HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mt Ritz-Carlton.58A-89CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED•
DATE COMPLETE: 1q -a-5
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
58A -89
STAFF MEMBER:
PROJECT NAME: Ritz Carlton Insubstantial PUD Amendment #2
Project Address:
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: Hadid -Aspen Holdings
Applicant Address: 600 E. Cooper; Suite 200 Aspen
REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells
Representative Address /Phone: 130 Midland Park Place F2
Aspen, Colorado 81611 5 -8080
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $100.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 1
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP:
P &Z Meeting Date
CC Meeting Date
2 STEP:
PUBLIC
HEARING:
YES
NO
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES
NO
PUBLIC
HEARING:
YES
NO
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES
NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: _� Date:
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
Mtn. Bell
School District
City Engineer
Parks Dept.
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir.
Holy Cross
State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water
Fire Marshall
State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric
Building Inspector
Envir. Hlth.
Roaring Fork
Other
Aspen Consol.
Energy Center
S.D.
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: 0/
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: a0 INITIAL:
City Atty ✓ City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
0 0
Case Disposition
On July 13, 1989, the Seconded Amended Plat set of the Aspen
Mountain PUD was filed. This set, including principally minor
architectural and landscaping changes for the Ritz - Carlton Hotel,
was filed at Book 22 page 85, through Book 23, page 10.
TO: Tom Hawkinson, Building Department
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office ,
RE: Ritz - Carlton Hotel Permit Application
DATE: June 13, 1989
Attached to this memo is the Planning and Zoning signoff on the
permit application submitted for the Ritz - Carlton Hotel. I find
that the drawings I have reviewed correspond to the approved
plans for the hotel's exterior. I have certain concerns
regarding several interior elements, as outlined below.
Therefore, I am only able to provide you with a Planning and
Zoning approval regarding the shell and superstructure, not the
full building permit. I hereby request that prior to issuance of
the building permit, you provide me an opportunity to review the
project's floor plans and elevations to make a final check of
their conformance with approvals.
The areas which the applicant needs to address at this time are
as follows:
1. The parking plan shown on sheets A101 through A103 does not
correspond in configuration or number of spaces to the
approved plan. This must be rectified.
2. The entrance to the apres ski lounge does not correspond to
the approved plans and must be modified.
3. There are two entries shown to the Ritz - Carlton suites on
sheets A107 and A108. These suites must be accessed by only
a single hall entry. The extra entries must be removed from
the plans.
4. The configuration shown for the roof on sheet A109 does not
correspond with that on sheet A2R1 through A2R7. The
correct roof plan must be shown and must match in these two
areas of the plans.
I would also appreciate it if in your department's continuing
review of the plans, you watch out for other cross - references on
sheets which do not appear to match and bring these to my
attention.
Please let me know if there is anything else you require.
cc: Perry Harvey, Hadid Aspen Holdings
Shaun Yancey, PCL Construction
9 . 0
15IDi5Ci);i:1►i6Ii
TO: File
FROM: Alan Richman, City Planning Specialist
RE: Ritz - Carlton Insubstantial PUD Amendment
DATE: June 13, 1989
ISSUE: The applicant requests several minor amendments to the
design of the Ritz - Carlton Hotel, in response to technical and
engineering considerations found subsequent to final approval.
ANALYSIS: By letters from me to Joe Wells dated March 30 and
April 17, 1989, several minor modifications to the Ritz - Carlton
Hotel PUD development order were approved. These items are
described more specifically on page 1 of the current letter of
application from Joe Wells, dated June 8, 1989.
Within the March 30 letter, several other items requested for
amendment were denied. The applicant has revised the current
request to eliminate most of the denied items and is seeking
approval for a much more limited set of changes to the Hotel.
Specifically, the following changes are requested:
1. The windows in the stair towers have a slightly revised
look, due to the more stringent shear requirements of a
recent soils report for the project.
