic Council specifications. The ski trail does not conflict
with the tree planting plan, they will co -exist with each other.
There is no "siting conflict" in this plan. At this point it is
a conceptual plan only. You will note from page 43, the
applicant "commits to coordinate and perform the construction of
such trail improvements based on designs approved by the Lodge
Improvement District." L.I.D. plans continue to evolve and their
present plan now calls for some parking on Aspen Street. Our
presentation showed typical sidewalk construction on the Aspen
Street side of the property, but the applicant has committed to
coordinate the' sidewalk design with that of the Lodge Improvement
District.
SUMMARY: THE TRAIL DESIGN IS AN EXCELLENT DESIGN BOTH AS TO
CONCEPT AND DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT WILL NOT ONLY BE DEDICATED
FOR TRAIL PURPOSES BUT BE ENTIRELY CONSTRUCTED AT THE APPLICANT'S
EXPENSE.
2.e. GREEN SPACE: Rating 3 . (Planning Office Rating: 1)
COMMENTS: We agree with the Planning Office that this is an
urban environment. We do not agree that it is excessively
urbanized. Again, at the risk of being redundant, this is the
Recreation /Accommodations area in which such environment is
intended. At the present time there are only two existing trees
of any significance on the site and one of those will be
retained, with the other being replaced with an abundant planting
of trees and landscaping to enhance the green space. '
Sensitive to the criticisms received last year, the green space
is directed more toward the front of the project and more toward
the outside where it will be an amenity to the neighborhood and
of benefit visually to the general public.
The only reason that the buffer to the north is not all green
space is that Dean Drive is located to the north of the
7
improvements on this site. However, there is a distance of 140
feet to the Timber Ridge and between 105 to 150 feet to Lift One
as well as a 90 -foot green buffer area on the west side toward
the Barbee tract. Even the Planning Office concedes that the
site plan is much improved over last year's submittal.
SUMMARY: Mountain View will be constructed in an environment
intended to be urban. There is substantial and significant green
space providing visual relief throughout the project meriting a
score of 3 points.
3.a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: Rating 3 .
COMMENTS: None.
3.b. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FACILITIES: Rating 2 .
COMMENTS: None.
4. EMPLOYEE HOUSING: Rating 12 .
COMMENTS: None.
•
8
tvli vqvi
MEMORANDUM AiN 28 1987 !{
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Douglas P. Allen for HBC Investments
RE: Question of Available Quota
DATE: January 26, 1986
INTRODUCTION: This memo to written in response to the analysis
of available quota by the Planning Office dated January 27, (sic)
1987.
QUOTA AVAILABLE: We basically agree with the mathematical
computations of the Planning Office relative to their
computations, as far as they go. However, in prior years to 1985
there were also available unused residential quotas as there were
in.1985 which have never been used to this date but appear not to
have been carried forward. Thus with the 35 units unallocated
from the 1985 quota and agreed to be carried forward to the 1986
competition by City Council there are at least 57 units presently
available without going into any future year allocations.
QUOTA RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office implies in their memo
that your easy solution to the numbers problem is to deny
Mountain View a quota because the Mountain View request "presents
a problem" because of the number of units requested.
Contrary to the Planning Office recommendation we feel not only
that Mountain View is worthy of a GMP allocation but that there
are compelling reasons to recommend to Council that the
unallocated quota be allocated in this year's competition. They
are as• follows:
(1) The Planning Office is correct in that it is likely
that Mountain View will serve primarily as a short -term
residential use as intended by the City Code in Section 24 -3.2
which states in this zone that the intention of the zone is "to
encourage construction and renovation of lodges in the area at
the base of Aspen Mountain and to allow construction of tourist -
oriented single- family, duplex and multi - family units. ", with
permitted uses including "dining room, laundry and recreation
facilities for quests only."
Thus not only the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan and the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan of 1984 both state that the
projected use by the applicant of this facility is still an
adopted community objective of both the planners and the elected
1
.-4%
governmental officials but so does the City Code. As the
Planning Office and Council, not the applicant, have written the
City Code, the applicant can only work within the parameters of
the Code as it presently exists. That Code specifically allows
an application for use such as that before you for scoring this
year.
(2) Of the projects mentioned by the Planning Office in
their memo, only the Hotel Jerome is presently under
construction. The Little Nell Hotel is apparently delayed and
the Aspen Mountain Lodge project is certainly delayed to a date
uncertain. Thus any employee housing changes in connection with
these two projects are speculative at best and will only occur at
some indefinite time in the future, if at all. The 75 units
quoted by the Planning Office will not all be back in the system
as residential units until some time in 1988 or 1989 at the
earliest.
It might be well to keep in mind that available
undeveloped or redevelopable land in the recreation /accommodation
s area which has not already received allocations is virtually
non - existent. Thus we are not talking about going on and on
years and years into the future on a geometric growth curve in
the recreation /accommodations area. Who will build what, when?
No one knows exactly, but certainly not very many units. We
submit that it is not only inherently unfair to not fairly grade
the applicant based solely on the merits of the project and not
on any other outside considerations, but to then forward a
favorable scoring recommendation to Council so Council will be in
a position to make the decision as to whether a few units should
be allocated from the 1987 residential quota either under the
Code provision allowing 20% extra in any one year or sufficient
units from the future to complete any one project.
As you are probably aware, the City Council in granting a multi-
year allocation to the Aspen Mountain Lodge did so based upon the
following reasoning in their resolution:
"1. The need, as outlined in the Planning Office's, 1982
draft Short -Term Accommodations Report, to substan-
tially upgrade the quality of the community's lodg-
ing accommodations while maintaining a balance be-
tween the quantity of our accommodations and the
•
capacity of our ski areas.
2. The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan identifies the Aspen
Mountain Lodge site as the most appropriate loca-
tion for the development of new short -term accommo-
dations. (Note: The "location" referred to is the
Recreation /Accommodation Area, not just the one site.
2
3. The opportunity for additional lodge development in
the L -1, L -2, CC and CL zone districts, beyond that
proposed by the applicants, is limited given the
remaining availability of undeveloped parcels and
the relatively limited expansion capability of the
district's existing lodges.
4. Although there are potential growth impacts on the
community associated with the award of a multi -year
allocations in the amount required by this project,
such an allocation is justified given the off-
.
setting benefits which are expected to accrue to
the community and the fact that the project's con -
struction schedule will help mitigate potential
impacts.
5. The approval of a single major project will have
the effect of confining construction to one time
period rather than piecemeal phasing of numerous
small projects over many years.
•
6. The entire Aspen Mountain Lodge district will bene-
fit a project of this magnitude as a result of
the applicants' commitment to participate pro rata
in the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission's
proposed lodge improvement district.
7. A desire to ensure the availability of lodge quota
for future competitions in the event the proposed
hotel is unable to proceed in a timely manner."
It is interesting to note that in the last few years much tourist
accommodation capacity in the recreation /accommodations area has
been lost. Some of these are:
132 units at the Aspen Inn Lodge and annexes
18 units at the Aspen Inn Condominiums
150
Plus attrition over the last 10 years of an estimated 250 units
or 1,000 pillows. By attrition we mean removal from short -term
rental market by the owners or change in use.
We believe the above clearly shows not only a need for
replacement of tourist accommodations without delay, but also at
least some of the reason for declining attendance figures in our
community.
CONCLUSION: The applicant thus recommends that, in the event the
other three applications are found to meet the scoring threshold,
that the Montain View 58 units be allocated together with the 21
3
other units in this year's competition. At the outside, this
would only require allocation of 22 units from 1987 while
construction on Mountain View will not be started until Spring of
198a ( �
(
•
•
•
4
•
n� ��
• 1 f JAN 2 7 1987 `
11
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Timber Ridge Condominium Association
David Ellis, President, Board of Managers 10
RE: Mountain View GMP and Rezoning Application
DATE: January 27, 1987
The Timber Ridge Condominium Association objects to the requested
rezoning and GMP application for the Mountain View project and
submits the following comments for your consideration at your
January 27 GMP public hearing and the continued public hearing
for rezoning on February 10.
Garmisch Circle Realignment
The relocation of Garmisch Circle as originally shown on the site
plan is not possible without use of the Barbee property. With
the Garmisch Circle Alternative, the 36 feet of proposed
improvements (24 feet street and 12 feet trail) puts the north
edge of the new trail approximately 5 feet from the southeast
building and eliminates the majority of landscape buffer between
building and street. This also contradicts statements made that
the trail will be ideally located on the southwest side of the
new street. The 36 feet does not include any extra space for
necessary snow storage or the transit stop which is also proposed
for Garmisch Circle. When these elements are added to the right-
of -way requirements, the right -of -way actually encroaches into
the building by more than 5 feet.
The applicant repeatedly claims that Gilbert Street and Garmisch
Circle will align creating a safer intersection, improved traffic
flow, and better trail alignments. This would be correct if the
Barbee property were utilized. Without the Barbee property the
new intersection is worse than the existing Juan /Aspen
intersection because it creates a hazardous offset intersection
which does not meet city design standards. The improved traffic
flow and trail alignment do not occur either.
The relocation of Garmisch Circle as shown in the alternative
results in a major site design flaw and nullifies many of the
beneficial claims made in the application regarding improvements
to traffic circulation, trails, transit stop and landscaping.
This should be reflected in lower GMP scores in all of 'these
categories.
•
Traffic & Parking Impacts /Dean and Garmisch
The applicant claims that the opening of Dean Avenue to through
traffic will be an improvement to historic patterns. To the
contrary, when Garmisch and Dean "become the preferred auto and
delivery and bus approach to the project" the negative impacts on
both streets will be considerable. In the last 15 years there
has been no problem encountered with the dead end situation on
Dean Street as it exists. Second, the traffic projections
presented do not include any trips generated by employees,
service or delivery vehicles or limosines or buses.
Garmisch and Dean are very narrow by city standards having only
50 foot and 41 foot rights -of -way respectively. The 41 foot
width of Garmisch west of the Timber Ridge is insufficient to
accommodate existing angle parking, a 24 foot street, curb and
gutter, and proposed 12 foot trail within the right -of -way. The
applicant does not own any property in this location.
The applicant shows 24 head -in parking spaces with landscape
islands along Dean Street on all the site plans. This is to
occur in a 50 foot easement. On page 31 of the application, the
appliant promises a 12 foot trail, 45 degree angle parking and a
24 foot street. The minimum design standards for this
configuration require a minimum of 55 feet of right -of -way,
obviously in excess of the proposed width. The angle parking
requires 40% more frontage to accommodate the same number of
parking spaces, virtually eliminating all the promised landscape
islands.
The applicant claims that there are only 8 parking spaces
currently available to the Timber Ridge on Dean Street. There
are typically 10 spaces utilized during peak season plus 2
loading zone spaces. The loading zone has been entirely •
eliminated in the applicant's plan. Finally, it is not clear
whether the applicant is proposing to vacate the existing Dean
Street public right -of -way in favor of a private easement. we
would object strongly to vacation of the existing Dean Street
right -of -way.
For the above reasons, the project will substantially alter
existing traffic and parking patterns and impact both Garmisch
and Dean Street. The maximum points requested by the applicant
in these categories should not be granted.
Relocation of Aspen Skiing Company Parking Lot
The relocation of the 30 ASC parking spaces onto the Mine Dump
property is essential for the site plan to function as shown, yet
there has been no plan or schedule presented indicating how or
( r1/4 ( ,—
when the 30 relocated spaces will be accommodated on the Mine
Dump property. It is very clear that all existing tenant parking
at the Mine Dump apartments must be removed, and quite likely
some of the existing structures as well, to provide 30 spaces for
the ASC lot as promised.
The displacement of existing parking spaces creates a very real
negative impact on the neighborhood situation and should reduce
scoring for parking and neighborhood compatibility.
Trails
In addition to the problems regarding alignment and available
right -of -way discussed above, the applicant has specifically
declined to pay for construction of the trails and has indicated
he expects reimbursement from the Lodge Improvement District.
This approach is at best only acceptable and does not merit the
maximum points requested for trails.
Proof of Ownership
The applicant does.not now have clear title to the property, or
does it appear he will have clear title in the immediate future.
The concept of considering such a project on equal terms with
projects which have met the minimum qualifying prerequisites for
GMP competition and subdivision seems unfair to the other
applicants. It is even more unfair when a limited number of
units are available for the year. The awarding of the GMP Quota
assumes that the applicant is ready and able to proceed with the
construction within a reasonable period of time which is
something that seems very unlikely in this situation.
Rezoning
The requested rezoning of Lots 3 - 12, Block 11, Eames Addition
will result in a net increase in allowable density of 22 dwelling
units and an increase in allowable height from 25 feet to 28
feet. Even assuming that the portion of the property abutting
Aspen Street may be appropriate for L -2 zoning, the westerly end
of the block should remain a transition zone to the steep slopes
of Shadow Mountain. The L(PUD) overlay designation in this area
was created specifically to allow and encourage transition lodge
use. Neither the increased density nor the added height of L2
zoning are appropriate, however the applicant intends to maximize
both under the rezoning.
Second, the applicant has not demonstrated that there is a real
community need for the additional upper -end, luxury class multi-
family units at this point in time. A very large number of
luxury lodge rooms have already been approved, the actual impacts
of which have yet to be assessed. Contrary to the applicant's
contention, the general community needs may be better met with
more moderate priced lodge rooms than luxury condos.
The above concerns together with the lack of clear title make it
clear that the rezoning will not "promote the health, safety and
general welfare of the residents and visitors to the City of
Aspen" and should be denied.
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director
Steve Burstein, Planner
RE: / / Residential Growth Management Quota System: Scoring
DATE: ( 27, 1987
INTRODUCTION: Attached for your consideration are copies of the
Planning Office's recommended points allocation for the four
residential growth management applicants which were submitted on
December 1, 1986.
QUOTA AVAILABLE: The 1986 annual residential quota in the City
of Aspen is 39 dwelling units per year. According to the Code,
the quota must be reduced by any development which took place via
exemptions in 1986, and changes in use from non - residential to
residential uses. It is increased by expirations of previously
granted allotments and demolitions. The City Council has the
discretion to carry over to 1986, wipe out or take no action with
respect to the unallocated 35 units of quota from 1985. Follow-
ing is a summary of the status of the 1986 residential quota.
1986 Residential quota: 39 units
New Construction: -18 units
Change in Use -14 units
Demolitions • +12 units
Expirations • + 3 units
Total Quota 22 units available
Based upon the City Council discretionary authority, the 1986
quota of dwelling units will finally be determined to be either
22 or 57 units. Applicants have requested allocations of 79
units as listed below:
Mountain View: 58 units
1010 Ute Ave.: 16 units
700 E. Hyman : 2 units
1001 3 units
As you can see, the requested allocations substantially exceed
the available quota. This will make the scoring competition on
Tuesday very interesting and important to the applicants.
PROCESS: The Planning Office will review procedures with you and
provide recommendations of the assignment of points. The appli-
cant will give a brief presentation of the proposal. A public
hearing will be held to allow interested citizens to comment. At
the close of the hearing, each P &Z member will score the appli-
cants proposal. This procedure will be followed for each
application in the following order:
1010 Ute Avenue
700 E. Hyman
1001
Mountain View
The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the
number of members voting will constitute the total points awarded
to the project. A project must score a minimum of 60% of the
total points available (31.8), a minimum of 30 percent of the
points available in scoring categories 1, 2, 3 and 35 percent of
the points available in category 4 to meet the minimum scoring
threshold. The minimum thresholds are: Category 1 - 3.6
points, Category 2 - 4.5 points, Category 3 - 1.8 points,
Category 4 - 7 points.
In the event that an application scores below any threshold, it
will no longer be considered for a development allotment and will
be considered denied, subject to the right of appeal provided for
by the Code.
In the event that a project meets the threshold, the additional
reviews identified in each of the staff's January 20, 1987
memoranda must be completed by both P &Z and Council before an
allocation will be granted.
PLANNING OFFICE RATINGS: The Planning Office has assigned points
to the applications as a recommendation for you to consider. The
staff met to discuss the ratings of the reviewing planner and
objectively scored the proposals. The following is a summary of
the ratings. A more complete explanation of the points assign-
ment for each criterion is shown on the attached scoring sheets
including comments regarding the ratings.
CATEGORIES
1 2 3 4 5 6
Public Facil- Quality Proximity Employee Bonus
Application ities Serv- of to Housing Points
ices Design Support Total
Services
1010 Ute Ave. 11 13 4 7 NA 35
700 E. Hyman 8 11 6 9 NA 34
1001 10 9 4 7 NA 30
Mountain View 8 7 5 12 NA 32
NA = The Planning Office as a policy never recommends the
allocation of bonus points
QUOTA RECOMMENDATION: The applicants in this years competition
have requested the allocation of 79 dwelling units. The 700 E.
Hyman, 1001 and 1010 Ute Avenue are requesting 21 dwelling units
which is just one unit less than the available quota of 22 units.
The Mountain View request for 58 units presents a problem because
it is more than twice the available quota. City Council may
decide to partially resolve the problem by granting the unallo-
cated 1985 quota of 35 units this year, however it will not be
clear until after P &Z establishes the rank order of the appli-
cants how many units will be needed to accommodate the successful
applicants.
Presuming that there are successful applicants for more than the
22 units available, the Planning Office recommends that the P &Z
recommend to Council against the unallocated quota being allo-
cated in this years competition for the reasons explained below:
1) In our opinion, there is no compelling reason to
allocate the unused quota in this years competition.
As noted above, the quota would be used primarily to
serve the Mountain View project. Due to the location
of the Mountain View proposal, it is likely that it
will serve primarily as a short -term accommodation use.
The City has already granted future years lodge
allocations to the Little Nell, Hotel Aspen Mountain
Lodge and the Hotel Jerome. Since growth rate control
is still an adopted community objective, we cannot
recommend that the growth rate be accelerated in
another growth sector of the community, particularly
when it serves a purpose so similar to that in the
lodge competition.
2) When the Hotel Jerome, Little Nell and Aspen Mountain
Lodge projects were approved, their employee housing
requirements were satisfied by commitments to change
the use of the Cortina, Holiday House, Alpina Haus and
Copper Horse from lodge rooms to residential units.
The community must be prepared to have residential
quota available for when approximately 75 units in
these old lodges change to residential units. The
alternative would be to give the quota away now and
then be forced to borrow dwelling units from the
future. As previously mentioned, the City has already
chosen to borrow units from the future in the lodge
sector and should strive to avoid having to also borrow
from the future in the residential sector.
The Planning Office, therefore, recommends that the 35 unallo-
cated units (plus any of the 22 units which are not allocated
this year) be left for future allocation, to address the change
in use which we expect as noted above.
! `
i- y
January 22, 1987
. -ve Burnstein
Planning and Zo ing Office
From: Mary K. Bar e
Re: Mountain View p oposal
Some issues regarding the vacation of Juan Street continue.
The Engineering Department's remarks regarding roads, traffic etc.
are apparently predicated on the original concept of Garmisch Circle
which crosses Barbee pioperty the developer does not own. This is
true also of Consultant Ron Thom,.pson's remarks if predicated on the same map.
The Garmisch Circle which qualifies for submission (cited as Garmisch
Circle Alternative in the proposal) provides no access to the proposed
transit stop, nor to the relocated Ski Corp parking nor does it intersect
with Gilbert. It might possibly provide a detriment to circulation in
this revised circulation pattern. The Engineering Department and Thompson
observations will be valid only if on the "Alternate" Garmisch Circle plan.
Also, with the road moved to the "Alternative" location the site plan is
altered regarding square footage available for a wider road might possibly
be necessary. Additionally it would appear the calculations for density
would be altered.
We would appreciate having copy of the Engineering Department's, Nordic
Council, Bill Drueding and Ron Thompson memos.
Please submit these remarks for public record and fcr your consideration
and that of the other involved agencies.
I will pick up copies requested at the PSZ office, Tuesday, January 27.
Thank you.
,c,: ‘,. (.:7_______---A
,,,,
t I Fib 5
.y„,
� 11��-
___
_______
,...._.
______
„....”..,..
1 ro,CE-V
January 22, 1987 ilft
1 1,
V ( Js 23 87 1V
To: Steve Burnstein ,{
Planning and Zo ing Office i1\
From: Mary K. Bar e
Re: Mountain View p oposal
Some issues regarding the vacation of Juan Street continue.
The Engineering Department's remarks regarding roads, traffic etc.
are apparently predicated on the original concept of Garmisch Circle
which crosses Barbee property the developer does not own. This is
true also of Consultant Ron Thompson's remarks if predicated on the same map.
The Garmisch Circle which qualifies for submission (cited as Garmisch
Circle Alternative in the proposal) provides no access to the proposed
transit stop, nor to the relocated Ski Corp parking nor does it intersect
with Gilbert. It might possibly provide a detriment to circulation in
this revised circulation pattern. The Engineering Department and Thompson
observations will be valid only if on the "Alternate" Garmisch Circle plan.
Also, with the road moved to the "Alternative" location the site plan is
altered regarding square footage available for a wider road might possibly
be necessary. Additionally it would appear the calculations for density
would be altered.
We would appreciate having copy of the Engineering Department's, Nordic
Council, Bill Drueding and Ron Thompson memos.
Please submit these remarks for public record and for your consideration
and that of the other involved agencies.
I will pick up copies requested at the P &Z office, Tuesday, January 27.
Thank you.
a 688 e , Xmic9Zao.
10 cfraw
(sae) in - - -&w
January 22, 1987
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Mountain View Application
Dear Steve:
This letter is to clarify in writing your questions concerning
the Mountain View application. The alignment of Garmisch Circle
is that alignment shown on on the site plan on page 67 of our
submittal. This alignment does affect open space to the extent
of reducing the open space behind the project by 5,400 square
feet. By placing Garmisch Circle north of the 20 -foot Barbee
strip, 150 feet of its length with a road width of 24 feet and a
trail width of 12 feet for a total width of 36 feet, we have 150
lineal feet of 36 feet in width, or a 5,400 -foot reduction in
open space to 30,600 square feet of open space for the project.
You will note that this affects the open space calculation on
pages 45 and 55 but that there is still substantially more than
25% open space available to the project. The most important
point in addition to there being 42% open space is that the open
space is at the entrance or front of the project where it is most
readily available and visible for the general public. Thus the
open space is not affected in these key public areas.
In order to put to rest the question as to whether that portion
of the property for which we are seeking rezoning is in a
transition zone or not, it all clearly lies to the north of the
line where the transition zone commences. In other words, the
north line of the transition zone lies south of that portion of
the tract for which we are seeking rezoning (in fact south of all
of the GMP site), and then continues southward to either the city
limits or the 8040 line. Thus we are clearly in the
recreation /accommodations zone as defined by the 1973 Aspen Land
Use Plan and not in any transition zone. The transition zone as
laid out in the Land Use Plan is more than adequate for
transitional purposes and has been so deemed by the Planning
Office, Planning & Zoning and City Council. This decision
remains the law, so to speak, unless and until a new plan is ever
adopted.
�i✓«o�cree. {' (sat) ns - -n.94
-
Mr. Steve Burstein
Re: Mountain View Application
January 22, 1987
Page Two
Certainly there is much more bulk in adjacent buildings than is
proposed for the Mountain View project. Our project is
marginally less than 1:1 FAR while the Timber Ridge is 1.5:1, the
South Point 1.75:1 and Lift One is 1.4:1. You can readily see
that although we are not in the "transition" zone that the effect
of the construction of the Mountain View project will actually
result in a transition to less density although such is not
mandated. We also have substantially more open space than any of
these three complexes.
There is presently a genuine shortage of the type of units
proposed for this project. Other nearby lodging facilities such
as The Gant, Aspen Alps, Aspen Square and the Continental Inn
have from a very small proportion of one - bedroom to essentially
no one - bedroom accommodations. Our market surveys indicate a
need for quality, first class one - bedroom accommodations. Each
unit will only be rented to one family group as a one - bedroom
unit. These are not to be construed as "high end units ", but
rather quality, first class accommodations that will be less
expensive than both the proposed Aspen Mountain Lodge and the Ski
Company hotel. There is a real need in the community for
accommodations in such a price range.
Regarding the A.S.C. parking on the Mine Dumps property, please
be advised that more than adequate space presently exists on that
site for Code required parking for the existing units plus the 30
A.S.C. spaces. This parking requirement may easily be assured
through requirements of final plat approval.
Attached is a copy of my January 20, 1987 memo to P & Z which, I
believe, clarifies all other matters pertinent to scoring
recommendations.
i lly,
/ 7
las . Allen
DPA /pkm
Enclosure
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Mou Rezoning, Conceptual Submission and
- Vacation
DATE: January 20, 1987
LOCA ON: 601 S. . -n Street, Lots 1 through 22 (including
vacate. - - , : ock 6, and Lots 3 through 12, Block 11, Eames
Addition, City of Aspen.
ZONING: Block 6, Eames Addition is zoned L -2. Lots 3 through
12, Block 11, Eames Addition are zoned R -15 (PUD) (L) and are
proposed to be rezoned to L -2.
LAND AREA: 72,545 square feet. Block 6, Eames Addition - 42,545
square feet, Block 11 (Ski Co. and Austin Parcel) - 30,000 square
feet.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: HBC Investments proposes to build a 58 unit
residential project on the site. The project consists of solely
one - bedroom units approximately 1,000 square feet in size which
are intended for both short and long -term rental. A variety of
features typically found in hotels would be provided, including a
lobby, room service, breakfast area, and enclosed swimming pool.
Five interconnected building components would be clustered close
to the middle of the property. 124 parking spaces would be
located in an underground garage and 54 spaces (including a 30
space A.S.C. parking lot) would be placed at grade level. Dean
Drive would serve as a through street, drop -off entry and service
access. Juan Street would be vacated. A new Garmisch Circle
would swing south of the development connecting Garmisch and
Aspen Streets.
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: The Mountain View application is a
new submittal for the same tract of land as the 601 S. Aspen 1985
GMP application submittal. As you know, 601 S. Aspen did not
meet the threshold number of points in P &Z's prior scoring,
making it ineligible to receive allocation. Consequently, the
rezoning request, conceptual subdivision, and Juan Street
vacation were not heard by this Commission. Tonight P &Z will
review the Mountain View project for these ancillary reviews
prior to the GMP scoring on January 27, 1987.
OWNERSHIP ISSUE: The City Attorney's office is evaluating the
status of property ownership for the parcels involved.
No written comments have been received at the time of writing and
any oral discussion will be made at the P &Z meeting.
REZONING REQUEST:
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: Section 24- 12.5(d) sets
the criteria by which the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
review rezoning application, as follows:
"1) Compatibility of the rezoning proposal with the
surrounding zone district and land use in the vicinity
of the site, considering the existing neighborhood
characteristics, the applicable area and bulk require-
ments, and the suitability of the site for development
in terms of on -site characteristics.
2) Impacts of the rezoning upon expected traffic genera-
tion and road safety, availability of on- and off -
street parking and ability to provide utility service
in the vicinity of the site, including an assessment of
the fiscal impact upon the community of the proposed
rezoning.
3) Impacts of the rezoning upon expected air and water
quality in the vicinity of the site.
4) Analysis of the community need for the proposed
rezoning and an assessment of the relationship of the
rezoning proposal to the goal of overall community
balance.
5) Compatibility of the proposed rezoning with the Aspen
Area General Plan of 1966 as amended.
6) Whether the proposed rezoning will promote the health,
safety and general welfare of the residents and
visitors to the City of Aspen."
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: On April 19, 1983, the Planning and
Zoning Commission received a request from the Aspen Skiing
Company to rezone Lots 7 -12 Eames Addition Block 11 to L -2.
Action was tabled and never resumed. From the minutes of that
meeting, it appears that P &Z was not favorably inclined to zone
the property L -2 because of (1) the absence of a development
proposal at the time, (2) removal of parking, (3) no change in
the neighborhood warranting the upgraded rezoning (4) incompat-
ibility with the Aspen Land Use Plan's concept that the R -15
(PUD)(L) zone is a transition zone for lower density. The
Planning Office recommended denial of that rezoning request.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: At this time, the development proposal and
A.S.C. parking can be addressed and should be considered in
2
review of the rezoning request. The issues of neighborhood
change and impacts on the transition zone concept which may
warrant rezoning are also key issues to be considered.
The Planning Office offers the following comments on the appro-
priateness of this rezoning request:
1) The 30,000 s.f. area presently zoned R -15 can accom-
. modate two residential units by right. Rezoning the
parcel L -2 allows for 22 units. The applicant proposes
to utilize the maximum density allowable to arrive at
this 58 unit project and then proposes to locate the
majority of the project on the rezoned property and
vacated Juan Street. This plan must be viewed as a
major departure from the density and character allowed
by current zoning (low density short -term accommodation
clustered according to the principles of PUD) or
envisioned in Aspen's comprehensive plan (as discussed
below).
Staff believes that the density and bulk (maximized in
terms of allowable number of units and FAR) are too
great for the area. Both the density and size exceed
that of any surrounding project. No significant
neighborhood change has been demonstrated by the
applicant to justify this rezoning. This project would
make a big change to the neighborhood's present
character and would set a precedent for more upzoning
and higher density. Criteria (1), compatibility of the
rezoning proposal with surrounding zone districts and
land use, has not been met in staff's opinion.
2) The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan shows this area in the
"Recreation /Accommodations Transition" Future Land Use
Category. The concept of this category is "to provide
for a suitable physical and aesthetic transition
between the intensive recreation /accommodation areas to
the north and the slopes of the mountain to the south."
The proposal does not appear to be consistent with this
very important concept of density and aesthetic
transition between the lodge district and mountain.
Upzoning along Aspen was determined to be inconsistent
with the Plan in the 1983 rezoning application review
also. This point relates to rezoning criteria (5).
3) The remaining two lots of Block 11, which would stay in
the R -15 zone, would not be an adequate area to serve
as the low density /rural transition zone. A probable
result of this rezoning would be to create pressure to
rezone Lots 1 and 2 and perhaps Block 5, Eames Addition
on the west side of Garmisch Street. In letters from
John W. Barbee and Mary K. Barbee (submitted for the
3
record) the argument is made that if L -2 zoning is
appropriate in this location, then it is appropriate on
the Barbee's adjacent property.
4) Increased traffic and vehicular congestion may nega-
tively impact the neighborhood, even though it is
recognized that street widths are probably adequate to
handle the anticipated traffic increase. This portion
of the lodge district is frequently in shade during the
winter, and Aspen Street has a relatively steep grade
in this area, reducing the theoretical volumes of the
roads in the area during winter. The applicant has
made an admirable attempt to design a circulation plan
that would work for the anticipated traffic to and from
the project and through the neighborhood. The ques-
tions remains whether the qualitative effect of
increased traffic on the Shadow Mountain neighborhood,
a relatively quiet area of Aspen, would be detrimental.
This point relates to rezoning criteria (2).
5) Air quality can reasonably be expected to decrease in
the immediate area as a result of added traffic and
some additional heating system exhaust. There would be
some decrease of dust on Juan Street if that street
were vacated. However, Dean Drive and Garmisch Circle
would accommodate more traffic and would require
sanding. This point relates to criteria (3).
6) There is no compelling evidence of community need for
the proposed rezoning. The Aspen Mountain Lodge,
Little Nell, and the Hotel Jerome addition all have
approvals for upper -end lodge development which is the
stated target market for the Mountain View Project with
construction of the Jerome proceeding and that for
Little Nell expected in 1987 or 1988. It would seem
prudent to evaluate the impacts of these proposals on
our services and facilities prior to upzoning addition-
al areas for tourist development. This point relates
to criteria (4) and (6).
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends to P &Z to recom-
mend denial of the requested rezoning of Lots 3 -12, Block 11,
Eames Addition.
CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION: Because Mountain View is a multi - family
residential project it is subject to subdivision regulations.
Section 20 -9 of the Municipal Code addresses criteria to deter-
mine suitability of land for subdivision as follows:
"a) Based on findings by a qualified engineer or engineer-
ing geologist or other professional, no land shall be
subdivided which is held by the Planning Commission to
4
be unsuitable for subdivision by reason of flooding,
bad drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide,
avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other
potential natural hazard, feature or condition likely
to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the
future residents in the proposed subdivision or of the
city.
b) The Planning Commission may deem land premature for
subdivision when subdivision approval would create
growth patterns of such physical form and size that
governmental inefficiencies, duplication of facilities
and unnecessary public costs and financial burdens may
result from providing the extension of public services,
and planned support facilities cannot be accomplished
in a planned, ordered or efficient manner.
c) No subdivision of land shall be approved which includes
elements not in conformance with the provisions of any
applicable zoning ordinance or other ordinance of the
City of Aspen or law or regulation of the State of
Colorado. It is the intent of this section to allow
the condominiumization of lodges which may be either
nonconforming structures or uses.
Section 20 -10 establishes the conceptual subdivision
submission requirements and review procedures.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
Referral Comments:
1) Engineering Department: Comments were received from
Elyse Elliott in a December 30, 1986 memorandum
(attachment A) concerning storm drainage, parking,
roads, traffic, trash, utilities, and lodge improvement
district.
2) Lodge Improvement District: Consultant Ron Thompson
submitted a letter on December 18, 1986 (attachment B)
evaluating Garmisch Circle alignment, bike trail and
skier drop -off, and sidewalks along Dean Drive and
Aspen Street.
3) Fire Marshall: Wayne Vandemark submitted a letter on
November 27, 1986 giving a favorable recommendation on
proposed fire hydrants.
4) Water Department and Sanitation District: Memoranda
from Jim Markalunas and Heiko Kuhn have been included
in the application finding the proposed water and sewer
system improvements conceptually acceptable.
5
rhs
5) Zoning Official: In a memorandum dated January 14, 1986
(attachment C), Bill Drueding noted that the building
appears to be over the maximum 28 foot height limit.
6) Nordic Council: In a December 5, 1986 letter (attach-
ment D) Craig Ward gave a positive evaluation of the
proposed ski trails.
STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning Office has the following comments:
1) The relatively steep topography of the property creates
a design challenge for appropriate siting and massing
of such a large complex. This proposal is much
improved over the prior 601 S. Aspen design. It is
smaller (58 units compared to 112 units, and 113,545
s.f. compared to 72,545 s.f.), centered in the site,
has a better landscape plan, and improved pedestrian
and vehicular circulation from the prior 601 S. Aspen
proposal. The problem persists, in staff's view, that
the buildings dominate the site and an inappropriately
urbanized character results.
2) It appears to be premature or wholely undesirable to
undertake subdivision of this property in terms of the
proposed high density on the edge of the community.
3) With regard to utility services, fire protection and
road access, the project appears to be workable in
concept. Commitments for water and sewer improvements
work very well. Garmisch Circle appears problematic
because of the accessability to the Barbee Property,
private ownership of public access, grade, and shading
(consequently getting iced during the cold months).
More detail and additional arrangements are necessary
to evaluate this aspect of the circulation plan. Dean
Drive also appears to work conceptually, with the need
to further develop this plan to accommodate the various
uses (Timber Ridge parking, through traffic, pedestrian
traffic, service and trash access, guest /resident drop -
off and garage access).
4) Thirty parking spaces for use by Aspen Skiing Company
are required either in their present location (Eames
Addition, Block 11) or within close proximity thereto.
The applicant has placed those spaces outside the
project boundaries on the Mine Dumps Apts. parcel.
This is highly inappropriate because we are asked to
accept ASC parking on the site but do not have the plan
for the rest of the site. It is not possible to review
how this parking lot relates to other development on
6
the site, both present and contemplated. If A.S.C.
parking is part of this conceptual subdivision present-
ation, then Section 20 -10 require additional informa-
tion on the development of this parcel.
5) The garage configuration should be verified by the
Engineering Department.
6) More detail would be necessary in the site plan,
elevations, FAR calculation, open space tabulation,
drainage.
7) An improvements agreement to ensure that all of the
commitments are accomplished would be of critical
importance.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends P &Z to forward to
City Council a recommendation of denial of conceptual subdivi-
sion. In short, we believe the project's size is inappropriate,
and that if you concur with our rezoning recommendation the
project cannot be approved.
STREET VACATION: The Planning Office offers the following
comments with regard to the proposed vacation of Juan Street:
1) The Engineering Department supported vacation in Elyse
Elliott's memorandum of December 30, 1986 because the
applicant is creating new streets (Dean Drive and
Garmisch Circle) that could be used to connect Garmisch
and Aspen Streets. Engineering recommends that
Garmisch Circle be deeded to the City after all
improvements are made.
2) New Dean Drive would eliminate current Timber Ridge
parking and landscape improvements. However,24 spaces
would be provided for the neighborhood. No comments
have been received from Timber Ridge as to the suita-
bility of this arrangement.
3) There may be snow removal and street maintenance
problems on Garmisch Circle because of the grade and
shadow effects of Shadow Mountain.
4) In absence of subdivision approval, the vacation of
Juan Street would be unnecessary and inappropriate.
RECOMMENDATION: Presuming that you concur with our zoning and
subdivision recommendations, the Planning Office recommends the
Planning Commission to recommend to Council denial of requested
vacation of Juan Street.
7
CONSIDERATION OF CASH -IN -LIEU FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING: The applicant
has committed to provide cash -in -lieu for the equivalent of 153
low income employees to $20,000 per employee.
HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Authority recom-
mended approval of the proposed cash -in -lieu payment, calculated
to be at current guidelines $3,060,000, as documented in Ann
Bowmans' December 19, 1986 memorandum (Attachment E).
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the P &Z to
recommend approval of this cash -in -lieu payment upon the condi-
tion that other necessary approvals are given.
8
gam 94 S - .g i ,Qh.
ahaiwere-eLa 5s0 £ Ye
eQe� e n,4 8 '/6//
(s03) 9nr dd00
January 20, 1987 „
Mr. Steve Burs ,JAN 2 0 1987
• - in Planning Office I
130 South Galena i
Jr
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Mountain View GMP Application
Dear Steve:
I personally have spent hundreds of hours and my client together
with his architect have spent literally thousands of hours in the
evolution of the above application to its present state. The
give and take necessary to address the rezoning, subdivision and
street vacation of a project of this complexity cannot be
addressed in the few minutes allocated in your recent memo for
such purpose. In addition, the logical progression of the GMP
process is to initially score all projects based on the
assumption that all related approvals are in place.