2. A section of the concrete balustrade at the north end of the
courtyard is solid, unlike the remainder of the balustrade,
because it is functioning as an upturned beam in response to
structural requirements.
3. In the courtyard, one module of windows has been reduced in
size where bathrooms are located.
4. The landscape plan has been revised to respond to structural
limitations and Building Department requirements. Specific
changes are listed on Pages 4 and 5 of the June 8 letter.
5. There has been a change in the room layout on the fourth and
fifth levels of the hotel. Six rooms have been added to
level five, with the same number being removed from level
four. The total number of rooms is unchanged.
6. The number of parking spaces on each of the three levels and
their configuration has been changed. The total number of
parking spaces has increased from 228 to 234.
Based upon the standards of Section 7 -907 A of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations, I find the subject changes to be insubstantial and
hereby approve of same, for the following reasons. The proposed
design changes do not affect the use or character of the
development. Unlike the previous requests, they are within the
approved heights and design style of the original PUD approval.
They are required by technical or engineering concerns which
could not be anticipated during the review process.
The proposed landscaping changes have a net positive effect on
the development. While the number of trees in the courtyard has
been somewhat reduced, this is more than compensated by the very
significant increase in trees in the garden area. Further, the
proposed mix of trees is in keeping with the original approval
and goes further toward creating a "natural Colorado
environment ", which was found desirable during the review
process.
The shift in the number of rooms and parking spaces on certain
levels has an insubstantial effect on the project, since the
total number of rooms remains unchanged, while the parking
spaces, required by the agreement to be a minimum of 220 spaces
subgrade, has been increased.
ACTION: I hereby approve the requested amendments, subject to
the following condition:
1. The applicant shall submit revised mylars for the
architectural and landscape changes which have been approved
by action of the Planning Office on March 30, April 17 and
June 12, 1989. The mylars shall be submitted to the
Planning Office for review within 15 days of the date of
this approval, for recordation within 30 days of the date of
this approval. The applicant shall consult with the staff
as to any minor modifications which shall be made to the
drawings prior to submission of actual mylars.
ritzinsub
DOMMus & weLLS
an association of land planners
June 8, 1989
Mr. Alan Richman
Aspen Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Insubstantial Amendments to the Ritz - Carlton PUD Development
Order
Dear Alan:
My letter is to provide you with an update regarding our previous
request for approval of insubstantial amendments for the Ritz -
Carlton, Aspen and to request your further consideration of a
very limited number of issues based on this additional
information.
The relevant correspondence on this matter includes our original
request of February 28, later replaced by our March 27, 1989
letter and your March 30, 1989 letter approving some of the
requested amendments and rejecting others.
Based on your March 30 letter, we have been proceeding with
development of construction documents and replacement plat
drawings which incorporate the following approval items as listed
in my March-.27 letter:
1.
Change in typical dormer heights
4.
Enlarged leader boxes
5.
Modifications to organization of
Monarch Street
facade
9,
Addition of circular dormer vents
10.
Change in portions of the concrete
balustrade
along Dean Street and at the Blue
Spruce building..
13.
Lowering of apres -ski lounge roof
and chimney
addition
15.
Elimination of the elevator tower
at the Blue
Spruce building
In addition, as a result of my clarification regarding the
loading dock, you agreed in your April 17 letter that the loading
dock could proceed as shown in the attachment of my letter, which
illustrated the six foot extension to the north.
608 east hyman avenue ❑ aspen, colorado 81611 ❑ telephone. 303 925 -6866
0
Mr. Alan Richman
June 8, 1989
Page Two
With regard to the remaining items listed in the March 27
request, we believe the more controversial of these have been
resolved in a manner which will be entirely to your satisfaction.
In order to avoid any confusion, however, some clarification on
some of these issues is in order. The following discussion refers
to the items as numbered in your March 27 letter.