I do not see how it is possible for the Planning and Zoning
Commission in their quasi - judicial capacity of scoring the
projects in which they act like judge and jury in a court case to
totally disregard the results of rezoning, subdivision and street
vacation should those be adverse to the applicant. It would be
virtually impossible for P & Z to totally forget those results
and thus the scoring process would be flawed to that extent.
The procedure of allowing the applicant to be scored under the
GMP process first is exactly in conformity with the desired
procedure stated by Alan Richman in connection with last year's
GMP process. If you recall, his instructions to the members of P
& Z were that they were to only consider the GMP criteria in
connection with the scoring process and then to later address any
other developmental approvals that might be required.
In the event any other related and required approvals were not
achieved then we would be required to follow the procedure of 24-
11.7(b) regarding amendment of the approved application.
9 if (.90.9 9t5 M/Af
e
Mr. Steve Burstein
Re: Mountain View GMP Application
January 20, 1987
Page Two
In summation, the Mountain View project is a significant
development that does impact the town, we think very favorably,
and we need a town meeting type environment to fully explore all
of its ramifications. This should take place after the scoring
and thus I respectfully request that the zoning, subdivision and
street vacation procedures be continued until after the GMP
scoring process is completed on January 27, 1987.
truly yours
de - .,
Doug L.- P. Allen
DPA /pkm
' (
1 I
��� � � k�A7 '
.m�vx.+
Date: 01/08/87
TO: ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION !IP&
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 8161:
/ ����^
� u ' ���� , ^~,
FROM: John W. Barb e ='
REF: MOUNTAIN VIEW 12/01/86
In the interests of clarity and relevance to the Commission's review
process, I would like to specify some general information, deal with the
proposed rezoning and street vacation(s) and then summarize my position.
I will try to identify the locations in the MOUNTAIN VIEW Submission
(hereafter referred to as the "Proposal") to which I am speaking as
specifically as the Proposal �ormat allows.
1. GENERAL.:
In several places in the Proposal there is reference made to
agreement(s), negotiations and/or understandings beween the owners of
the Barbee Property and HBC Investments (hereafter referred to as the
"Developer"). To clarify this, I would like to state emphatically that
there is no past, current nor Pending agreement, negotiation or
understanding between the Barbee Property owners and the Developer
regarding this development" The Barbee Property includes premises
relevant to this development and the Developer has referred to those
parcels in the Proposal and has shown that he has apparent plans to
either use and/or impact them significantly through the plans laid out
in the Proposal. Again there is no agreement formal or informal,
explicit or implicit between the Barbee Property owners and the
Developer. This Proposal incorporates in its text, data, and maps
portions of our property over which the Developer has no authority
control nor right to use, occupy, develop or encumber in any manner.
.
I agree very much that neighborhood compatibility is essential anb that
apprehensiveness on the part of neighbors is extant and is a major
concern (Hyatt, SUM, ltr. 12/01/86).
II. REZONING & STREET VACATION(S)
A. Rezoning
[Page 12, (1. at bottom)] in the copy of the Proposal which I
received I see no proof of ownership by Developer.
[Page 13, (l)] Developer states It appears that when the zone
districts were created that in this this particular situation the land
• was zoned by ownership rather than as part of a comprehensive plan ..."
(sic). This contention is not valid, as the lots in Block 11 have been
under separate ownership (1 & 2 - Barbee 3, 4, 5 & 6 - Pechnik, 7 thru
/
`..
P g Z letter (cont'd.) Page
12 -- Ski Corp.), yet are all R -15. If the commission deems that L -2
zoning is appropriate for the proposed property, then it is certainly
appropriate for adjacent and very similar properties. .
[Page 13, (2) '' (1)] There is no evidence provided that increased
population and increased tax base leads to increased fiscal condition of
a special community such as Aspen. The "dirt" which the Developer
refers to is a mystery to this reader. The current cover on the land in
question is natural, indigenous vegetation similar or identical to that
on all of the nearby "Shadow Mountain" hillsides. There is no evidence
which I am aware of regarding adverse impacts on air quality from the
property referred to. To claim improved air quality as a result of a
condominium development here is fatuous and probably irrelevant to the
rezoning proposed.
It is my contention that L -2 zoning is probably appropriate for the area
of Aspen and Pi.tlin County located between the commercial core and
Shadow Mountain and lift 1. Given the lodge and other high - density uses
throughout this area it would make sense to rezone this area to the
;acne L -2 use /density which have existed for years there. However, the
present Proposal deals with a small piece of property and sounds 1 i ke. a
request for "spot re-zoning" which„ I'm sure, the Commission would like
to avoid. On the other hand, I believe granting of L -2 status for this
piece sets a precedent for the adjacent R -15 zoned areas, and that this
should be considered in the decision.
B. Street Vacation(s)
The Developer deals only with the vacation of Juan St. It appears
clear that the Proposal also requires the vacation of at least a portion
of Dean St. and of the portion of S. Garmisch Str. from Dean St. to the
Juan St. corner, in order to accommodate the proposed "Garmisch Circle".
ircle ".
Since Garmisch Circle is to be privately owned by the Developer and
subsequent project owners, S. Garan sch would have to be vacated and
side_.. The Barbee Property abuts
ceded to the property owners on both ...
S. Garmisch on the west in this area.
[Page 15, (2)] The map enclosed by the Developer shows Juan St.
ending at the border between lots <- &
of Block 11. The street
actually extends, through its corner to the western border of lot 1,
,`. - C
Block 11. The house on the ',iarbF Property p. 11 -4] is situated on
lots 1 and has 611 Juan St. as its address. I do not wish for us
to abandon our rights, as residents of Juan St., to the present public
ownership, maintenance and access.
[Page 15 (6) ] It is my opinion as a Barbee Property owner that the
•
proposed :ed va ation does not offer an improved or 'superior
neighborhood -sensitive land use plan" Quite the contrary, it offers
increased congestion and private control of the proposed replacement(s).
While Juan St. has not yet been fully utilized to the extent of the
City owned right of way, over the -ears we have seer; it and other
streets grow wider as the demand and need of the user publics q uw.
Ni t.h the proposed Garmisch Circle, all that the user public has is a 24'
• wide road, period - -- no possibility of expanding with growing n eds.
& Page
F' letter (r_ont'2h: 3
[Page 15 (8)] There is no evidence to support the contention that
the proposed Garmisch Circle would better serve the general
neighborhood. I submit that it is not in the best interests of this
neighborhood to vacate a 100 year old street to accommodate the interest
of one developer.
In essence, the Proposal asks Aspen citizens to abdicate ownership
rights and public responsibility to three city streets. Dean, Juan and
• S. Garmisch (then called S. Center) have e::1sted on maps of Aspen and
• have been used since the 1890's. They are shown clearly on the Willett s
map as published in the ASPEN TIMES, 1893. Juan St. has been in
constant use for public, utility and fire access as well as serving the
purpose of guest access to the Aspen Mountain lift t#1. While the
Developer does propose a replacement for the vacated streets, the
proposed solutions involve loss of public supervision, maintenance and
responsibility for the continued service which these streets must
provide. I believe that neither the general public nor the neighborhood
is well served by the proposed and implied street vacations.
II:I. GMF'
[Page 25, 2. d.] In my view, the narrow character and private
ma:intenace and responsibility would result in reduced access for fire
protection and intervention via the proposed Garmisch Circle. As a
Barbee Property owner, I am also concerned about future access to '.h ;at
property and the buildings which may be developed in the future.
[Page 30, f.] The "specific commitment of the applicant.." is cited
as the reason that the road plans in the Proposal would result in
general improvement to the area. The Developer proposes a location for
Garmisch Circle which on the south aligns with Gilbert St. and the
Woonerf trail on the southeast and with Dean and S. Garmisch Str. on the
northwest. Since the Barbee Property lying between Block 11 and what
the Developer describes as the "Mane Dumps property, the alignment with
G11bertiWooner is not possible. The proposed privately owned Garmisch
• Circle northwest alignment at Dean & S. Garmisch would have to be
located substantially further east than represented on the Developer's
maps, since .the "private" ownership would require that S. Garmisch be
�:,•
vacated and returned to the property owners on both sides, necessitating
that the Garmisch Circle_ 24' road plus 12' ski /walking trail pins 5'
min. setback from Barbee property boundary (41' min. total) would extend
at least 29' further to the east than described and shown in the
Proposal. The present maps provided by the developer show the proposed
12' trail going onto Barbee Property for approx. 50' - 100' before
joining the Koch trailhead.
The "transit dropoff" proposed by the developer is situated on
Barbee Property not owned/optioned/occupied by the Developer. The
Proposal claims that the proposed Garmisch Circle road would have a
grade of 7% -- 87. However using the data and maps provided >r in the
Proposal, my calculations show that, from Dean St., the Garmisch Circle
road has an average grade of slightly over 9 %, with Aspen St. having an
average grade of slightly over 10%.
P g: Z letter (cont'd.) Page 4
[Page 31, c.7 As a Barbee Property owner I have not and do not
support nor endorse the proposed alignment. The proposed alignment, in
my view, would restrict access to our premises, both present and
potential.
[Page 31, d.1 1 see no evidence of cooperation with the L_ID, Lift
One and T:imberr by the applicant. Applicant, by his on admission,
is not even an I_I1) member.
[Page .' q.1 The perpetual easement. for public use proposed by the
Developer is not described adequately, so I am assuming it is for 24'
road and 12' path, a toal of 36' for both. I regard this as :inadequate
for even a public street without a side path and therefore inadequate
fora private "public use easement ".
CPage j. I question the motivation and the ability of the
Developer and �the future owners of the proposed premises to maintain the
proposed privately owned streets adequately for reliable public access.
[Page : 1.1 The site of the transit dropoff on Garm:isch Circle
proposed elsewhere by the Developer is not on his property, but on
premises belonging to the Barbees.
Wage 333 Because of the configuration and size of the units (2
.... baths, easily split /modified design) I believe that it is expectable
[ that the units will actually be split and rented on a 2�1 basis. This
could lead to much more occupancy and traffic than is projected. i
consider this an expectable outcome due to the design of the units
portrayed in the Proposal.
[Wage 387 The Barbee Property owners have neither been informed of
the Developer's plans nor allowed input other than in an extremely
limited and ad hoc manner. Our first knowledge of the Developers plans
was received in 1at.:e November, 1986 via an informal discussion with one
of the Barbee family members. The c1a:i.m of "extensive input" and 'other
implied formal interchanges with the Barbee Property owners is
misrepresentation on the part of the Developer. .l do not wish to have
Juan St. vacated and consider the compatibility of this project with our
neighborhood as poor..
1 [Page 40, b.1 I believe that the height and size of the proposed
buildings will have negative impact on the horizon of Aspen compared to
1 the existing buildings. The baseline chosen will make this a very
visible development.: if it is approved, financed and completed.
is
[Page 41, c.3 Developer has solar applications nor use
uns rw apparent _
of ground u effects (other than in parking areas undo the buildings) , no
j _ A less height,
1 earth birthing to buffer temperature drop variations P ioc
lower profile design incorporating more ground effect" would have been
more appropriate than the maximum height profile chosen by
Developer.
rj
P & Z :Fatter (cone `ors') Page `_
[Page 42, d.1 The promised easement for, or actual nordic trail
promised by the Developer is shown on his maps to be on Barbee Property
in at least two places. The Developer has never mentioned his needs,
nor requested easements for nordic trail(s) from the Rarbees. The
wording '...insofar as they (trail easements) can be provided on
applicant's property..." communicates the tentative nature of the
Developer's planning for trail(s). [Page 43] There is the implication
that there is an agreement or negotiation between the Developer and the
Barbee Property owners regarding easements and/or purchase of the 1 20'
strip" which lies between the Mine Dumps property and Block 11. in
fact, there is no negotiation nor agreement between us and the
Developer. The proposed 12' nordic trail would have to allow vehicular
access to the Barbee house and also to future potential developments on
Barbera Property to the west from Garmisch Circle (if approved). The
future possible developments on the Barbee Property, including the
inclusion of nordic trail and skier access is not germaine to this GMP.
-To include then, through reference, implication or whimsy is
inappropriate and irrelevant. The Proposal must stand on its own
merits, not on mythical innuendo. The maps provided by the Developer
are misleading regarding the trails, in that they are no close to scale
in showing a specified 12' width. 1 have stated that the proposed
Garmisch Circle-adjacent trail is apparently being planned on Barbee
Property in at least two locations (see my previous comments relating to
page 30, f. of the Proposal).
[Page 50, S.] 1 see little or no evidence of the Proposal being
"...designed to be well- oriented to the needs of both residents and
tourists." nor that the visual quality of this portion of town will be
improved by this proposed project. 1 have spoken of my disscouragement
with the lack of neighborhood involvement and incompatibility of many of
the elements of the proposal, especially the street vacations dealt with
and not dealt with and the proposed privately administered narrow roads
unabashedly presented as viable and better alternative than platted
public streets. Portions of Dean St. and S. Garmisch would obviously
have to be vacated in addition to Juan Gt. why are those areas not
represented in the Developer's Proposal and calculations?
IV. SUMMARY COMMENTS
This seems to he a hurriedly developed and poorly conceived attempt to
get something approved for development on the property, whether owned by
the Developer or not. Much is re-treaded material al from the 601 Aspen
proposal of last year. Four of the eight letters.; of support included in
the Proposal gal ai e responses to the 601 Aspen proposal which was rejected.
In my comments l: have spoken to some of the apparent discrepancies of
+ac::t and opinion which I found in the Proposal. However, there are also
claims and promises made which are difficult to evaluate, inc.e they
fall in the area of quality, ability, future performance and
resporisibilit • in general and specific:.
Obviously, many of the representations in this •,o• any) proposal must be
taken on faiths and tro Trust, that the Developer is being honest and
straightforward in his intent and and that. he i operating
� a,, +r:. promises, r. n in
, ------
P ac 2 letter ecorqr.)
. (5 _ .
good faith. Clearly not every single detail can be tied down
f it ere with
evidentiary proof, and even ie possible, it would not be
: feasible to enforce every item promised if a developer chose to deal in
bad faith. As in all transactions, we have to make hard decisions about
• who we can and will trust. We do it based on experience, be it positive
or bitter, with any given individual or organization. I would urge you
as a Common to do Just that in evaluating the otherwise
non-quantifiable claims of any proposal. Base your judoement on the
• • track record of the individual/organization; has the party behaved as a
. responsible zen in the past in transactions similar to the ones
proposed -- dealing with the City, County, investors and the public; has
the party developed properties in the quality and character promised.
Relevant past performance is an acceptable and appropriate criterion in
manY fields of organizational and individual endeavor. I believe that
the track record of this and any developer is critical to the decisions
which you make.
Certainly this current Proposal shows some responsiveness by the
developer to feedback from earlier proposals (601 Aspen), and to some
degree those issues have been addressed. However, the closure of publi
streets and replacement by limited private drives allowing public acce•
is not in anyone's best interest, including the potential owners of
Mountain View condominium units. The Proposal leaves many loose ends
ns
and questio unanswered, including the trails, suspicious unit desigr
• road vacations, etc.
.•
1 am not anti-growth or anti -development in my or 1 believe
that quality projects are necessary and needed +or Aspen to retain it
prime standing as • quality and unique place to visit or live. Some
recent projects in Aspen have shown us that high quality is possible
is appreciated by us all. I would like to see more quality assurance
and performance in Aspen's future.
• • R \ I
JAN I d 1981
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
Steve Burstein, Planning Offic
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforceme fficer
RE: 4 GMP Submissions
DATE: January 14, 1987
I realize these are conceptual submissions and therefore a
lot of detail normally looked at and verified at later stages
will be sparse or unable to calculate with early stage drawings.
For example methods of calculating height, open space, floor
area often differs when working plans are submitted to the
Building Department. Applicants should be aware that
representations must be adhered to at the Building permit stage.
I will comment now where I feel there may be a potential problem.
Should Park Dedication fees be considered at this point? Some of
my questions may have already been answered to the Planning
Department.
1001 Project (PUD)
1) Does this project also require an 8040 Greenline Review?
Sec. 24 -6.2 "all development 50 yards below the 8040 greenline."
2) Should the applicant be more specific in regard to
setbacks and should building envelopes be required?
3) I would like to see a definite manner of determining
"grade" for the 25 ft. height. At this point, the Building
Department would have to consider the current grade as the
"existing" or "natural undisturbed" ground, slope, not the 30 ft.
of tailings beneath.
4) Page 38 of application states:
3 duplexes x 4,749 sq. ft. = 14,247
1 single family x 4,329 sq. ft. = 4,329
Total allowable building sq. ft. = 18,576
The total building square footage for the project will not
exceed this figure. Does this mean that some of the structures
may exceed the allowable for a 15,000 sq. ft. job, as long as the
total for the 4 structures does not exceed 18,576 square feet?
5) New Duplex Code - -What will the size and configuration be
of the employee units. Will this meet the "Common Wall" and
"percent of floor space" portion of the code? Under current code
Jr
; JAN 1 3 ,
To: Aspen Plann' n Zoing Commission Members di 1 ' -�
iu
From: Mary K. Barb e
Re: Mountain View r91 d Development
,/
Date: January 12, 1986
The proposed development raises many questions and contradictions of information
in maps and text. I object to several aspects of the proposal but wish to cite
specifically:
JUAN STREET VACATION
1. Developer does not own 100% of the property on both sides of Juan street
as the proposal asserts.
2. The project will not improve traffic circulation and safety to adjacent
property owners in that the proposed Garmisch Circle will be a private
road, not public.
3. Snow removal, parking and other safety and convenience aspects of the
proposed Garmisch Circle will not be in public domain, thereby relegating
adjacent property owners to dependency on private ownership.
Expanded text attached.
•
k i al 13 1987 a �
To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Hallie Barbee Rugheimer -
,Dated: January 9, 1987
Concerning input and objections to the proposed Mountainview
development I have the following comments to submit. I reserve the
right to add additional comments in future letters if the situation
warrants.
If the applicant perceives that the p and z committee's
greatest concern will be with neighborhood compatibility and con-
cerns, as a contiguous property owner, my main input is to just
that area.
On PAGE 4.2,the architects mention "Through an agreement with
the adjacent property owner, the use of an unutilized access strip
will allow for the addition of a proposed transit stop and relo-
cation . The assumption made in this statement is without
substance. No established agreement has been made either verbally
or in writing. The Barbee family owns the strip of land between
Block 11 where Garmisch Circle is drawn.
The closure of Juan Street upon which this development depends
is objectionable. This is a viable city street serving not only
this immediate neighborhood but it is a connecting access with a
less severe grade than Aspen St., serving Lift 1 area. This public
road should not be replaced with a private road owned and main-
tained by private intesests. Although there is no mention in the
text, maps show changes and realignment to Garmisch St. not just
the closure of Juan Street. Again, landowners to the west side of
Garmisch St. are the Barbee family members. The applicant is
restricting, by his vacation proposal and his tacit Garmisch St.
realignment, total access from the Barbee property and existing
house via either road. We feel this is not in our best interest.
Any granting of Juan St. vacation and consideration of a privately
owned and maintained road makes all of the Barbee property reliant
on this access which is not publicly controlled.
A story from personal experience here in Montana seems to be
appropriate when mentioning rights of maintenance. The City of
Bozeman has an access road across our ranch property to service
a city water reservoir. The deed states the city has "the right
to maintain and upkeep this access road ". The road gives access
to the higher acreage of our property and it is used every day by
personnel servicing the reservoir and by us during ranch operations
throughout the year. Their "right to maintain" this road is also
their "right to ignor maintanence " of same. We're fortunate if
a city snowplow comes out once a year to remove snow. Summer
maintenance is so limited as to be practically non existent. When
there of complaints of financial crunch on the city, this road
definitely gets ignored.
I can see a similar situation with the Garmische Circle under
private control. Right to maintain puts us landowners at a distinct
disadvantage for use now or for further development of the property.
It also appears that the Mountainview development itself does not
depend on Garmisch Circle but on Dean St. for all its services.
..This point plus the fact the proposed Garmisch Circle intrudes
across preperty it does not own, should be enough to deny the
proposal. Its only presence is to justify the closure of Juan St.
We don't think closure of a public street in trade for a privately
controlled road is in the public's interest. We know its not in
our best interest.
On the issue of rezoning, the proposed boundary line of the
L2/R15 is delineated on the same 20 foot strip of land between Block
11. I wanted to let the committee know the status of the area
under consideration. As the city's application form indicates,
the applicant must supply proof of ownership of lands under issue
for rezoning. Again, there is no agreement on this tract of land.
It is under Barbee ownership.
The logic stated in PARAGRAPH (6) PAGE 14 I believe is not
valid. The impact of the proposed project will not necessarily
alleviate congestion in any other area. If this were really the
case, every new development would be resented by every other
development already in existence. This new business will just be
adding to lodge zone congestion. The statement saying this
"luxury short -term tourist type accomodations . . ." seems to be
in conflict with the applicant's proposal for condominium -type
development. Removing LittleNell's congestion isn't going to
happen if according to earlier arguments in the proposal that
additional occupants for this "housing project" would help Aspen's
economy.
The whole development proposal resembles the previously
submitted 601 Aspen project. It seems the applicant considers
material from the last proposal be taken into consideration for
this proposal, note Pearson and Associates letter dated 12/02/85.
My input from the 601 Aspen project of last year is equally valid
for this proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
adee J�l� eedecrt,
H liie Barbee Rugheime
MEMORANDUM Li)
1 11A .*4
L\\I 1 �
Glenn Horn, Planning Department
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Department
it FROM: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department L
DATE: December 30, 1986
RE: Mountianview Residential GMP Submission
The Engineering Department has the following comments on the
above application:
STORM DRAINAGE
We expect this application to maintain the historic runoff of the
area. Tests must be conducted by the applicant to determine the
present runoff /retainage. Since the land is undeveloped, we
anticipate the retainage to be fairly high. The applicant has
committed to provide drywells and retention areas. This system
must be approved by the Engineering Department to insure that the
historic runoff is maintained.
The drainage facilities for the project satisfies our
requirements. The project will also improve the drainage of the
area with the addition of a new catch basin and curb and gutter
on the east side of Aspen Street.
The 20' drainage easement is helpful to the area.
PARKING
A total of 124 parking spaces are provided for this 58 unit
project. According to section 24- 4.5(c) 58 parking spaces are
required. The additional spaces are provided for staff,
visitors, cabs, delivery trucks, ect. This design provides ample
parking.
The 30 parking spaces reserved for the Aspen Skiing Company are
located south of the project. These are easily accessible to
Aspen Skiing Company employees.
The improvements proposed on Dean Drive will improve the public
parking on that street.
ROADS
The application is requesting that Juan Street be vacated and
replaced by Garmisch Circle. We concur with their assertion
Page Two
December 30, 1986
Mountainview Residential GMP Submission
that Garmisch Circle will provide a better alignment than Juan
Street. Garmisch Circle can be used by the Aspen Skiing Company
for access to their new parking lot. The grade of Garmisch
Circle will be about one -half of the grade of Aspen Street.
The question of whether the "new" streets created by this
project, Dean Drive and Garmisch Circle, will be deeded to the
City or retained by the project is somewhat ambiguous. Page 56
of the application discusses "Public right -of -way net gain."
This implies that the new streets will be dedicated to the City.
Other sections of the application suggest that they will held by
the project.
We recommend that in exchange for the vacation of Juan Street,
the City be deeded Garmisch Circle after all improvements have
been made. Dean Circle may remain in private ownership, however,
we would like the City to be granted an easement on this street
to insure that the utility corridor and the public usage of this
street be maintained.
The design for curb and gutter along Garmisch Street will have to
be reviewed further to insure that parking is retained on the
west side of the Timberidge.
TRAFFIC
We have determined that the traffic generated by this project can
be sufficiently handled by the adjacent streets - Garmisch
Street, Durant Street and Aspen Street.
TRASH
The area provided for dumpster facilities is large enough for the
recommended capacity of 6 cubic yards. We support the proposal
of using a compactor. The area for the service dock will easily
allow a BFI truck to access the dumpster.
UTILITIES
The application provides that all utilities will be
undergrounded. We would like to see plans for the location of the
utility corridor. We also need to see the location and area
provided for the meter boxes.
LODGE IMPROVEMENT D STRICT
The Lodge Improvement District (LID) will construct the
• improvements on Aspen Street and Garmisch Street right -of -ways.
Page Three
December 30, 1986
Mountainview Residential GMP Submission
The Mountainview will be assessed for these improvements. The
improvements within Mountainview's project boundary on Dean Drive
and on Garmisch Circle shall be constructed according to LID
plans at the expense of the project.
The Mountainview's application states that they will be rebated
for construction costs for improvements (p. 43). This is not the
intention of the LID.
The LID welcomes the Mountainview's commitment to become an
active member of the LID.
EEE /co /Mountainview
F a ree
ROARING FORK EN FHG1r CENZE♦; • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311
]January 7, 1987 / r �/
TO: Glenn HLQrn n d Steve Burstein, Planning Office di! ,�
"FR r ve Standiford and Stephanie Ouren it i
J 8 1987
RE: Review comments on Mountain View Residential GMP Submis04 !�
Insulation
The insulation levels specified by Pearson and Associates will exceed standards
by an average of 37 %. This is very commendable. A minor point is that
they do not specify the building materials to be used in order to achieve
the stated R values.
Solar Energy
Removing shading, as stated in the porposal, will be of some help.
However, the site itself does not lend itself to southern exposure,
due to nearby mountains.
Glazing
The window specifications are quite adequate and appropriate.
Mechanical Systems
The descritpion given is rather vague for the heating system as it does
not state any efficiency ratings. With 58 units, the use of a
computerized energy management system can be quite cost effective.
Air to air heat exchangers should also add to the overall heating efficiency.
Comments
We think the letter from Pearson and Associates must be missing the
second page. We looked at the 601 Aspen Residential GMP Submission
(dated April 16, 1986) and the first page from Pearson and Associates
is the same as page 64 of this submission. We can only assume that the
two pages of comments on energy conservation features will be same in
the Mountain View submission. We made several phone calls to Marsha
Smith, Pearson and Assoc., to clarify their energy specifications, but
she did not return the call.
e>
MEMO TO FILE
DA --
JANUARY 5, 1987
$GBJ: u ETING WIT BARBEE
John came to my office to meet regarding the items we discussed a
week or so ago.
His primary concerns are that he wants cash option money up
front, current market price for the property not what some other
property may have sold for.
He stated that they were "poor folks" and if we could close early
on just the strip rather than on the entire tract it would get
them some money.
He computed the strip as being 20 feet by 182.22 feet and wants
$60.00 per square foot of land. My counter to him was in the
range of $30.00 per square foot.
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
ti RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: fou,n�aSn �l if,,,.) .ate: J „ a, f � ' R
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twel - ..
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the development
without system extensions beyond those normally installed by
the developer, and without treatment plant or other facility
upgrading.
RATING: rZ
COMMENTS: The � " WOfer _AM e- to h i n51taJ j e t itl two
or 04.\h5 i, I( ia„ +L g wit +/ o-f Serf/ rft t
- ( - L f4 rr» U I
b. Sewer Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal systn is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system extensions
beyond those normally installed by the developer, and
without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: ;-
COMMENTS : "Xa neo 1 "5 " o ewer� la e. - f - ti.
lanes w :11 104 pe6,1e .
11 5 to w� i h 4Y�e eke ecA-
c. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING
COMMENTS: A39 r, -Frit di %n r� 0 - LA er �P ra del/x+t +
es
!tip q ra of t 4{'e Cdr a? nal P - -i-b
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire protection
according to the established response standards of the
appropriate district without the necessity of establishing a
new station or requiring addition of major equipment to an
existing station.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off -
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the
proposed development and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
Il
RATING: _ COMMENTS: / rppl�ctih+ prop e-s mare- 'pork,
f. Roads (maximum two [2] points) .
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or overloading
the existing street system or the necessity of providing
increased road mileage and /or maintenance.
RATING:
- 2 -
coIMENTS: A- " „ 40,1(-1 be 9 % - alp r .� n-t
n1 fees -4 0 3 l'a n+ .FJic l ' : -ty a n PaSe e on
un d J cevvd offe r 1la +c (-10 rw.,sck rc- I c -r n -Fie_
II SUBTOTAL:
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of undergrounding
of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS : l tet /h e e 1 - C4AS e. t s pro e b 5c
A l TaP m ht-5 L.-1 a.)5 M+, j G5 w: ) nr.{Prra coundd
-f3/42, - hro.sh Ad]; -ty ,J ry- and acce.5s;tic- ra
fined rnwpcie.1-0r
c. Energy (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING:
- 3 -
COMMENTS:
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points) .
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
11__ RATING: 3
COMMENTS: - the - (A non t 0 Y\ fuLk p K De � ; u<
w: • ; • •.rd .L.esk-; C(1' ji - ., he. 4
i
5 u L trAm an eaSante t+ +n vt5ufe- 4 hck.t it
pv ; I ( n 1 AM S be- -Car H.I') 1:c L 4 SC
e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
RATING:
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect
to its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
RATING: 3
— 4 —
COMMENTS :
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING: Z
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
4. Employee Housing (maximum forty [40] points) .
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24 -11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
Two (2) points for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guidelines
and low income occupancy limitations;
Two (2) points for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
Two (2) points for each fifteen (15) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low, moderate
and middle income housing using the following criteria which
shall be applied to both the restricted and non - restricted units:
— 5 —
Studio: 1.25 residents
One- bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two- bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three- bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit space.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each five
[5] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
•
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each
ten [10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
c. Middle Income Housing Provided (Two [2] points for each
fifteen [15] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
5. Conversion of Existing Units (maximum five [5] points).
The commission shall assign points to those applicants who
guarantee to provide a portion of their low, moderate and middle
income housing units by purchasing fully constructed units which
are not restricted to Aspen's housing guidelines and placing a
deed - restriction upon than in compliance with Section 24 -11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
- 6 -
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
POINTS
18 - 33% of all low, moderate and middle 1
income units proposed by applicant
are to be purchased and deed - restricted
34% - 66% of all low, moderate and middle 3
income units proposed by applicant
are to be purchased and deed - restricted
67% - 100% of all low, moderate and middle 5
income units proposed by applicant
are to be purchased and deed - restricted
RATING:
COMMENTS:
6. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING:
COMMENTS:
POINTS IN CATEGORIES 1, 2, 3, and 4:
POINTS IN CATEGORY 5:
POINTS IN CATEGORY 6:
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of P &Z Commissionmenber:
•
- 7 -
MEMORANDUM
TO: GMP Files
FROM: Alan Richman
RE: Quota f• ' • sidential GMP
DATE: January 5, 1987
During e following activity was reported in the monthly
building permit summaries:
Single - Family /Duplex Multi - Family Lodge
New Construc- +12 + 6 +67
tion
Change in Use + 1 +13 - 7
Demolitions _8 0
Total + 9 +11 +60
For purposes of the annual growth report, this means that there
were a total of 80 new units added in Aspen this year. For
purposes of the computation of the residential quota, the
following summarizes the status of the quota:
Residential Quota = 39 units
New Construction = 18 (Subtract)
Change in Use = 14 (Subtract)
Demolitions = 12 (add)
Expirations = (add)
(Gordon)
Total = 22 Units Available
In addition there were 35 units which were left as unallocated in
1985, which the Council may choose to carry over for this year's
competition.
cc: ✓Steve Burstein
Glenn Horn
Francis Krizmanich
MEMO TO FILE
DATE:. DECMEBER 30, 1986
SUBJ: BARBEE PROPERTY
I talked to John Barbee at 527 -6111 today. He said "there is an
openness on the part of the Barbees to enter into an option ". He
further stated that the party with whom you have been talking is
the most problematic (that means Mary Barbee).
He is concerned about access to the remainder of their property.
He explained to me that Dave Barbee is Mary's ex- husband and that
he, Dave and Hallie are siblings. Dave and Mary own a 1/3
undivided interest jointly, which John thinks is in some sort of
trust for their children with Mary acting as trustee.
Hallie will come to Aspen to meet and negotiate if necessary.
John will be in Aspen to meet with me either on Thursday or
Saturday.
He wishes that Cantrup was not the purchaser.
To: Aspen Planni and Zoning Commission Members
From: Mary K. Barb--
\I'
Re: Mo . -'. is \�
Date: December 30, 1986
This memo will address objections to the proposed Mountain View development
generally, and specifically:
1. Closure and abdication of two public streets
2. References to and inferences regarding Barbee participation in proposal
This document will refer to the proposal and offer summary consideration remarks.
PAGE 13 (1) The suggestion that "It appears that when the zone districts were
created that in this particular situation the land was zoned by ownership rather
than as a part of a comprehensive plan . . . " has no validity. Although the
land to the north and south of lots 7 -12 of Block 11 were zoned L -2, that is not
the case with lots 3 -6 of Block 11. The property South and West of those lots is
R-15. There was no single owner of all these lots. They were owned by three
seperate owners. If L - zoning is appropriate in this location for the reason
cited by the applicant, then all adjacent property is equally appropriate for L -2
zoning.
PAGE 13 (2) (3) There no evidence that increased population (though increasing
the tax base as cited) does not also provide additional fiscal responsibility to
a community. Increased vegetation would be difficult to accomplish on areas that
have retained their natural vegetation. Aspen street is already paved as necessary
and Juan and Garmisch in their current condition do not provide distressful
"particulate matter" in the air. Certainly paved streets in Aspen provide dust
in the area. One only has to witness the days of winter when the streets are
not covered with snow to acknowledge this. There is no particular advantage
provided by these developmental aspects of the project.
STREET VACATION
Essentially, this proposal asks the City /citizens to abdicate their rights to
two city streets which have been existant on maps of Aspen since the 1890s and
are reflected on the Willetts map as published in the Aspen Times, 1893. Juan
Street has been in constant service, has maintained travel and usage and served
as a fire access to the properties it serves and houses sewer and water lines
serving the property in this area since the Eames Addition was platted and
settled in the 1880s. Further, this proposal takes from the supervision of the
citizens and places in private ownership the maintainance and essentially the
determination of the currently publicly owned streets. To take from the public
domain and give to the private is contrary to the interests of adjacent property
owners and the public at large.
PAGE 15 (2) "Both sides of the vacated street are in Applicant's ownership.
This is in error. Lots 1,2, Block 11 (Lot 2 solely, Lot 1 borders the corner
of Juan and Garmisch) are on Juan Street and they are owned by the Barbee family,
not the Mountain View developers. These owners do not choose to abdicate their
rights to Juan Street in its current configuration for transportation, service
and safety purposes. The official address of the Barbee house is 611 Juan.
PAGE 15 (6) It is not the opinion of the Barbee property that the proposed
vacation offers an improved "superior neighborhood - sensitive land use plan"
Quite the contrary, it offers increased congestion, private not public control
of the proposed street. It is not in the best interest of the surrounding
property to the proposed development to vacate Juan Street. Although I am not
a property owner directly on Dean, I do not believe it in the best interest of
the public to vacate Dean street to private ownership and control either.
PAGE 15 (7) It is every taxpayers right to have public control over the roads
servicing their property. Private ownership and maintenance is inappropriate.
PAGE 15 (8) There is no evidence to support the contention that Garmisch Circle
would better serve the general neighborhood. As a member of the primary portion
of the neighborhood I submit that it is not in the best interest of the neighborhooc
to close a nearly one hundred year old street site and relocate it in any way.
PAGE 31 c. The developer approached to consider the Garmisch
Circle configuration. It was the determination of the family (and notice to the
developer prior to the submission date) that the family did not support the
vacation of Juan, nor any aspect of the proposed Garmisch Circle. We protest
the inference of "appears to be endorsing this alignment ".
Further the Barbee property dces not agree with
the declaration of improved access to its' property and reaffirms its declaration
of support that Juan not be vacated, citing Juan as adequate and well proven
access to the property. It is presumptious of the developer to suggest what is
advantageous for the Barbee property, i.e. "a shorter walking distance to Lift 1 -A
for potential residents of the greater Barbee tract." This is no advantage to the
Barbee property and inappropriate inclusion.
PAGE 32 g. Private maintenance of a road subjects the public and adjacent property
owners to the will of private owners. Public access is best served by public
ownership and maintenance. The Barbee property would be seriously vulnerable
were it to be dependent on private maintenance. It is inappropriate to subject
a property owner to private roadways and deny the current public access through
vacation.
PAGE 38 Paragraph 3 and 4 The Barbee property owners unanimously rejected the
proposal, any participation in it and objects to the development proposal. We
do not coose to have Juan vacated. We do not support the Garmisch Circle concept.
The developer knew this position prior to the December 1, 1986 submission date.
PAGE 39 Without a submitted, approved, committed plan for reconstruction
of the Mine Dumps parcel, any consideration is purely speculative.
PAGE 40 The heights and size of the proposed buildings will be substantive
on the horizon of Aspen compared to existing buildings. The extent of this
impact is difficult to discern from the submission.
PAGE 42 There are no Barbee "wishes" reflected in this document.
PAGE 56 Portions of Dean Street are being vacated. That square footage should
be represented. In that Dean Street will be private, essentially all of it is
a vacation.
ASPENOPITKIN /
ENVIRLNMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT `t/ •,a _0111%.,
f� ,
1.1
-
i t . -.,
MEMORANDUM OEC,2 9I
To: Glenn Horn, Planning Office \`
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director 7s,D
Environmental Health Dept.
Date: December 17, 1986
Re: Mountain View Residential GMP Submission
This office has reviewed the above - mentioned submittal for the
following environmental concerns.
Air Pollution:
Demolition: The applicant will be asked to perform a survey of
the two existing dwellings that are scheduled to be torn down to
determine if asbestos is present in any form in or on the
structures. If asbestos is found the product shall be sampled
and analyzed by qualified individuals with the laboratory report
being forwarded to this office for review. This process shall be
accomplished prior to any actual demolition.
Should asbestos prove to be present the applicant shall follow
the procedures for removal as outlined in Regulation 8, Section
II (B) 4 titled Asbestos, Demolition and Renovation of the
Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient Air Quality
Standards. This shall include filing the Notice Of Intent as
described in Regulation 8 referred to above.