2. Agreement has been reached with the Building
Department regarding the minimum glass area
which will be required under Section 1208 of
the Building Code. As Perry discussed with
you on June 1, the attached drawings which
reflect this requirement illustrate, we
believe, that the windows are much less
prominent than as shown on the March 27
submission. The relationship of window to
brick per room module is now about 28.5% as
compared to approximately 26% on the recorded
drawings.
3. All of the dormers discussed have been
eliminated to maintain the appearance of the
facade as shown on the recorded drawings.
7. The bridge over Dean Street has been revised
to very closely approximate that shown on the
recorded plat. (See sheet A -17)
8. The height of the two remaining elevator
penthouses at the northwest corner of the
main building and in the south wing have been
reduced to that shown on the October 3
- recorded set. This has been accomplished by
resorting to a highly unusual, and
consequently very expensive, relocation of
the machine rooms to the mezzanine level of
the building.
The width of the elevator tower at the
northwest corner of the main building remains
as shown on the March 27 submittal - 31 feet
(unchanged) along Dean and 30 feet (not shown
previously) along Monarch. The width of the
south wing tower along Mill Street has been
reduced to that shown on the plat.
0
Mr. Alan Richman
June 8, 1989
Page Three
8a. A solution has been worked out with the
Building Department that has allowed the
architects to reduce the height of the three
stair towers and adjacent sections fo the
facade to that shown on the October 3 plat.
There was no mention in your letter of the window
changes in the stair towers which were shown
previously. These changes have been necessitated by
more cautious recommendations included in a new soils
report. The structural engineer has required the
changes in the window layout, (including relocation to
the north of the large entry level window at the ski
shop) to meet the more stringent shear requirements as
a result of the revised soils report.
11. The two sections of facade have been reduced
to the height shown on the recorded plat.
12. The detail for the arched double bay dormer
has been revised to that shown on the
recorded plat.
14. The dormer added to the east facade on the
Blue Spruce Building to accommodate the stair
has been removed.
Please note the following additional changes which have not been
discussed in our prior letters:
A section of the concrete balustrade at the north end
of the courtyard (See Sheet A 16) is now solid because
it is functioning as an upturned beam in response to
structural requirements.
In the courtyard area, one module of windows have
been reduced in size where bathrooms are located (See
sheet A -14, elevation 2.) We believe this creates some
added variety and because they are located in the lower
courtyard area are not highly visible to the public, in
any case.
0
Mr. Alan Richman
June 8, 1989
Page Four
LANDSCAPING CHANGES
•
We are submitting for your review revised landscape drawings L 1
through L 4 (as well as a revised Final PUD Plan, sheet 6)in
order to clear up any confusion that may have been created by
submission of a single drawing previously. Our previous comments
can be modified as follows:
16. In the courtyard, a number of changes have
been made to respond to structural
limitations and the code design standards
which have been established for that area by
the Building Department. These include a
reduction in the number of trees in the lower
terrace area, a redesign of the grand
staircase from the lower to the upper
terrace, and a design change in the pool
area.
17. The southwest garden area has been expanded
and the quantity of trees increased to blend
with the surrounding landscape. The stairway
into this area from Monarch Street has been
modified to respond to detailed topographic
information and structural limitations.
18. At the pedestrian entry and porte cochere at
the north side of the main building, the
number of trees has been retained as shown on
the plat. Large planting beds have been added
to reduce the quantity of paving and to
soften the impression of the building.
19. In the area of the Apres Ski Lounge, changes
in the layout of the stair and the gardens
have been made for the ease of access into
the building.
20. The original paving pattern has been
reintroduced in those areas where previously
deleted-to the north and east of the Main
Building and at tle Blue Spruce Building.
® •
Mr. Alan Richman
June 8, 1989
Page Five
21. Although plant materials are being reduced in
some areas of the plan, the number of street
trees on Mill, Monarch and Dean remains the
same and the total count ofplant materials
throughout the site has increased. The
following is a comparison of plant materials
quantities:
AS SHOWN ON PLAT REVISED DRAWINGS DIFFERENCE
Colorado Spruce 0 19 +19
Norway Maples 43 67 +24
Crabapple/ 70 10 -60
Chokecherry
Aspen 22 72 +50
135 168 +33
22. As a result of the changes necissitated in
the courtyard, there is a minor reduction in
open space from 42,000 square feet to 41,461
square feet. This is still in excess of the
minimum to be provided of 40,000 square feet
as represented on sheet 3 of the recorded
plat (Item No. 15.)
5 WE
cc: Brian Venable, Aubry Architects
Mark Hirshberger, Design Workshop
®®MMUS &W LLS
an association of land planners
June 9, 1989
Mr. -Alan Richman
Planning Director
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Alan:
My letter is to provide clarification regarding several issues
that you have discovered in your review of our resubmission of
insubstantial ariiendments for the Ritz - Carlton, as follows:
1. The plans submitted to you show 6 rooms (keys) more than
that shown.on the recorded drawings. The reason for the
discrepancy is that the Ritz - Carlton suite at the south end
of the Main Building and the Club Lounge, both of which are
shown on the fifth floor plan on the recorded drawings, have
now been relocated to the fourth floor.
A new fourth floor plan reflecting this change was not ,
submitted to you for review, but is now being forwarded by
the architects.. Details are provided on the attachment.
Once the corrected drawings are received, the room count
will once again agree with that approved for the property.
2. Although the compact spaces are not labeled on the revised
drawings and some additional spaces are currently shown on
the plan, the count in the upper right of sheets Al, A2, and
A3 accurately reflect the minimum parking supply to be
provided:
Standard Compact Total
Al (Ballroom Level) 88 3 91
A2 (Mezzanine Level) 88 3 91
A3 (Entry Level) 45 1 46
221 7 228
(Please note that the compact car total for the level and
for the project are flipped on the Sheet A3 tabulation.)
3. In discussing what to do about the elevation targets as
shown on the recorded set, it was clear among the team that
608 east hyman avenue ❑ aspen, colorado 81611 ❑ telephone: 303 925 -6866
Alan Richman
June 9, 1989
Page Two
some of these elevations don't have any relationship to the
particular drawing in question. Nonetheless, a decision was made
to repeat them on the revised drawings to avoid causing any
confusion. You asked for some clarity on this issue.
The architects have confirmed that the elevation targets
shown for the top level slab throughout the project are
accurate and have not increased in height over that shown on
the recorded drawings. It has been the architects' intent
to maintain the scaled height above the top level throughout
the project.
It should be noted that the targets shown above the top
floors are not useful in determining accurate elevations at
this point, and are just carried over from the prior
drawings.
Let me know if you have additional questions.
nc�rely ,
Joseph Wells
608 east hyman avenue ❑ aspen, colorado 81611 o telephone: 303 925 -6866
JUH 09 '89 I'l: 45 CTHL WASH. D. C.
•
P. 2'/A
CO
29 0
A' ME it 'emw im mr 6 4 00 0 F m" 0 1 MOO 0 0 IZW 0 a sp m a 0 if *a & o; MR 19 0 W*
1
0
.1 17' I-T 7,41
46,
Fj
l4r
JI-IN 09 '189 11:45 CTHL WASH. D.C.
P. 3/4
63 6
14' .61 141
Goa q OM�7&0� a 0 im N ago I a atip &PC= 0 a ON AV me a dzu a 6 go a
a=* A awn it dup am
EXEC
SUITE
JUN 09 '69 11:46 C:THL LJHSH . D.C.
P.4 %4
i
(S22 i
S 20, 10'
'
A oad ALroAf� At df rfa dfa�avdd Adlid� a p ®a ffd��eoaumaAmlb,aa amp so aw eaAMPOOa #o mmoo S=pa Am
I
1 ! E !