Construction: The applicant shall provide the means to monitor
and remove any dirt or mud carryout from the project onto City
streets or State highways. This shall involve daily monitoring
of the haul routes of equipment entering and leaving the site
during the demolition and construction period. Further, daily
removal of mud or dirt will be required with the dirt being
deposited back on the applicants property. Removal of mud and
dirt shall be accomplished with a mechanical sweeper that uses
water to minimize dust.
During actual construction the applicant shall provide an
approved means to control wind blown (fugitive) dust from leaving
the property should it become a problem. This may take the form
of watering, use of dust suppression chemicals, fencing the site
or shrouding the work area.
The applicant shall file a fugitive dust control plan with this
office prior to construction. The applicant shall also submit an
Air Pollution Emission Notice and an Air Pollution Permit
application to the Colorado Health Department. The Colorado
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -2020
ASPENOPITKIN
• ENVIRLNMENTAL HEALTH DEPARtN'IENT
Mountain View Residential GMP
December 18, 1986
Page 2
Health Department will review the permit application and deter-
mine if a permit is actually needed. Should it be determined
that a permit is not needed the filing fee will be returned to
the applicant. Send the information to: Colorado Health
Department, Mr. Scott Miller, 222 S. 6th Street, Room 232, Grand
Junction, Colorado 81501.
The authority for the above request can be found in Regulation 3
of the Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
Solid Fuel Burning Devices: There is no mention in the submittal
as to the number of solid fuel burning devices that will be
installed in the project, or if any are scheduled to be install-
ed. It will be the assumption of this office that since there
are none mentioned and there is no detailed floor plan drawing of
a representative room or lobby area that there will be no
fireplaces, wood burning stoves, natural gas fireplace appliances
or similar devices proposed for this project.
This approach taken by the applicant will allow them complete
compliance with Ordinance 5 series 1986 commonly known as the
City of Aspen Solid Fuel Burning Ordinance. These comments are
based on the information in the submittal indicating no wood
burning devices will be present.
Underground Parking:
It will be a requirement of this office that adequate air
handling facilities be designed into the complex to eliminate any
buildup of air contaminants inside the underground parking
structure referred to in the submittal.
Noise Abatement:
The applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen
Ordinance 2 series 1981 titled Noise Abatement. All noise
related to demolition and construction activities will be
covered under the maximum decibel levels as directed by the
ordinance.
Contaminated Soils:
If mine dumps, mine tailings or mine waste rock are uncovered
during the excavation phase of the project it will be the
responsibility of the applicant to have the material tested to
determine the heavy metal content of the sample. The test
results shall be submitted to this office for review prior to
removal of the soil from the site.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -2020
ASPENOPITKIN
ENVIRLPNMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTNhENT
Mountain View Residential GMP
December 18, 1986
Page 3
There is no actual requirement to force the applicant to perform
these tests. However, as the result of past involvement with
Federal legislation governing the handling and disposition of
mine waste, this department wants to have an accounting of all
"hazardous waste" should the Federal government decide they want
to become further involved in the Aspen area.
Sewage Disposal:
Service to this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
Districts public sewage collection system is in conformance with
policies of this office.
This will include installation and maintenance of grease traps as
required by the district.
Water Supply:
Service to this project by the distribution lines as provided by
the City of Aspen Water Department is in conformance with
policies of this office.
General:
The applicant will be required to comply with all applicable
codes relative to construction and operation of proposed swimming
pools, spas, lounges (food service) and swim up bar.
The applicant can visit this office to obtain copies of all
codes, rules and regulations or laws referred to in this review.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -2020
,'". ...., 2 ?6
it
hF 1,a
�_
MEMORANDUM
TO: GLEN HORN, AND STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE AND
FROM: ANN -- -- _ u e NAGER
DATE: D'CEMBER 19, 1986
RE: MO a RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
ISSUE: Has the applicant met the requirements for the employe
generation in this residential project?
BACKGROUND: The proposed Mountain View Development consists of a
total of 58 Multi- Family Free Market units of approximately 1,000
square feet each designed for short and or long -term rentals, (L-
2 Zone). These 58 units are requested under the GMP Quota
System. The Mine Dumps, a non- contiguous tract will be treated
as a separate ownership entity for reconstruction of Existing
Units, and is therefore not included in the GMP Submission.
The applicant has available all required consents relative to
this non - contiguous property.
Aspen Skiing Company parking lot has been moved to the Mine Dumps
parcel. The proposed development will have 124 parking spaces,
all in an underground parking structure plus 10 surface spaces in
the entrance area. There will also be a lounge and recreation
area with health facilities, jacuzzi and indoor - outdoor swimming
pool with swim -up bar.
This GMP request is for 58 one bedroom units to be allocated from
unused past years' quotas which now total approximately 70 units.
The applicant proposes that the resident count for the 58 one -
bedroom units is 101.5 and the 60% employee count necessary to
result in 12 points in the scoring system is 153, which equals
$3,060,000.00 for the cash -in -lieu payment.
Applicant commits to supply employee housing in the equivalent of
60% which yields 12 points under this category.
The housing will be in the low- income category and in a dormitory
configuration with a conversion denominator of 1:1 and 150 square
feet per person. The commitment will be made under the appli-
cant's choice of the cash -in -lieu provisions of the Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of the
calculations as follows:
1
58 free market units @ 1 bedroom = 1.75 = 101.5 persons
Total project (.40/101.5) = 253.75 or 254
60% of 253.75 = 153 employees
Applicant has committed to house 60% of the total project or 153
employees @ $20,000 per employee. The cash -in -lieu payment would
currently be $3,060,000.00 as represented with the condition that
calculation for the payment shall be made at time of issuance of
Building Permit in accordance with the Housing Authority Guide-
lines in place at that time.
HOUSING AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: Approved staff recommendation.
2
SCNMUES`"�� Grand Avenue, Suite 212
off, .l „,. „.._ MEYER INC. ,,,t Ciwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Mt PIM (303) 945 -1004
December 17, 1986 1111n ,old
Vint
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS/
Mr. Steve Burstein D L_`'; O 1J E
City of Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611 6 DEC 1 8 1986
RE: Mountain View Proposal - ALASID Li ___
Dear Steve:
I wanted to offer a few comments with regard to the Mountain View pro-
posal by H.B.C. Investments. We have met several times with represent-
atives of H.B.C. Investments and they have responded positively to the
needs of the ALASID. Specifically, we would like to support:
A - The alignment of Garmisch Circle, the bike trail location and its
alignment directly across from Gilbert Street. Because Aspen
Street is so steep, we feel that this intersection location could
provide in the future a more reasonable access to Gilbert. We feel
that development of a skier drop-off at Garmisch Circle and Aspen
Street would be a safer alternative than the present drop -off at
the top of Aspen Street.
B - The Dean Street extension sidewalk in back of Lift One Condominiums
is shown correctly with regard to porperty lines in the Applicant's
submission. We encourage the Applicant to make this sidewalk ten
feet wide to facilitate pedestrian movement along Dean Street to
the future bike path through Koch Park along the Midland right -of-
way.
We would request to work with the Applicant on final design that will
be compatible with ALASID.
The Applicant should be aware that angle parking will take place along
Aspen'Street right up to the right -of -way line. Any sidewalk on the
Applicant's side of Aspen Street must be on the Mountain View property.
We will be willing to work with the Applicant to accomplish both his
goals and ALASID goals along Aspen Street.
We request a public easement be preserved on Garmisch Circle for future
drainage from Aspen Mountain, should this be a private street.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
Ron Tho m •
Project Engineer
RT:lc /5726C
xc: Elyse Elliott, Aspen City Engineer
ASPEN *PITKIN f
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director 7sb
Dept.
Dat= December 17, 1986
•- Mountai. '-w Residential GMP Submission
This office has reviewed the above - mentioned submittal for the
following environmental concerns.
Air Pollution:
Demolition: The applicant will be asked to perform a survey of
the two existing dwellings that are scheduled to be torn down to
determine if asbestos is present in any form in or on the
structures. If asbestos is found the product shall be sampled
and analyzed by qualified individuals with the laboratory report
being forwarded to this office for review. This process shall be
accomplished prior to any actual demolition.
Should asbestos prove to be present the applicant shall follow
the procedures for removal as outlined in Regulation 8, Section
II (B) 4 titled Asbestos, Demolition and Renovation of the
Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient Air Quality
Standards. This shall include filing the Notice Of Intent as
described in Regulation 8 referred to above.
Construction: The applicant shall provide the means to monitor
and remove any dirt or mud carryout from the project onto City
streets or State highways. This shall involve daily monitoring
of the haul routes of equipment entering and leaving the site
during the demolition and construction period. Further, daily
removal of mud or dirt will be required with the dirt being
deposited back on the applicants property. Removal of mud and
dirt shall be accomplished with a mechanical sweeper that uses
water to minimize dust.
During actual construction the applicant shall provide an
approved means to control wind blown (fugitive) dust from leaving
the property should it become a problem. This may take the form
of watering, use of dust suppression chemicals, fencing the site
or shrouding the work area.
The applicant shall file a fugitive dust control plan with this
office prior to construction. The applicant shall also submit an
Air Pollution Emission Notice and an Air Pollution Permit
application to the Colorado Health Department. The Colorado
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81911 303/925-2020
_ ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Mountain View Residential GMP
December 18, 1986
Page 2
Health Department will review the permit application and deter-
mine if a permit is actually needed. Should it be determined
that a permit is not needed the filing fee will be returned to
the applicant. Send the information to: Colorado Health
Department, Mr. Scott Miller, 222 S. 6th Street, Room 232, Grand
Junction, Colorado 81501.
The authority for the above request can be found in Regulation 3
of the Colorado Air Quality Control Regulations and Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
Solid Fuel Burning Devices: There is no mention in the submittal
as to the number of solid fuel burning devices that will be
installed in the project, or if any are scheduled to be install-
ed. It will be the assumption of this office that since there
are none mentioned and there is no detailed floor plan drawing of
a representative room or lobby area that there will be no
fireplaces, wood burning stoves, natural gas fireplace appliances
or similar devices proposed for this project.
This approach taken by the applicant will allow them complete
compliance with Ordinance 5 series 1986 commonly known as the
City of Aspen Solid Fuel Burning Ordinance. These comments are
based on the information in the submittal indicating no wood
burning devices will be present.
Underground Parking:
It will be a requirement of this office that adequate air
handling facilities be designed into the complex to eliminate any
buildup of air contaminants inside the underground parking
structure referred to in the submittal.
Noise Abatement:
The applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen
Ordinance 2 series 1981 titled Noise Abatement. All noise
related to demolition and construction activities will be
covered under the maximum decibel levels as directed by the
ordinance.
Contaminated Soils:
If mine dumps, mine tailings or mine waste rock are uncovered
during the excavation phase of the project it will be the
responsibility of the applicant to have the material tested to
determine the heavy metal content of the sample. The test
results shall be submitted to this office for review prior to
removal of the soil from the site.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 51611 303/925 -2020
ASPENOPITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Mountain View Residential GMP
December 18, 1986
Page 3
There is no actual requirement to force the applicant to perform
these tests. However, as the result of past involvement with
Federal legislation governing the handling and disposition of
mine waste, this department wants to have an accounting of all
"hazardous waste" should the Federal government decide they want
to become further involved in the Aspen area.
Sewage Disposal:
Service to this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
Districts public sewage collection system is in conformance with
policies of this office.
This will include installation and maintenance of grease traps as
required by the district.
Water Supply:
Service to this project by the distribution lines as provided by
the City of Aspen Water Department is in conformance with
policies of this office.
General:
The applicant will be required to comply with all applicable
codes relative to construction and operation of proposed swimming
pools, spas, lounges (food service) and swim up bar.
The applicant can visit this office to obtain copies of all
codes, rules and regulations or laws referred to in this review.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -2020
Li DEC I6I
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: GLENN HORN PLANNING OFFICE
STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
(60 — .---- .:.::,u
110 UTE AVENUE ' ' NATION
DATE: / DECEMBER 15, 1986 ` ; 91a44"0
At the request o your of ice, we have reviewed the following
projects:
1. Mountain View (aka 601 S. Aspen) - We have no further
comments to make other than those already submitted as part of
the record. See our previous correspondence, including our
letter of Nov. 24th to Mr. Small which is included in the
application.
2. 1010 Ute Avenue - We have reviewed the 1010 application and
the pertinent section pertaining to water supply (aa. Water
System, page 2) and based upon the applicant's statements made
under this section, the Water Department will provide service to
the development. However, our approval is conditioned upon the
following:
(a) Submittal of working utility drawings in accordance
with the City of Aspen specifications, prior to construction, for
our approval. Such working drawings shall include size of pipe,
number of fittings and locations of valves and fire hydrants.
The applicant commits to certain improvements as outlined in
(aa). Water System and (dd). Fire Protection. In addition, the
Water Department recommends the replacement or relocation of the
existing fire hydrant *741 adjacent to the Gant at or near the
entrance to the subdivision, such hydrant to be supplied by the
new 8" loop, the Water Department will commit to servicing the
subdivision. Such water system facilities installed for the
development will improve the neighborhood reliability and
capacity, since such work will accomplish an interconnect or loop
between Ute Avenue and
Waters Avenue, via Calderwood.
JM:ab
cc: Fire Marshall
« f
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Marshall
Roaring Fork Transit Agency*
Zoning Official
Roaring Fork Energy Center
Park Department*
FROM: Glenn Horn, Planning Office
Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Mountain View Residential GMP Submission*
700 E. Hyman Residential GMP Submission
1010 Ute Avenue Residential GMP Submission*
-:'r •esi•en • MP Submission
DATE• December 8, 1986
Attached • .. ew and comments are the 1986 City of Aspen
Residential GMP applications received by the Planning Office. A
brief overview of the applications follows:
The requests by the four applicants for allotments are as
follows:
Mountain View = 58 units
1010 Ute Ave. = 16 units
700 E. Hyman = 4 units
1001 = 4 units for a total of 82 units.
Hearings for these 4 residential GMP applications have been
scheduled on January 20, 1987. At this meeting, only the
Mountain View project will be subject to public hearing due to
its rezoning application. On January 27, P &Z will then score all
four projects at a public hearing.
Please review this material and return your referral comments to
the Planning Office no later than January 5, 1987 in order for
this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation
on January 20th.
Thank you.
".`� D
EC 8
ASPEN SNOWMASS
NORDIC COUNCIL
Mr. Steve Burstein
Aspen Planning Off ice
City of Aspen
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
r
Bob Wade, President I30 3 V "d;ena
Toby Morse, Vice President p r'.
Jim Modica, Secretary/ Treasurer Aspen, CO 8 1 h 1 1 Dec 5, 1906
Peter Forsch
Skip Hamilton
Tom Isaac RE 601 South Aspen; Shadow Mountain Trap Corridor
Peter Looram
George Madsen
Carolyn Moore
Jeff Tippett
Dear Steve,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR have been in touch with Robert Small who is working for
Craig Ward the 601 5. Aspen applicant, especially in regard to the trail
aspects of the proposed deveiopment
TRUSTEES while the applicant is on the fringe of development
Executive Committee
Tom Blake adiacent to Shadow Mountain, tne optimal alignment of the
Jim Chaffin -
Arthur Pfister Shadow Mountain Trail frorn Koch Park. to the bottom of the ski
Frederic Benedict area at the ,]Y-.i rio r_ornpany`_, ticket office is uphill and to ,he
Ruth Humphreys Brown
DxEdmundson west t f the applh_:ants property
., o
Elizabeth Fergus
Jack Frishman
C.M. Kittrell
Charles Marqusee However, the proposed alignments of both ski down trails
Barry Mink -
Ken Moore f alpine s era. and year round trail corridors thrCuon the
Robert Oden
TagePedersen property seem to reflect valuable benefits for the community a.E..
Marjorie Stein
weH as for tice development itself The ariolicant has er.rressed
a strand willingness, within their capabilities, to assist tne
Nordic Council and the City in creating the optimal Snadow
ADVISORY BOARD -
Bob Beattie Mountain trail alignment
Bill Koch
Please contact me if you have additional concerns or
"ornntents regarding these specific development parameter's
Sincerely,
e
cc Robert. Srna i Craig C. Ward
P.O. BOX 10815 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 303/925 -4790
es8o £S c trrZ
- . - ? /6W!
(849) 925- - d'DD
ligEOVE
December 3, 1986 �+ 5
Alan n UW 311116
Planning Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Mountain View GMP Application
Dear Alan:
By way of clarification of our application submitted on December
1, 1986 I enclose the following:
1. Copy of my letter to Paul Taddune of June 17, 1986
together with the enclosures submitted at that time. The status
of the title is still the same and the same lawsuits are still
pending resolution.
The only changes since that date are that negotiations have been
proceeding between Roberts, Commerce, Cantrup and the other
parties to the litigation in an attempt to resolve all matters.
We feel that significant progress is being made in this regard
and that the required issues will be resolved so that the Seller
will be in a position to deliver clear title so that my client
may close on the option which he holds.
I enclose another copy of the option on the "Austin" tract to
verify standing to apply to apply for GMP allocation on that
portion of the tract as well as the Holland & Hart letter
previously submitted.
2. Relative to the employee housing question, on page 49
in the last paragraph the applicant does commit to furnish
housing in the low income category. The resident count for the
58 one - bedroom units is 101.5 and the 60% employee count
necessary to result in 12 points in the scoring system is 153,
which equals $3,060,000.00.
,�ayear f (90.9) 9P5 -141.
' s °
Mr. Alan Richman
Re: Mountain View GMP Application
December 3, 1986
Page Two
3. Relative to the Ski Company parking on the Mine Dumps
property there presently exists parking for 21 cars. When the 30
parking spaces required by the Ski Company are moved to that
property, the parking facility will be expanded to provide
parking for a total of 51 cars. The present building footprint
is approximately 9,000 square feet and with 13,005 square feet
required to park 51 cars there will still be approximately 18,500
square feet of open space. Thus there will not be any decreasing
parking spaces and thus no adverse affect relative to the parking
situation as the result of providing the Ski Company parking in a
better location relative to Lift 1 -A. If the existing Mine Dumps
buildings are removed prior to moving Aspen Skiing Company
parking more flexibility in handling the parking will be
available. In any event the 30 Aspen Skiing Company spaces will
be contiguous.
Douglas
DPA /pkm
Enclosures
S -
•
December 1 , 1986/
eve Burstien
Planning Department
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Gentlemen:
On the behalf of Hans Cantrup we are pleased to submit this proposal for
Mountainview as a housing project submittal. In the time which we have had to
review the project goals and status, as well as to consider and resolve all of
your comments and concerns about a project of this type and scope in Aspen, we
have achieved a thorough understanding of pertinent issues concerning the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the community at large.
After analyzing all previous and current concerns, we have prepared the
following submittal to effectively and creatively solve the relevant issues.
We perceive the apprehensiveness of neighborhood compatibility and presence as
your major concern, and have therefore outlayed considerable effort to
alleviate your uneasiness. The issue is significant, as there are no code
guidelines to analytically guide these decisions or results.