_.�.,�..
b b
N
C
Is
Y
1
June 12, 1989
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning Director
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Alan:
DOMMUs & weLLS
an association of land planners
' JUN�2
C - _
I'm forwarding for your review the revised drawings for the third
level (A6), the fourth level (A6A) and the fifth level -(A7) of
the Ritz - Carlton which we received on Saturday. These drawings
illustrate the relocation of the Club Lounge and one of the Ritz -
Carlton suites from the fifth to the fourth floor.
You will note on the new fourth floor plan that the square
footage of the two one - bedroom suites at either end of the Dean
Street facade has been reduced to such an extent that they may
not meet Ritz's standards for one - bedroom suites. The loss of
headroom which occurred when the added dormers were removed has
required this change in plan. They are counted on the tabulation
on the drawings as rooms rather than one - bedroom suites, though
they will probably be referred to as parlor suites.
This change does not affect the total number of keys or bedrooms
in the hotel; the total number of rooms is increased from 264 to
266 and the number of one - bedroom suites is decreased from 26 to
24. I am providing you with the attached comparison of rooms and
suites as shown on the recorded plat and on the latest drawings.
As you can see, the total counts for the other levels in the
building remain the same as shown on the plat.
Sincer ly,
J e e s
608 east hyman avenue o aspen, colorado 81611 o telephone: 303 925 -6866
AS PLATTED
6/7/89 INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
ROOMS
1 -BR SUITE
1 -BR SUITE
Total
Rm.
1 BR
2 BR
Level Keys
Main
So.
Blue
Keys
Main
So. Blue
Keys
Main So. Blue
Keys
Int 12
-
-
12
12
-
- -
-0-
- - -
-0-
2 78
41
19
12
72
5
1 -
6
- - -
-0-
3 70
41
22
-
63
5
2 -
7
- - -
-0-
4 70
41
22
-
63
5
2 -
7
- - -
-0-
5 46
18
22
-
40
2
2 -
4
2 - -
2
6 1.6
-
14
-
14
-
2 -
2
- - -
-0-
-0-
292
141
99
24
264
17
9 0
26
2 0 0
2
6/7/89 INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
ROOMS
1 -BR SUITE
1 -BR SUITE
Total
Rm.
1 BR
2 BR
Level Keys
Main
So.
Blue
Keys
Main
So. Blue
Keys
Main So. Blue
Keys
Int 12
-
-
12
12
-
- -
-0-
- - -
-0-
2 78
41
19
12
72
5
1 -
6
- - -
-0-
3 70
41
22
-
63
5
2 -
7
- - -
-0-
4 64
37
22
-
59
2
2 -
4
1 - -
1
5 52
24
22
-
46
3
2 -
5
1 - -
1
6 16
-
14
-
14
-
2 -
2
- -
-0-
292
143
99
24
266
15
9 0
24
2 0 0
2
AGREEMENT REGARDING FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
FOR
ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the 19th day of January,
1990, by SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a District of Columbia
limited partnership ( "SAVANAH "), and THE CITY OF ASPEN, Pitkin
County, Colorado ( "CITY "), with reference to the following:
RECITALS
A. SAVANAH is the owner of Lots 1 through 5,
inclusive, of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned Unit
Development as shown and depicted on the (First Amended) Final
Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book ,_2( at Pages _35_1 et seq.,
and as defined and described in the First Amended and Restated
Planned Unit Development /Subdivision Agreement - Aspen Mountain
Subdivision recorded in Book 574 at Pages 792, et seq. ( "PUD
Agreement "), all reference being to the Pitkin County, Colorado
real property records.
B. Paragraph 3 of Section B of the PUD Agreement
obligates SAVANAH to give financial assurances to the. CITY in
respect of the site and landscaping improvements described in
Paragraphs B(1) and B(2) of the PUD Agreement.