This proposal cohesively addresses an architectural vision and concept of a
building type and image which is more inclusive of existing Aspen architecture
and philosophies. The Mountainview Project of 58 one bedroom units is
presented at a scale and type that incorporates architectural images of
Victorian mountain architecture, and a more romantic building placement on the
site. We envision the image being akin to those great resort mountain hotels
of the beginning of this century. The building incorporates a central atrium
for circulation and daylighting, a concept similar to the Jerome Hotel Lobby.
Also, the exterior, free from the repetition of continuous horizontal
balconies presents a cleaner, architecturally richer building with the ability
to pattern the elevations with varied window and material combinations. The
Plan indicates the possibilities for a variety of unique living environments.
The Site Plan in this proposal contains a more cohesive and unified use of
circulation, greenspace and exterior living space. As a result of the
condensed Building Plan, we are able to center the building on the site
leaving the entire perimeter unbuilt to create landscaped terraces, boulevards
and lawn areas that naturally and gradually unify an urban fabric and the
hillside of Shadow Mountain. This Site Plan incorporates existing Dean
Street, and, in providing the Dean Drive extension through the property,
contributes to an efficient and effective public /private circulation route.
The design results in a gently curved road which follows the topographical
grade and provides for 24 public parking spaces on the north side of the
street with a landscaped boulevard. Within the design intent this will
eleviate an existing parking need, at the same time contributing to
neighborhood greenspace.
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
1775 Sherman Street, Suite 1100, Denver, Colorado 80203
303 825 -3100, Telex 650 250 -2531
Neighborhood circulation is further enhanced with the inclusion of the
Garmisch Circle extension which replaces the requested vacation of existing
Juan street, and follows the curve of the mountain to align with Gilbert
Street. This establishes a clear circulation pattern for fire protection
purposes and neighborhood movement. Through an agreement with the adjacent
property owner the use of an un- utilized access strip will allow for the
addition of a proposed transit stop and the re- location of designated on grade
Aspen Ski Company parking.
A bicycle traffic trail is incorporated into Garmisch Circle which will extend
the proposed Gilbert Street bicycle trail system. Pedestrian circulation is
also inherent to this design, allowing for a convenient route to the mountain
from base facilities. A gracious pedestrian sidewalk is also planned for the
tree lined boulevard on South Aspen Street. Ski trails are incorporated in
numerous fashions. Through an agreement with the mine dump property, direct
access is available from the mountain to the Aspen Ski Company parking lot,
continuing down the bicycle trail which during the sking season functions as a
ski trail extension for the neighborhood. Residents of Mountainview also have
ski trail access into the project through the open landscape at the South
Aspen Street and Garmisch Circle intersection.
We feel that the Mountainview Project has been able to confront and solve
those issues and considerations which are part of any special project in a
unique neighborhood. The major neighborhood questions and concerns have been
addressed with this new proposal which includes a site plan and building
program that will generate excellent and exciting use of existing land. It
will benefit the City of Aspen through efficient and imaginative synthesis of
existing and new, and will generate a greater architectural whole.
Please call us with any discussions, considerations, concerns, or
clarifications you deam necessary, so that we may continue to evolve this
project toward the betterment of the program, plan, and neighborhood.
We look forward to continuing the planning process for this exciting project.
Very truly yours,
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
Sam C. Hyatt
SCH /zm
cc: H. Cantrup
R. Holmes /SOM
/ November 27, 1986
Douglas P. Allen
Attorney at Law
530 East Main Street, First Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Allen,
In reference to your letter of November 17, 1986, it is the consensus
of the family that we are not interested in the proposal and further
that we are opposed to the proposed development.
It is to be understood that there is to be no representation of on-
going discussion regarding this issue.
,ordially, 0
/
Mary K. P. O. Box 75
Albuquerque, NM 87196
cc: Hallie Rugheimer
John Barbee
ip 1 1.7- Il‘vm
NO V 2 6 1986 , ; ` Ca
I )
10 'nib
xaz • yr „,
ealfee/t„ W?:te / /
420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(3031 925-5532
November 23,1986
Mr. Steve Burnstein
Planning Department
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Steve:
I have just reviewed the preliminary conceptual development
plans for the 601 South Aspen project. As you are aware the
project is located approximately 7 city blocks from the Aspen
fire station, and our response time to the project is 3 to 5
minutes. The developer plans to replace the two existing
fire hydrants ( #720 -721) on Aspen street with a more reliable
brand of hydrant. The developer also has plans to upgrade the
water main at South Monarch to South Aspen Street, and South
Aspen Street to Garmisch Street with a larger water main to
be specified by the Aspen Fire Marshal. This upgraded water
system and the two new fire hydrants that will be placed along
the new alignment of Dean Street will adequately service the
project. The proposed alignment of Dean Street would give the
Fire Department better access to the South side of the Lift One
and Timberline condominiums.
If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel
free to give me or Wayne Vandemark a call.
,,spin erelq
Peter Wirth
Fire Chief
AVFD
Enclosures:
Fire Marshal Wayne Vandemark
Robert Small
'/
CIT 1k "; 1 - _ SPEN
,
130 : ' • • reet
as : 611
November 24, 199
Ro•ert Small
P.O. Box 593
Snowmass, CO 81654
Re: 601 South Aspen Project
Dear Mr. Small:
In reply to your letter of November 19th and also your inquiry
November 21st concerning the 601 South Aspen Project, this letter
is to advise you that the Aspen Water Department recognizes your
commitment to providing the necessary distribution upgrade for
the 601 South Aspen Project and adjacent neighborhood. The
associated improvements are as stated in your letter and the
original application of the 601 South Aspen Project.
The Water Department concurs that should the improvements be
installed, reliability and capacity will be improved for the
neighborhood.
ncere ��� ��o` �' ".-�
l a m Markalunas, Director
pen Water Department
JM:ab
cc: Steve Burstein
F I
Li
ti, Lit
@A Am 44./4„,b ofisi„ gid?
420 E. HOPKINS STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
1303) 925 -5532
Steve Burstein
Planning Department
City of Aspen
Dear Steve:
I have reviewed the preliminary plans of the GMP project at 601 S. Aspen.
With the proposed upgrading of the water system in the area we find this project
to be favorable for the areas concerned. The new hydrants and their location
will increase the Fire Departments effectiveness. Street locations are also
favorable.
-/
Wane e L. Vandemark
Fire Marshal
Aspen Fire Protection Dist.
xc: Robert Small
November 19, 1986
Jim Markalunas
Director, Aspen Water Department
City of Aspen
130 South Galena St.
Aspen Colorado 81611
Dear Jim; p M����
RE: 601 South Aspen Proj — 9 c
On December 1st a new GMP application will be submitted for the project
at 601 S. Aspen St. The layout and design will change signifigantly but the
proposed water system modifications and requirements will remain the same.
Based on your recommendations, isolation valves shall be installed at each
end of Juan Street, with the 6" Juan water line being a private access to
the project, and maintained by the project.
In addition, a new 6 -8" water line (exact size to be determined by the Water
Department at a later date) shall be installed from S. Garmisch to S. Aspen
along the proposed new Dean Avenue alignment by applicant. This line will
connect to the existing 6" line on S. Garmisch, and to the 12" D.I.P. on S.
Aspen, thereby replacing and preserving the water loop in the area.
The developer also commits to installing a new 6 -8" water line connecting
S. Monarch St. to S. Aspen St. along Dean Avenue. This line will connect to
the 8" line on S. Monarch and the 12" line on S. Aspen. This new line, not
immediate to the project, will be installed to greatly improve the looping
system and serviceability of the Water Department for the entire area.
The applicant /developer will also upgrade the 2 fire hydrants #'s 720 and
721 in addition to the placement of two new hydrants along the new Dean
Avenue Allignment. In the, past you have requested this upgrade in the
servicability of these obsolete fire hydrants adjacent to this proposed
project.
Due to the modifications to the GMP application the applicant is again
respectfully requesting a new letter stating that you have reviewed the
improvements in connection with this development. Again it will be very
helpfull if you would again restate that the carring capacity and reliability
of the system will be improved in this neighborhood. Addressed to:
Steve Burstein
Planning Department
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
A copy of your letter will appear in the December 1st GMP application, and
will be greatly appreciated. Please send a copy to:
Robert Small Sincerely,
P.O. Box 593
Snowmass Colorado 81654 17 /r L" �
Robert Small
e S ‘0414 94a 2hb.
Seer aieZteee SSC eaktediezek Aged, 36ideggemA
$ter. 64,a4 MY/
(9a9) 99s• Js'a9
November 17, 1986
Mrs. Mary Barbee
P 0 Box 4475
Albuquerque, NM 87196
Dear Mary:
This will summarize in writing the present status of the
agreement between the developer of the 601 Aspen property and
your family, adjacent property owners as follows:
1. The proposed width of Garmisch Circle Road will be 24
feet with no parking allowed and with an 8 -foot bike path
adjacent to it. This road will be excavated below the existing
grade so as to shield your property from automobiles using it.
In addition, landscaping is contemplated for the portion of my
client's property that lies to the west of the proposed road.
2. The storm drainage component of the project will be
entirely upon my client's property.
3. My client will be purchasing the 20 foot strip. As we
discussed, it is contemplated that the purchase of the 20 foot
strip would of course, be contingent upon the approval of
Garmisch Circle as submitted in the GMP application and the price
would be equal to that paid by my client for the Austin tract on
a price per square foot basis.
4. The bike and ski path will be located on the southerly
and westerly side of Garmisch Circle and the southerly curve of
Garmisch Circle will be moved slightly toward the east.
5. That portion of land belonging to my client and lying
westerly and southerly of Garmisch Circle will be covenanted to
remain as open space. My client will landscape that portion of
the property as well as the vacated portion of Garmisch Street.
6. All buildings constructed on the 601 Aspen property will
be below the 8040' line.
7. My client will be responsible, during construction, for
maintaingng a fence on the common property line between their
property and yours so as to eliminate any problem of encroachment
during the period of construction.
✓a,44e gat) 9135 -9J9d
9.9 S g4a 2ijz.
.sal :0,.. mt_Zaw SAO ��,t. 5fa t.i,.
4een. -C6 4 eY6//
(sat) 9tS Bii00
8. That portion of the existing Garmisch Street vacated
will be equally divided between the adjoining property owners.
I believe the above encompasses all of the essential business
points of our agreement. Of course we would expect after
agreeing on these points that your family would be supportive of
our GMP and rezoning application. As we do need to go to press
this week with the final site plan for the GMP application I
would appreciate a prompt response from you and your family in
the form of acknowledgement on the enclosed copy of this letter
or by separate letter.
Cordially,
Douglas P. Allen
DPA /bam
cc: John Barbee
Hallie Rugheimer
1/4a1lr«. ff (JOJJ 9tS -9M
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: MOUNTAIN VIEW REZONING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, may- -20, - - -lA at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M.
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in City Council
Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an
application submitted by Doug Allen on behalf of his client, HBC
Investments, requesting rezoning to the Eames Addition, Block 11,
Lots 3 through 12 from R -15 to L -2. This rezoning is associated
with the applicant's request for a GMP allotment for 58 residen-
tial units, to be considered on January 27.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-
2020, ext. 223.
g /C. Welton Anderson
Chairperson, Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on December 24, 1986
City of Aspen Account.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 1986 CITY OF ASPEN RESIDENTIAL GMP APPLICATION REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, January 27, 1987, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M.
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in City Council
Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider
allotment for four 1986 Aspen Residential GMP applications.
Consideration of the other reviews associated with these applica-
tions such as conceptual subdivision will occur on January 20.
A brief summary of the applications are as follows:
MOUNTAIN VIEW RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
The applicant, }MC Investments, is requesting GMP submis-
sion, conceptual subdivision and rezoning approval to
construct 58 multi - family free market units of approximately
1,000 square feet each, designed for short- and /or long -term
rentals. The site consists of 72,545 square feet and is
located at 601 S. Aspen, at the base of Aspen Mountain.
1001 RESIDENTIAL GNP SUBMISSION
The applicant, Aspen Development and Construction Company,
is requesting GMP allocation, conceptual PUD and subdivision
approval for a four -lot subdivision on the "1001" mining
claim. The property lies to the south of Ute Avenue, to the
west of the Hoag Subdivision and east of the Aspen Chance
Subdivision. The site is approximately 6.73 acres with the
lower 2.6 acres lying within the City limits.
700 EAST HYMAN RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
The applicant, The Hodge Companies, Inc. is requesting GMP
allocation and conceptual subdivision approval for the
development of four residential units on a vacant 12,000
square foot parcel of land referred to as the Lucas Property
and consists of Lots R,L,M and N, Block 104, City of Aspen,
located at the corner of Hyman and Spring Street.
1010 UTE AVENUE RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION
The applicant, Lowe Development Corporation, is requesting
GMP allotment and conceptual subdivision approval for
sixteen free - market residential units to be built in
conjunction with one three- bedroom low income restricted
employee units on two adjoining parcels of land separated by
Ute Avenue. The property is bordered by the Gant Condomin-
iums, Calderwood Subdivision, Ute Park and Ute Cemetary. and
consists of a total of 332,875 sq. ft. or 7.641 acres.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -2020, ext.
225.
g /C. Welton Anderson
Chairperson, Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on December 24, 1986.
City of Aspen Account.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Doug Allen, Representing "Mountain View"
Gideon Kaufman, Representing "1010 Ute Avenue"
Sunny Vann, Representing "700 E. Hyman Condominiums"
Joe Wells, Representing "1001"
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director 'v' \
RE: 1986 Residential GMP Submissions
DATE: December 5, 1986
This is to acknowledge receipt of your residential development
application and to inform you that it has been sent forward into
the agency referral process. Sending the application out for
comments does not necessarily mean that we have all the informa-
tion we may need throughout the process, but simply that we are
initiating review by our referral agencies. As we dig more
deeply into the applications, we will contact you if we need
claritication.
Following is a summary of the review schedule for the projects.
The P &Z will begin its consideration of the applications on
January 20. Based on an agreement reached with P &Z, their review
will begin with the subdivision, zoning and special review issues
and not the GMP scoring. Therefore, on January 20, all four
projects will be considered only for the subdivision, zoning and
special review portions of their application. Please plan on
spending no more than about 45 minutes considering each appli-
cation, including staff presentations, applicant's presentation,
P &Z questions and action. At this meeting, only the Mountain
View project will be subject to public hearing due to its
rezoning application. As soon as possible, we must receive
stamped envelopes made out to all owners within 300 feet of this
site in order that we may properly notice this hearing.
On January 27, P &Z will score all four projects at a public
hearing. It is assumed that due to the thorough review conducted
by P &Z of the subdivision application, the GMP review can proceed
much more smoothly. Therefore, each project should anticipate no
more than 30 minutes for the presentations, questions, and public
comments. At the close of the hearing, the projects will be
scored and a ranking established.
Council's review is expected to occur in February. Public
hearings will be required of each of the projects for conceptual
subdivision review. This will likely take place at Council's
meeting of February 23. Please note that before these hearings
can be set, we must obtain from you stamped envelopes made out to
every property owner adjacent to your development site. Those
projects which receive all necessary conceptual approvals from
Council and have met the applicable thresholds in scoring will be
considered for an allotment. Before the allotments are granted,
appeals, if submitted, will be heard.
i know that each of you is concerned with the number of allot-
ments available this year. As you know, the annual residential
quota is 39 units a year, reduced by any development which has
taken place via exemptions in 1986 and increased by any carryover
of unused quota from prior years, expirations of previously
granted allotments and demolitions which took place in 1986.
Following is an estimate of the quota which is likely to be
available (final calculations will not be done until January when
the December building report arrives):
Annual Quota = 39 units
Expiration(Gordon)= 3 units
Additions = approximately 25 units
Demolitions - _units
Approx. 25 units
35 units available for carryover (discretionary review by
Council)
Likely potential quota = minimum of 20 -25 units
maximum of 55 -60 units
The requests by the four applicants are as follows:
Mountain View = 58 units
1010 Ute Ave. = 16 units
700 E. Hyman = 4 units
1001 = 4 units
Total 82 units
As you can see, it will be a competitive and interesting process!
Incidentally, we will have two planners handling the cases this
year. Glenn Horn will have 1010 Ute Avenue and 1001 assigned to
him; Steve Burstein will have Mountain View and 700 E. Hyman
assigned to him. Please contact them directly if you have any
questions.
cc: Project Files
Paul Taddune
90 t9 S ena .to 9' 24.
Stee ant. 68 £e ,A eet, Y'a 9L,..
Sera, &Iinda e16 //
(909) 9P6-??ce
October 24, 1986
Mrs. Mary Barbee
P. O. Box 4475
Albuquerque, NM 87196
Dear Mary:
This will confirm in writing as you requested some of the items
we discussed in Albuquerque earlier this week:
1. The proposed width of Garmisch Circle Road will be 24
feet with no parking allowed and with an 8 -foot bike path
adjacent to it. This road will be excavated below the existing
grade so as to shield your property from automobiles using it. In
addition, landscaping is contemplated for the portion of my
client's property that lies to the west of the proposed road.
2. Construction is scheduled to start in the summer of
1987. There will be no interruption of utilities to your
property as a result of the construction.
3. The storm drainage component of the project will be
entirely upon my client's property.
4. The Mine Dumps buildings are scheduled for demolition
and reconstruction as soon as the overall development plan for
the GMP is approved.
Subsequent to our phone conversation of yesterday I talked to Sam
Hyatt and he advised me that the revised plans he will be sending
to you today will also specifically detail the above dimensions.
If you have any further questions please feel free to call me.
del ally,
c
Douglas P. Allen
DPA /Ic
cc: 1 8am Hyatt
Hans B. Cantrup
.% %./c tr«. / (sat) 916-999?
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: Mountain View Date:January 12, 1987
1. Public Facilities and Services (maximum of twelve [12] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its impact upon public facilities and services and shall rate
each development according to the following formula:
0 -- Project requires the provision of new services at increased
public expense.
1 -- Project may be handled by existing level of service in the
area, or any service improvement by the applicant benefits
the project only and not the area in general.
2 -- Project in and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area.
a. Water Service (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the water supply system to
provide for the needs of the proposed development and, if a
public system, its ability to supply water to the develop-
ment without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer, and without treatment plant or
other facility upgrading.
i
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:A new 6 -8" waterline in Dean Street (from Garmisch to
Monarch Sts.), isolation valves in Juan Street, two new fire
hydrants and two upgraded fire hydrants will improve the quality
of service to the area, according to Jim Markalunas.
b. Sewer Service (maximum two (2) points).
Consideration of the capacity of the sanitary sewers to
dispose of the water of the proposed development and, if a
public sewage disposal system is to be used, the capacity of
the system to service the development without system
extensions beyond those normally installed by the developer,
and without treatment plant or other facility upgrading.
RATING: 2
r'^
COMMENTS:The proposed replacement of sewer pipes on the new Dean
Street between Aspen and Garmisch Streets and in the Block 61
alley, and extension of 8" PVC line from Juan to Dean Street will
be an upgrading of the sewer system in this area, according to
Heiko Kuhn.
c. Storm Drainage (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of the drainage facilities to
adequately dispose of the surface runoff of the proposed
development without system extensions beyond those normally
installed by the developer.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:The proposed drywells and retention areas on -site and
new catch basins and curb and gutter on the east side of Aspen
Street, as well as a 20' drainage easement (for a 72" culvert)
along Garmisch Circle would improve drainage in the area. Tests
must be conducted by the applicant to determine the present
runofffretainage so to maintain the historic runoff of the site,
according to the Engineering Department.
d. Fire Protection (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the ability of the fire department of the
appropriate fire protection district to provide fire
protection according to the established response standards
of the appropriate district without the necessity of
establishing a new station or requiring addition of major
equipment to an existing station.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:Provision of two new fire hydrants, and upgrading of two
existing hydrants would increase the Fire Department's effective-
ness, according to Wayne Vandemark, Fire Marshall. The fire
station is approximately 7 blocks away, allowing for good
response time. The proposed new Dean Drive and Garmisch Circle
would both have 24' width of through- lanes, which should be
adequate for fire engines if there is no curbside parking.
Garmisch Circle may be slippery during the winter due to its
grade and the shading from Shadow Mountain.
e. Parking Design (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the provision of an adequate number of off -
street parking spaces to meet the requirements of the
proposed development and considering the design of said
spaces with respect to visual impact, amount of paved
surface, convenience and safety.
- 2 -
RATING: 0
COMMENTS:The parking program consists of 124 spaces in an
underground garage, 24 public spaces along Dean Drive; and 30
Aspen Skiing Company spaces on the Mine Dumps property. The
large garage has so much excess capacity beyond the proiect needs
(58 spaces required) that it would obviously serve non - proiect
needs, possibly becoming a public garage. This is contrary to
Aspen's auto disincentive policy and contrary to the findings of
the TDP that it is inappropriate from a traffic circulation
standpoint to bring traffic south of Durant Street. Access to
the parking garage would be difficult up steep S. Aspen Street.
Driving to the relocated ASC parking lot at the top of the hill
would at times create a very dangerous situation, particularly in
terms of pedestrian /auto conflicts in the winter. The turning
radius into the on -site garage from Aspen Street would be
difficult given the entrance island. The drop -off for the ASC
parking lot cannot be provided without use of Barbee's property.
Staff strongly supports the concept of limited underground
parking to provide for more usable open space on the site.
However, Mountain View's paved surfaces for above grade parking
is still substantial (approx. 15,000 s.f. of the site is paved
for roads and parking) and create severe visual impacts. Staff
finds these to be major design flaws that would add to the public
burden and create intolerable traffic circulation problems in the
neighborhood.
f. Roads (maximum two [2] points).
Consideration of the capacity of major street linkages to
provide for the needs of the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns or over-
loading the existing street system or the necessity of
providing increased road mileage and /or maintenance.
RATING: 0
COMMENTS:Aspen and Garmisch Streets are the maior street linkages
to this proiect. There is adequate capacity on both streets
(given width and traffic volume) to handle additional traffic, as
stated by the Engineering Department. However, S Aspen Street in
particular has steep grades (9.8% to proposed Dean Drive and
10.9% from Dean Drive to the Mine Dumps) and substantial winter
traffic, when most slippery. Anyone who has driven up S. Aspen
Street in the winter knows that there is a maior conflict between
drivers needing to maintain momentum to get up the hill and
pedestrians in ski boots. The Aspen - Durant Street intersection
is dangerous and this problem would be exacerbated by the added
traffic from this proiect (and the excessively large garage).
The Police Department stated that on bad snow and ice days, the
street would simply have to be closed. Garmisch Street is less
- 3 -
r�
5
steep in the area of the project (approx. 7 %), but is not the
traditional visitor access into this part of town. Despite
efforts to make Garmisch Street and Circle the main access to the
proiect (for safety reasons). it is likely that many visitors
will continue to take Aspen Street and add to this problem. In
addition, it appears that the quiet quality of the Shadow
Mountain neighborhood would be negatively effected by added
traffic on Aspen and Garmisch Streets. The new Dean Street and
Garmisch Circle would both be privately owned and maintained, as
represented in the application If Garmisch Circle is dedicated to
the City, there will be additional public expense to maintain
this narrow, steep, shaded street. If Dean Drive is not dedica-
ted, then it appears that an additional section of it will need
to be vacated. Vacation of Juan Street would preclude public
access to the Barbee property which presently exists and was
requested to be maintained by the Barbees.
SUBTOTAL: 8
2. Quality of Design (maximum fifteen [15] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
the site design and amenities of each project and shall rate each
development by assigning points according to the following
formula:
0 -- Indicates a totally deficient design.
1 -- Indicates a major design flaw.
2 -- Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design.
3 -- Indicates an excellent design.
a. Neighborhood Compatibility (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the compatibility of the proposed building
(in terms of size, height and location) with existing
neighboring developments.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS:72,545 sq. ft. countable floor area is proposed on the
72,545 sq. ft. site (FAR 1 :1). The various component buildings
at least reach (and may exceed) the 28' height limit (plus 5' to
top of roof), following the grade of the hill. The total height
from the new grade at the bottom of the project (Dean Drive) to
the buildings roof is 58', giving some indication of the visual
impact of this large complex. The concentration of the project
within the center of the proiect may tend to reduce the effect of
- 4 -
the project looming over smaller adiacent projects. While
Mountain View is similar in FAR to proiects north of the site, it
is more dense than development to the south, west and east. The
proposal, therefore, brings the highest lodge /multi - family
density south up the hill. In particular. it is far larger than
the single- family homes in the neighborhood, and the small lodges
to the east of the site. The project intrudes upon the buffer
transition area from the multi - family /lodge district to the
adjacent Shadow Mountain open space, which is a major design
flaw. The swim -up bar and breakfast area (restaurant) are uses
not commonly identified with residential projects and are not
found to be accessory uses. Instead. they must be commercial
uses which would be subiect to commercial GMP. More importantly,
these uses will draw other visitors to the site and will cause
conflicts and incompatibilities with the supposed residential
nature of this project.
b. Site Design (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the quality and character of the proposed
landscaping and open space area, the extent of underground -
ing of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation and increased safety and privacy.
RATING: 1 1
COMMENTS:The site plan calls for abundant planting of trees
around the periphery of the project, as well as some landscape
islands next to buildings. Large terraces are another key
feature of the design, offering internal pedestrian circulation
and sitting spaces. The configuration of the service dock and
trash compactor appear to work efficiently. Open space has been
calculated by the applicant to be 36,000 sq. ft. (50% of the
site). Staff notes that much of the building area is on vacated
Juan Street, thus increasing the private property that can be
counted in open space. The Barbee tract between Block 11 and
Mine Dumps property precludes a drop -off for the ASC parking lot
and requires the design alternative (p.67) that places Garmisch
Circle north onto the site, removing green space. The amount of
impervious surface for at -grade parking and circulation detracts
from the green character of the site. A major site design flaw
is the location of ASC parking off the Mountain View site and in
conflict with the existing Mine Dumps Apts. footprints. No .
representation of ownership or redevelopment plan is shown for
this area for GMP evaluation although it is recognized that the
applicant has the right to rebuild these units without competi-
tion, subiect principally to subdivision procedures. Consequent-
ly, potential problems regarding the building site, visual
impacts, landscaping and parking cannot be addressed while the
applicant expects us to evaluate the positive feature of his
surface relocation of the ASC parking.
- 5 -
c. Energy (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the use of insulation, passive solar
orientation, solar energy devices, efficient fireplaces and
heating and cooling devices to maximize conservation of
energy and use of solar energy sources.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:Roaring Fork Energy Center noted that 1) the insulation
commitment is commendable, 2) solar energy features will not be
effective due to Shadow Mountain 3) glazing is adequate and the
(4) heating system description is vague. Attempts by RFEC to
contact the energy consultant for clarifications were unsucces-
sful, thereby making it impossible for them to conclude that the
energy program is excellent.
d. Trails (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of pedestrian and bicycle
ways and the provisions of links to existing parks and trail
systems, whenever feasible.
RATING: 2 -, OP) cl Akifi
+ c�� t°M i'Jt
COMMENTS:The applicant commits to provide a 12' bike trail, ski °c °"fled .1)
trail easement and sidewalks along Dean Drive and Aspen Street. t`ck.
Craig Ward stated that while the ski trail is not the optimum
arrangement (along Garmisch Circle), it would be a valuable
community benefit. Staff notes that the ski trail appears to
conflict with the tree planting scheme. Neither the ski nor bike
trail would be built by the applicant; only easements given.
Dean Drive sidewalks would be constructed, following the Woonerf
concept. It is not clear whether the Aspen Street sidewalk can be
built on the ROW, as proposed. The Lodge District consultant
stated sidewalks must be on the Mountain View property because of
angle parking along Aspen Street. Given the lack of commitment
to construct trails and siting conflicts of 2 alignments, staff
believes this is not an excellent project feature.
e. Green Space (maximum three [3] points).
Consideration of the provision of vegetated, open space on
the project site itself which is usable by the residents of
the project and offers relief from the density of the
building and surrounding developments.
RATING: 1
COMMENTS:Green space between the project and Lift 1 and Timber
Ridge to the north and the Barbee property to the west provide
- 6 -
some relief to the neighbors. However, in both directions,
street pavement is the major separation. The entrance plaza has
several landscape islands for visual relief. The site plan is
much improved over last year's GMP submittal, but still creates
an excessively urbanized environment. None of the existing trees
and shrubs would be retained in their place, but those that can
be moved would be relocated. Even if Block 11 is upzoned to L -2,
staff believes there is too much development on the site and not
an adequate green buffer to the north and west. which is a major
design flaw, given the fact that the southern portions of this
tract are in proximity to Aspen and Shadow Mountains.
SUBTOTAL: 7
3. Proximity to Support Services (maximum [6] points).
The Commission shall consider each application with respect to
its proximity to public transportation and community commercial
locations and shall rate each development by assigning points
according to the following formula:
a. Public Transportation (maximum three [3] points).
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from an existing city or county bus route.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of an existing city or county bus route.
RATING: 3
COMMENTS:Buses run along Durant Street within two blocks of the
proiect.
b. Community Commercial Facilities (maximum three [3] points).
The Planning Office shall make available a map depicting the
commercial facilities in town to permit the evaluation of
the distance of the project from these areas.
1 -- Project is located further than six blocks walking
distance from the commercial facilities in town.
2 -- Project is located within six blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
3 -- Project is located within two blocks walking distance
of the commercial facilities in town.
- 7 -
5
For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent
to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance.
RATING: 2
COMMENTS:The project is approximately three blocks from commer-
cial facilities.
SUBTOTAL: 5
4. Employee Housing (maximum twenty [20] points).
The commission shall assign points to each applicant who agrees
to provide low, moderate and middle income housing which complies
with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of
the City of Aspen and with the provisions of Section 24 -11.10 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
Points shall be assigned according to the following schedule:
One (1) point for each five (5) percent of the total
development that is restricted to low income price guide-
lines and low income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the total
development that is restricted to moderate income price
guidelines and moderate income occupancy limitations;
One (1) point for each twenty (20) percent of the total
development that is restricted to middle income price
guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations.
To determine what percent of the total development is restricted
to low, moderate and middle income housing, the commission shall
compare the number of persons to be housed by the project as a
whole with the number of persons to be provided with low,
moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria
which shall be applied to both the restricted and non - restricted
units:
Studio: 1.25 residents
One - bedroom: 1.75 residents
Two - bedroom: 2.25 residents
Three - bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents;
Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of unit
space.
a. Low Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each five [5]
percent housed).
RATING: 12
- 8 -
COMMENTS:The applicant commits to provide the Housing Authority
$3,060,000 as cash -in -lieu for the equivalent of 60 percent of
the number of persons housed by the total development. The
calculation is based on providing all low income dormitory
housing for 153 employees (at $20,000 /person)
b. Moderate Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each ten
[10] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One [1] point for each
twenty [20] percent housed).
RATING:
COMMENTS:
SUBTOTAL:
5. Bonus Points (maximum seven [7] points). RATING:
SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3.6 8
2. QUJALITY OF DESIGN 4.5 7
3. PROXIMITY TO SUPPORT SERVICES 1.8 5
4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7 12
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD
BONUS POINTS
- 9 -
r)
TOTAL POINTS: 32
Name of P &Z Commission Member: Planning Office
- 10 -
CITY OF ASPEN
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
POINTS ALLOCATION - TALLY SHEET
Project: Mountain View
P&Z VOTING MEMBERS Welton Jasmine Roger Ramona David Mari Al Jim Average
1. Public Facilities
and Services (12 pts)
a. Water Service 2 2 2 2 2 2
b. Sewer Service 2 2 2 2 2 2
c. Storm Drainage 2 2 2 2 1.5 2
d. Fire Protection 2 2 2 2 2 2
e. Parking Design 1.5 0 .5 2 .5 0
f. Roads 1 0 0 2 0 0
SUBTOTAL 10.5 8 8.5 12 8 8 9.16
2. Quality of Design (15 pts)
a. Neighborhood 1 1 1 2 .5 1
Compatibility
b. Site Design 1.5 1 1.5 2 1 1
c. Energy 2.5 2 2 2 1.5 2
d. Trails 2 3 2 1 1.5 2
e. Green Space 2 1 1 2 1 1
SUBTOTAL 9 8 7.5 9 5.5 7 7.67
3. Proximity to Support
Services (6 pts)
a. Public 3 3 3 3 3 3
Transportation
b. Community Comml 2 2 2 2 2 2
Facilities
SUBTOTAL 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4. Employee Housing (20 pts)
a. Low Income 12 12 12 12 12 12
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Income
SUBTOTAL 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
5. Conversion of Existing Units
to Employee Housing (5 pts)
a. Low Income
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Income
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL CATEGORIES 1 -5 36.5 33 33 38 30.5 32 33.83
6. Bonus Points (5.3 Pts) 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL POINTS 1 -6 36.5 33 33 38 30.5 32 33.83
CITY OF ASPEN
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION
POINTS ALLOCATION - TALLY SHEET
Project: Mountain View
P&Z VOTING MEMBERS Welton Jasmine Roger Ramona David Mari Al Jim Average
1. Public Facilities
and Services (12 pts)
a. Water Service 2 2 2 2 2 2
b. Sewer Service 2 2 2 2 2 2
c. Storm Drainage 2 2 2 2 1.5 2
d. Fire Protection 2 2 2 2 2 2
e. Parking Design 1.5 0 .5 2 .5 0
f. Roads 1 0 0 2 0 0
SUBTOTAL 10.5 8 8.5 12 8 8 9.16
2. Quality of Design (15 pts)
a. Neighborhood 1 1 1 2 .5 1
Compatibility
b. Site Design 1.5 1 1.5 2 1 1
c. Energy 2.5 2 2 2 1.5 2
d. Trails 2 3 2 1 1.5 2
e. Green Space 2 1 1 2 1 1
SUBTOTAL 9 8 7.5 9 5.5 7 7.67
3. Proximity to Support
Services (6 pts)
a. Public 3 3 3 3 3 3
Transportation
b. Community Comml 2 2 2 2 2 2
Facilities
SUBTOTAL 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4. Employee Housing (20 pts)
a. Low Income 12 12 12 12 12 12
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Income
SUBTOTAL 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
5. Conversion of Existing Units
to Employee Housing (5 pts)
a. Low Income
b. Moderate Income
c. Middle Income
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL CATEGORIES 1 -5 36.5 33 33 38 30.5 32 33.83
6. Bonus Points (5.3 Pts) 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL POINTS 1 -6 36.5 33 33 38 30.5 32 33.83
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: MOUNTAIN VIEW CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Monday, August 10, 1987, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M.
before the Aspen City Council in the 1st floor City Council
Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado. The purpose of
this hearing will be to consider an application submitted by BBC
Investments, requesting subdivision to construct 58 multi - family
free market units of approximately 1,000 square feet each,
designed for short and /or long -term rentals. The site consists
of 72,545 square feet, and is bordered by Aspen Street on the
east, Shadow Mountain Condominiums on the south, Garmisch Street
to the west and Lift 1 and Timber Ridge Condominiums on the
north.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-
2020.
s /William L. Stirling
Mayor, Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on July 23, 1987.
City of Aspen Account.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: MOUNTAIN VIEW CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Monday, July 13, 1987, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before
the Aspen City Council in the 1st floor City Council Chambers,
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado. The purpose of this
hearing will be to consider an application submitted by HBC
Investments, requesting subdivision to construct 58 multi - family
free market units of approximately 1,000 square feet each,
designed for short and /or long -term rentals. The site consists
of 72,545 square feet, and is bordered by Aspen Street on the
east, Shadow Mountain Condominiums on the south, Garmisch Street
to the west and Lift 1 and Timber Ridge Condominiums on the
north.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-
2020.
s /William L. Stirling
Mayor, Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on June 25, 1987.
City of Aspen Account.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: MOUNTAIN VIEW SUBDIVISION REZONING AND STREET VACATIONS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, June 16, 1987, before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an applica-
tion submitted by Doug Allen on behalf of his client, HBC
Investments, requesting subdivision, rezoning and street vaca-
tions to construct 58 multi - family free market units of approxi-
mately 1,000 square feet each, designed for short and /or long-
term rentals plus rezoning to the Eames Addition, Block 11, Lots
3 through 12, from R -15 to L -2. The site consists of 72,545
square feet, and is located by Aspen Street on the east, Shadow
Mountain Condominiums on the south, Garmisch Street to the west,
and Dean Street on the north.
This public hearing was re- scheduled from a previous meeting
held on March 17, 1987 at which time the subdivision rezoning and
street vacation requests were tabled. The residential GMP
scoring portion of Mountain View was previously considered by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-
2020, ext. 223.
C.Welton Anderson
Chairman, Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May 28, 1987.
City of Aspen Account.
4 ,.-•. m,
MOUNTAIN VIEW GMP REZONING APPLICATION
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF PARCEL TO BE
CONSIDERED FOR REZONING:
1. LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 11, EAMES ADDITION, PLUS UNPLATTED
AREA:
John W. Barbee
Hallie B. Rugheimer
Mary K. Barbee
P.O. Box 788
Aspen, CO 81612
2. TIMBERIDGE CONDOMINIUMS: 21 UNITS
Unit 1A: Rupert and Elizabeth Nitschke
6701 N. Rhode Island Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73111
Unit 1B: Thomas J. and Maryann Larkin
c/o Mendelson
608 6th Court
Palm Beach Garden, FL 33410
Unit 1C: Greg Long and Robin Riggs
P.O. Box 5228
Snowmass Village, CO 81615
Unit 1D: Joseph Cabell
1765 Ala Moana Blvd.
Honolulu, HI 96815
Unit 1E: S & L Travel Partners, Inc.
c/o Travel Agents
300 South Spring St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Unit 1F: Alberto A. Hodari
690 Mullett
Detroit, MI 48226
Unit 1G: Dr. Gerald H. Zukerman
4720 Tejon Street
Denver, CO 80211
Unit 2A: Mr. Reginald D. Barnes
Ms. Kathryn R. Barnes
2020 East 38th Street
Tulsa, OK 74105
1
P •
Unit 2B: Stapleton, Pryor & Holmes, P.C.