C. Until the effective date of this Agreement,
$800,000.00 worth of financial assurances had been posted by
SAVANAH in the form of a letter of credit issued by the Nation-
al Bank of Washington for the benefit of CITY, the term of
which letter of credit (and extensions thereof) expires Janu-
ary 19, 1990, and SAVANAH and CITY wish hereby to make provi-
sion for the deposit by SAVANAH with the CITY of a sum of money
to serve as financial assurances under the PUD Agreement until
such time as the remaining site improvements are completed or
another substitute form of financial assurances is made as
provision therefor is given in the PUD Agreement.
D. As of the date of this Agreement, SAVANAH has
completed many of the items for which it was required to
provide financial assurances, and the City Engineer has
inspected and approved such items -and has authorized the
release from the financial assurances of the sum of $ 449,000 ,
leaving a balance of $ -�gn Qnn_, for which SAVANAH remains
obligated to provide financial assurance.
NOW, THEREFORE, SAVANAH herewith deposits with CITY
the sum of $390,000 (the "Assurance Fund "). With respect to
the Assurance Fund, the parties agree as follows:
1. CITY shall, as soon as in the circumstances is
practical, deposit the Assurance Fund in CITY's name in a
separate interest bearing ' (money fund) account with Central
Bank of Aspen. CITY shall undertake to do and shall do the
necessary in order that such account shall be insured to the
extent of FDIC limits and shall be backed by a pledge of that
Bank's assets pursuant to the Colorado Public Deposits Law.
2. SAVANAH shall, upon its written request, be
entitled to be paid quarterly by CITY all interest that accrues
on the Assurance Fund.
3. In the event of an uncured default in perfor-
mance by SAVANAH under the terms of either Paragraph B(l) or
B(2) of the PUD Agreement, or both of such paragraphs, CITY
shall-be entitled to withdraw from the Assurance Fund such
amounts as may be necessary to enable CITY, itself or through
third party contractors, to complete the obligations of perfor-
mance contained in either Paragraph B(1) or B(2) of the PUD
Agreement, or either of such paragraphs, in respect of which
SAVANAH has defaulted.
4. In the event that SAVANAH completes its obliga-
tions under both Paragraphs B(1) and B(2) of the PUD Agreement,
and such fact shall be made to appear to CITY by written advice
from the City Engineer, the Assurance Fund, together with any
accrued undisbursed interest, shall by CITY be immediately
disbursed to'SAVANAH. Furthermore, SAVANAH shall, from time to
time, have the right to request that the City Engineer inspect
the performance by SAVANAH of its site improvement and land-
scaping obligations under the PUD whereupon the City Engineer
shall so inspect and if in its reasonable determination the
City Engineer is satisfied that a portion of such obligations
have been met the City Engineer shall issue the written advice
to the CITY contemplated by the previous sentence so that
disbursement can be made to SAVANAH.
5. , At anytime that the City Engineer shall in
writing advise CITY that a portion of the obligations on
SAVANAH's part to be performed have been performed and that a
proportionate amount of the Assurance Fund should be disbursed
to SAVANAH, CITY shall disburse to SAVANAH such amount as the
City Engineer shall direct.
6. All notices sent under the terms of this Agree-
ment shall be in writing, hand delivered to CITY at 130 S.
Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado; to SAVANAH at 600 E. Cooper
Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, with a copy to Robert W. Hughes, Esq.,
Oates, Hughes & Knezevich, P.C., 533 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen,
Colorado; and to the Aspen City Manager, 130 S. Galena Street,
Aspen, Colorado 81611, with a copy to the Aspen City Attorney,
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611.
-2-
7. No amendment of this Agreement is binding unless
such amendment is in writing signed by all parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been made and
entered into and these Instructions have been given as of the
12th day of March , 1990.