1675 Broadway, Suite 2600
Denver, CO 80202
Unit 2C: Harold H. Bruff
c/o University of Texas School of
727 E. 26th St.
Austin, TX 78705
Unit 2D: Dr. Don L. and Marie B. Vickery
3844 Carlisle Ave.
Pueblo, CO 81001
Unit 2E: George R. Heimann
P.O. Box 1312
Aspen, CO 81612
Unit 2F: Paul David Ellis
P.O. Box 3633
Aspen, CO 81612
Unit 2G: Robert J. Silberstein, Trustee
935 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10021
Unit 3A: Dr. Ina Berzins
Juris Berzins
6030 East First Ave.
Denver, CO 80220
Unit 3B: James W. and Carol G. Ststress
401 B Deer Trail Hill
Barrington, IL 60010
Unit 3C: Jeanne Burton
19 Westbridge Dr.
Babylon, NY 11702
Unit 3D: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Czajkowski
90 La Salle Street, Apt. No. 16G
New York, NY 10027
Unit 3E: Heinz and Eliane Wolf
1221 Myrtle Street
San Diego, CA 92103
Unit 3F: Charles Thomas Griffin
601 E. Sleeker
Aspen, CO 81611
2
Unit 3G: Douglas M. Cain and Constance Moffit
Cain, Trustees
1960 Hudson Street
Denver, CO 80220
3. LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUMS: 31 UNITS
David A. and Sandra L. Mulkey
213 Campbell Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89107
Mr. Robert T. Warstler
17421 Riverhill Dr.
Dallas, TAX 75252
Mr. Richard L. Friedman
600 Atlantic Ave., Suite 600
Boston, MA 02210
Harlan Dopkin
P.O. Box 4696
Aspen, CO 81612
Mr. George W. Calkins
5100 E. Quincy Ave.
Englewood, CO 80110
Mr. Fred G. Smith
131 E. Durant
Aspen, CO 81611
Bruce Reed Coleman
Adrea Lynn Coleman
3027 Davenport St., NW
Washington, D. C. 20008
Mr. Stanley G. Anton
70 Lincoln Drive
Sausalito, CA 94965
Mr. Tom McConnell
4063 Greensboro
Troy, MI 48090
G. W. Coble
c/o Coble System
214 Hermitage Ave.
Nashville, TN 37302
3
Mr. Dean Vander Wall
531 E. Post
Lone Pine, CA 93545
Henn James Jacobson
Milton Zale
2536 North Halsted St.
Chicago, IL 60614
Sr. Roberto Alvarado Rios
c/o Cofre De Perote 325 -302
Lomas De Chapultepec
Codigo Postal 11000
Mexico DF, Mexico 10010
Mr. Donald Wilson
679 Kistatom Lane
Manderville, LA 70448
Mr. Joel Wugalter
245 East 54th St.
New York, NY 10022
General Benjamin B. Cassiday, Jr.
5621 Kalanianole Highway
Honolulu, HI 96821
Mr. Robert W. O'Connor
P.O. Box 1357
South Bend, IN 46621
Mrs. V. J. Knowlton
2552 E. Alameda #31
Denver, CO 80209
Mr. Roane Lacy, Jr.
P. 0. Box 887
Waco, TX 76703
John M. Eberle
3816 Charles Drive
Northbrook, IL 60062
Lehrue Stevens, Jr.
Betty Ann Scheib Stevens
Rt. 6, Box 192
Lake Charles, LA 70601
4
• M.
Edwin C. Glickman
900 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 713
Chicago, IL 60611
Mr. L. Duncan Smith
Ms. Connie Moak
419 E. 57th Street, No. 30
New York, NY 10022
Dr. Shu -Yuan Chu
1357 Century Ave.
Riverside, CA 92506
Mr. John Stephens
Trustee of Stephens Trust
6744 Hillpark Ave., Apt. 208
Los Angeles, CA 90068
Roaring Fork Properties
604 Brier St.
Kenilworth, IL 60043
Mr. David C. Knowlton
1655 Grant Street
Denver, CO 80203
Dr. Stanley Cristol
2918 Third Street
Boulder, CO 80302
Mrs. Lynn Reed
6434 Rio Grande NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107
Mr. Allen LeChard
1002 Buckingham Road
Grosse Pt. Park, IL 48224
Mr. Edward L. Brown
Mr. Raymond D. Stuhl
P. O. Box 604
Lisle, IL 60532
4. SOUTHPOINT CONDOMINIUMS: 29 UNITS
Unit 1A: Mr. Frank Hardison
1211 Emerald Bay
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
5
Unit 18: Stuart A. Potter
William S. Reed
c/o Potter -Reed Group
Suite 100, 140 E. 19th Ave.
Denver, CO 80221
Unit 1C: Peggy Linton
692 Eastbrooke Lane
Rochester, NY 14618
Unit 1D: Paul and Susan Penn
9505 Copley Dr.
Indianapolis, IN 46260
Unit 1E: Mr. Charles Baker
Ms. Barbara Pritchard
333 E. 75th
New York, NY 10551
Unit 1F: David Courtney Evans
P.O. Box 952
Aspen, CO 81612
Unit 1G: Reverend Frank Konst
8635 Midnight Pass Rd.
Bay Tree Condominiums, Apt. 104
Siesta Key, Sarasota, FL 33581
Unit 1H: Terry A. Mitchell
Jay C. Schuppert
205 E. Durant Ave., No 1H
Aspen, CO 81611
Unit 1I: Dr. and Mrs. Philip Hershberger
2737 Club Terrace
Ft. Wayne, IN 46804
Unit 1J: Ms. Norva Bray
205 E. Durant Ave., No. 1J
Aspen, CO 81611
Unit 2A: Ltc. and Mrs. C. M. Scroeder, Jr.
3629 Rockbridge Rd.
Columbia, SC 29206
Unit 2B: Elsa and Martha Fischer
525 West Hallam
Aspen, CO 81611
6
Unit 2C: Ms. Nancy Kullgren
205 E. Durant Ave., No. 2C
Aspen, CO 81611
Unit 2D: Mr. and Mrs. Oliver S. Travers
106 W. Pennsylvania Ave.
Suite 304
Towson, MD 21204
Unit 2E: Mr. and Mrs. Hugh Hatcher
191 Race Street
Denver, CO 80206
Unit 2F: Southpoint Condominium Association
205 E. Durant Ave., No. 2F
Aspen, CO 81611
Unit 2G: Mr. and Mrs. Carl Levy
17 Norfold Road
London, NW8 6HG
U.K. 19046
Unit 2H: Mrs. Maude M. Twining
Harold Arthur and Fredna Stromberg
205 E. Durant Ave., No. 2H
Aspen, CO 81611
Unit 21: Mrs. Helen Zoller
Norte 45, #633
Mexico 15, D.F. Mexico
Unit 2J: Mr. and Mrs. Wilbert T. Woodson, Jr.
P.O. Box 9708
Aspen, CO 81612
Unit 3A: Richard and Ann Garrett
405 Allens Creek Road
Rochester, NY 14618
Unit 3B: Paul Wolk
The Dell
Hume, VA 22636
Unit 3C: Richard Boundy
906 W. Sugnet Road
Midland, MI 48640
Unit 3D: Ms. Sally Glenn
504 W. Hallam Street
Aspen, CO 81611
7
Unit 3E: Mr. Charles M. Schayer III
Ms. Karen Jane Horton
588 S. Pontiac Way
Denver, CO 80224
Unit 3F: Mrs. William B. Dunn
Southpoint /Sumner Corp.
4828 Fort Sumner Dr.
Bethesda, MD 20816
Unit 3G: Mr. and Mrs. Roger Dixon
Cotton Exchange Building
Dallas, TX 75201
Unit 3H: Mr. and Mrs. Roger Dixon
Cotton Exchange Building
Dallas, TX 75201
Unit 31: Mr. and Mrs. Karl Hefley
607 Ocean Dr., Apt. 11 -K
Key Biscayne, FL 33149
Unit 3J: Mr. and Mrs. Harold Van Tongeren
Two Thousand Cheesman East
2000 E. 12th Avenue
Denver, CO 80206
5. BLOCK 7, EAMES ADDITION AND LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, BLOCK 8,
EAMES ADDITION:
The City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
6. LOTS 6 -10 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 1, CONNORS ADDITION:
LOTS 4 -11 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 8, EAMES ADDITION:
John and Frank Dolinsek
P.O. Box 275
Aspen, CO 81612
7. LOTS 4 -11 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 9, EAMES ADDITION:
LOTS 12 -14 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 8, EAMES ADDITION:
Howard B. Awrey
P.O. Box 248
Aspen, CO 81612
8
8. LOTS 1 -3, AND 12 -14, BLOCK 9, EAMES ADDITION:
Jocobus and Johana DePagter
P.O. Box 182
Aspen, CO 91612
9. LOTS 1 -7 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK12; LOTS 1 -14 INCLUSIVE,
BLOCK 10; LOTS 7 -12 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK11, EAMES ADDITION:
Aspen Skiing Company
P.O. Box 1248
Aspen, CO 81612
10. LOTS 21 -27, BLOCK11, EAMES ADDITIONS,
SHADOW MOUNTAIN VILLAGE:
Shadow Mountain Condominium Association
c/o Coates, Reid & Waldron
720 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Unit 2: Hang Ten Adventures
A Joint Venture
P. O. Box 1088
Grand Junction, CO 81502
Unit 3: Marian and Lois Korrell
9 North 23rd Avenue
Melrose Park, IL 60160
Unit 4: Kabert Industries, Inca
321 West Street, Charles Road
Villa Park, IL 60181
Unit 5: Patrick A. Podsaid
7575 SW 49 Ave.
Miami, FL 33143
Unit 6: Dr. George Burns
Dr. Christine Burns
3 Gerard Terrace
Lexington, MA 02173
Unit 7: Burlington of Colorado
A Partnership
31805 Middlebelt
Farmington Hills, MI 48018
9
Unit 8: Mr. Tomas Kann
730 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10021
w
Unit 9: L & R Company
Harold C. Lyman, President
20430 Lakeview Avenue
Excelsior, MN 55331
Unit 10: Donald C. and Nancy T. Gilbert
c/o Gilbertl, Farbie, Inc.
437 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10022
Unit 11: Dr. R. Riggs and Yvonne Klika
32414 Burlwood Drive
Solon, OH 44139
Unit 12: Phoenix Leasing, Inc.
a California corporation
495 Miller Ave.
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Unit 13: Mr. Brian Anderson
213 Raynor St.
Iselin, NJ 08830
Unit 14: Geoffrey Williams, Trustee
Dr. R. C. & Margaret Tucker
1437 North Courthouse Road
Arlington, VA 22201
Unit 15: SM -15, a Limited Partnership
45000 South Woodland
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Unit 16: Mark and Grace Mendel
1620 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Unit 17: Daniel Ventres, Jr.
Gray, Plant, Mooty & Bennett, P.A.
3400 City Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Unit 18: Dr. Alberto Hodari
690 Mullett
Detroit, MI 48226
10
,p.., -..
Unit 19: Paul and Betty Ryan
G. Richard and Nancy M. Cope
216 South Garfield Ave.
Janesville, WI 53545
Unit 20: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Konstam
1212 Millsboro Road
Mansfield, OH 44906
Unit 21: Alexander L. Biel
381 Lovell Avenue
Mill Valley, CA 94941
11. LOTS 4 AND 5, CONNORS ADDITION
TELEMARK CONDOMINIUMS:
Unit 1: Max and Jayne Frances Freeman
P.O. Box 1180
Green Valley, AZ 85622
Unit 2: Preston and Claudia Hill
3910 S. Hillcrest Drive
Denver, CO 80237
Unit 3: Effie M. Ecklund Lerner, Trustee
Continental Bank
30 North La Salle St.
Chicago, IL 60697
Unit 4: Christopher Carvell
Stephen Berlin
c/o CCSB Architects
303 E. 17th St., Suite 1055
Denver, CO 80203
Unit 5: Margery Kleiner
P.O. Box 4191
Aspen, CO 81612
Unit 6: John P. Kleiner
55 2nd Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
12. LOT 11, BLOCK1, CONNORS ADDITION:
Rolles, Olson, Rolles Partnership
P.O. Box 10147
Aspen, CO 81612
11
r'^ .,
13. LOT 13 AND PART OF LOTS 12 AND 14, BLOCK 1, CONNORS
ADDITION:
M. Hearst Corp.
c/o Douglas P. Allen
Attorney at Law
530 E. Main St., 1st Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
14. LOTS 3 -6, BLOCK 11, EAMES ADDITION:
Austin Trust
c/o P. C. Klingsmith, Esq.
Klingsmith & Associates, P.C.
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
110 East Virginia Ave.
P.O. Box 59
Gunnison, CO 81230
15. LOTS 1 -3, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK , CONNORS ADDITION:
AZTEC CONDOMNINIUMS:
Unit 1: Fred G. Smith
P.O. Box 1388
Aspen, CO 81612
Unit 2 Raymond E. and Emily M. Lochhead
& 4: 1018 Russell Bl.
St. Louis, MO 63104
Unit 3: Donald L. and Sandra S. Feinstein
1415 Windrush Circle
Blacklick, OH 43004
Unit 5: Patrick A. Smith
P.O. Box 688
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48013
Unit 6: Gentry Real Estate Corporation
310 Ellis Blvd.
Jefferson City, MO 65101
12
CERTIFICATE OF NAILING
I, hereby certity that on this ;Oh day of r y i"/__X -
198(G , a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public
Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first -class
postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on
the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied
to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case
named on the public notice.
j 61,
Nancy Ca
t
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: MOUNTAIN VIEW REZONING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, January 20, 1987, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M.
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in City Council
Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an
application submitted by Doug Allen on behalf of his client, HBC
Investments, requesting rezoning to the Eames Addition, Block 11,
Lots 3 through 12 from R -15 to L -2. This rezoning is associated
with the applicant's request for a GMP allotment for 58 residen-
tial units, to be considered on January 27.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-
2020, ext. 223.
s /C. Welton Anderson
Chairperson, Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on December 24, 1986
City of Aspen Account.
Rountainviev Notes 1
jo r
I. Project Description - Aspen St. X93 up to entrance, 411% up
hill to Mine Dumps, Garmisch St.
II. We recognize that this is a good site for some development,
and that the applicant has made good commitments in many
areas. Our problems are with the density, the size of the
buildings and impacts ffh ts.+rJIMdin „.51 000. ".
IIi. In area of public facilities & services the applicant would
make water system and sewer system improvements (2 pts ea.)
storm draining improvements include on site dry wells, new
curb & gutter, & a drainage easement (2 pts)
Fire - 2 pts.
Parking
staff believes that
ip, “s
o 124 spaces underground, 24 above ground, & 10 spaces as
part of the lobby drop -off is far too auto- intensive-
Is an auto -use incentive
Required: 58 (l /bdrm.)
24 spaces provided for neighborhood, theoretical-
ly, although
o 66 additional spaces j,, wrti�• ^1{w�FrRjc
o south of Durant St. - contrary to TDP - you remember
early on in the TDP process, it was decided that
bringing high volume of traffic south of Durant was
considered inappropriate.
5Oa guts
o A.S.C. in particular will be hard to get to and creates
a circylation problem
o too much paving for both parking above grade and
circulation - visual impacts, which is a review
criteria. We believe these are major design flaws and
create a public burden for the neighborhood.
Rst,nh+wi 0 ,,%
Roads
o level of density creates particular problems ,6/h-
ihrOtnidris
o S. Aspen grades to get up to project
o bad winter situation on S. Aspen - pedestrian /vehicular
traffic conflicts
-I
t.
o Aspen /Durant intersection is already commonly identifi-
ed as a problem. This would exacerbate
o both Aspen & Garmisch are residential streets & this
project would impact - qualitative issue
# of vehicles - in 1985 eng. said - 112 unit project
would generate less than 600 one -way trips
� v h)+ , k < approx. 3SQ one -way trips
o As the roads would be privately owned & maintained, the
Barbee property would not have public access
o City will have additional burden sanding & plowing S.
Aspen and - if dedicated Garmisch & Dean
o Problem of the location and associated public burden to
allow for this density of development to occur on this
D t'� 1'
site. „G
\ R f'lp,M ft+d't� ZYYL f
Neighborhood
<bl rtr n eb + 1 ' i
o 72,454 s.f. - 58 units
Lift 1 has 30,000 s.f. - 31 units
Timberidge 18,000 s.f. - 21 units
6r4(0
without 1114a4Orrruolvor bar in these residential Q9+µ
A s44iohrtLsjse,� 1•41Wr^ 0
o it is over twice the size of Lift 1 and much larger
than adjacent Holland House, Skiers Chalet
o big building - 58" from bottom
o brings density south up the hill, which
o it intrudes into the buffer transition area between the
high density multi - family lodge district & adjacent
Shadow Mt. open space
Ms J c n� n 1) �i, ' 1 ,. Ft.
Site Design
o positive features - abundant trees on periphery, siting
in middle of property
o open space, although this is somewhat misleading
because much is on vacated Juan St.
o a great deal of impervious surface for parking,
circulation, & terrace
o location of ASC parking off -site is another major site
design flaw because the Mine Dumps is not part of this
plan. Other aspects of Mine Dumps redevelopment not
4
presented for evaluation of impacts, so we should just art
D a positive evaluation for providing parking
Energy
o not a solar site, despite this,commit to provide some
good programs and RFEC recognized a high level of
commitment in these areas.
o 'f'i L wpi d LC a
o may be further clarification of plan by applicant
Trails
o 12' bike trail, ski trail easement, Dean Dr. & Aspen
St. sidewalks
o note apparent conflicts in the alignment of both ski
trail thru the trees and along Aspen St. - in the
r. o. w.
o applicant may clarify the commitment to construct all
trails, as well as give easement
sb.27.1
i er,!,04/ b 4k.. Lc4 lnyn, nt,,t
a I � a� w 1 \ ��, IF, , .ti fivkL3 tved 11 - 1„i
4wm1_,A C r, 0 0 (;,,J01 r yr 4
-y
C
(3, iJrovA ,nh °P,p� a�t�,��14 �s9 )
they might appear to be.more of a single family
smaller "caretaker" "caretaker" unit, and not a duplex.
700 R. Hyman
1) Project appears straight forward.
2) Stairways in setbacks must be less than 30 inches in
height or they become an encroachment.
1010 Ute Ave.
1) What will the size of the 16 free market unit parcels be?
Will the applicant divide the requested 68,900 sq. ft. equally or
will some units get more allowable F.A.R. than others? Once
again, will 14 or 15 units be built leaving no floor area
available for the last unit? I would like to see a definite
F.A.R. size per parcel.
2) Are the free market units restricted to the number of
bedrooms permitted? How are we going to figure the Park
Dedication fee? This is not included in the cash in lieu of
employee housing.
3) Will there be building envelopes? Are the set backs and
height clear? What and when will these variances be requested?
--> Mountain View
1) If the land available as developmental is as stated
72,500 square feet and the projected F.A.R. is 72,500 square
feet. That's cutting calculations awfully close and again the
applicant should be made aware that their representatives should
be verifiable at future G.M.P. stages.
2) From the information submitted to me, the buildings
appear to be over the maximum 28 ft. height limit. It's hard to
see that a 4 story building can be kept under 28 ft height.
3) The parking garage specification for space size, turning
radius, etc., should be verified by the Engineering Department.
WD:lo
4gmp.bd
cc: Alan Richman
Peggy Seeger
Jim Wilson