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a
District of Columbia limited
partnership
By: 1001, INC., a District of
Columbia c rporation, general
partner
By
Mo amed . Hadid, President
THIS AGREEMENT IS ACCEPTED AND RECEIPT OF THE ASSURANCE FUND IS
HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED THIS 6 DAY OF UZek- ,,1990.
rwh34.15
THE CITY F ASP N
By
-3-
un I s
#325320 00/15/90 1.4.-o6 Rec $40'. CX) BK 627 PG 457
Silvia Davis, Pitl.::irn Cnty Gl.er-1 -::, Doc: $.00
SECTION M AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST AMENDED
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT /SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION
THIS AMENDMENT made and entered into this day of
1990, by and between the City of Aspen,
olorado, a municipal corporation and home rule city (hereinafter
"City ", "City of Aspen" or "Aspen "), and Savanah Limited
Partnership (hereinafter referred to as " Savanah" or "Owner ").
RECITALS
1. The City's Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations
prior to May 25, 1988 required that each PUD approval contain
scheduled completion dates. Section 24- 8.9(b) provided, with
respect to the preliminary PUD plan, that:
The plan shall include a development schedule indicat-
ing the date construction of the PUD, and or phases of
the same, will be begun and completed, including the
sequence of construction and the phasing of con-
struction of public improvements and recreational, park
and common space areas.;
Section 24 -8.12 required the final PUD plan to contain a con-
struction schedule. Section 24 -8.20 read (in part):
If an applicant does not begin or substantially
complete the planned unit development, or any stage of
the planned unit, 'in the sequence and within the time
approved by an approved construction schedule, the
planning director shall review the planned unit and may
recommend to the city council that the approval of the
planned unit be revoked, or that the planned unit
development be amended to accommodate a new sequence of
construction or time schedule. * **
2. The quota allocation system also mandated compliance
with a construction schedule as a condition to maintaining an
approved quota. (Section X24- 11.7(b)). The allocation system
required that GMQS applicants timely submit plans, obtain permits
#325320 08/15/9C) 14: Ca F, Rpc $40.C.)0 FcFc; 627 PS 45e
Si 1. v. a Davis, !' � t E-:::i. n C n* y Clerk-, Do c:$.00
within 120 days of submission of plans, and, according to Sec-
tion 24- 11.7(3):
Within one hundred twenty (120) days of the date of
obtaining a building permit, the applicant must initi-
ate construction of the project and continue towards
its completion by meeting the criteria of the Uniform
Building Code.
3. In addition to the above, an amendment to the UBC
adopted by the City of Aspen as Section 7- 141(d) of the Aspen
Code reads (in part):
Sec. 303(d) Expiration.
Every permit issued by the building official under
the provisions of this code shall expire by limitation
and become null and void if the building or work
authorized by such permit is not commenced within one
hundred twenty (120) days from the date of issuance of
such permit. Work equal to ten (10) per cent of the
valuation of the entire project must be completed in
each sixty -day period thereafter until completion of
the project or said project shall be deemed abandoned
and the permit expired. * **
4. The City of Aspen has a legitimate public interest in
timely construction of development projects:
(a) to minimize disruption in the areas surrounding
construction;
(b) to insure that owners are not given unlimited
immunity from regulatory changes; and
(c) to guaranty that owners timely provide those
agreed -to amenities which directly benefit the public.
5. The City of Aspen, by Resolution No. 39 (Series of
1989) found that Savanah Limited Partnership was in substantial
non - compliance with certain conditions of approval for the Aspen
Mountain PUD_Subdivision of record at Book 574, Page 792, records
of the Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder (hereinafter Aspen Mountain
O1 /SD2 -2-
#32532() 09/:1.5/90 14-('.)6 Rec $40.(.10 BI-: 627 PG 459
Silvia Davis, P_JtF;in Cnty Clerk:, Doc $.0(:)
PUD) pertaining to the development schedule contained in the
First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development/ Subdivision
Agreement (hereinafter "PUD Agreement "), all as specified
therein.
6. The City Council, by Resolution No. 55 (Series of 1989)
reaffirmed (with certain exceptions) the findings in Resolution
No. 39 (Series of 1989) that Savanah was in, substantial
non - compliance with the conditions of approval of the Aspen
Mountain PUD, all as specified therein.
7. Savanah has challenged the findings of substantial
non - compliance by initiating a Rule 106 action in Pitkin County
District Court under the name and style of Savanah Limited
Partnership v. City of Aspen, et al., 90 CV 35.
8. Subsequent thereto, Savanah has submitted (a) a
proposed form of deed restriction pertaining to Lot 6 of the
Aspen Mountain PUD, and (b) a revised development schedule for
the Aspen Mountain PUD, Lots 1 through 6. These documents have
been submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section M of the PUD
Agreement, which reads, in part:
In addition to the foregoing, the Owner or its succes-
sors or assigns may, on its own initiative, petition
the City Council for a variance, an amendment to this
Agreement, or an extension of one or more of the time
periods required for performance under the Construction
Schedules or otherwise. The City Council may grant
such variances, amendments to this Agreement, or
extensions of time as it may deem appropriate under the
circumstances. * **
9. The City Council is willing to accept the proposed
revisions with certain modifications and under the terms and
conditions hereinafter specified.
O1 /SD2 -3-
*1::253220 08/15/90 14.06 Rec $40.00 BK 627 PG 460
Ci.1,via Davis, Pi.tk:i.n Crity Cler1.::, Doc $,00
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and the
mutual covenants herein contained, it is agreed as follows:
1. The developer's schedule contained in Section A2 of the
PUD Agreement is hereby revised as follows:
Development Activity Deadline
Demolition Permit for Lot 6
Ice Rink and Park October 1, 1990
Certificate of Occupancy
Ice Rink and Park October 1, 1991
Certificate of Occupancy
Ritz - Carlton Hotel October 1, 1991
Demolition Permit for Lot 5
Grand Aspen Hotel October 1, 1994
Building Permit Issuance
Hotel Phase II October 1, 1996
Certificate of Occupancy
Hotel Phase II Lot 5
(20 months from 10/1/96) June 1, 1998
Building Permit Issuance
Top of Mill October 1, 1995
Certificate of Occupancy
Top of Mill
(20 months from 10/1/95) June 1, 1997
Certificate of Occupancy
Summit Place August 1, 1992
Building Permit Issuance
Ute City Place October 1, 1991
Certificate of Occupancy
Ute City Place
(2.0 months from 10/1/91) June 1, 1993
2. ' For purposes .of this Amendment, "Building Permit" or
"Building Permit Issuance" shall mean issuance of any and all
building permits necessary to complete the construction of the
project.
O1 /SD2 -4-
3. Savanah shall immediately execute and record the deed
restriction for Lot 6 attached hereto and incorporated by this
reference.
4. In no event shall Savanah receive a Certificate of
I`r Occupancy for Hotel Phase I prior to having obtained a
Ur
Certificate of Occupancy for the Ice Rink and Park or Lot 6;
provided, however, that a Certificate of Occupancy may issue for
01 Hotel. Phase I if Savanah has secured the construction of all
uncompleted improvements and landscaping for Lot 6 by escrowing
i
L, funds (cash) in Central Bank of Aspen (or other
U
mutually-agreeable financial institution) � equal to 1250 of the q
c
estimated cost of such improvements and landscaping (which
J estimated cost is approved by the City Engineer) , to be held by
1- IL the bank to guaranty construction of said improvements and
. + landscaping. The escrow arrangement shall be in a form
co a
acceptable to the City Attorney and shall give the City the
F'4 r
r) -4
y unconditional right, upon default by Savanah, to withdraw funds
N as necessary and upon demand to pay for any such improvements or
landscaping (or pay any outstanding bills for work done thereon
by any party) with any excess escrowed amount to be applied first
to 'any additional administrative or legal costs associated with
any such default and the repair of any deterioration in
improvements already constructed before the unused remainder (if
any) of such escrowed amount is released to Savanah. Nothing
herein shall be construed as a waiver of the requirement that the
Certificate of Occupancy for the Ice Rink and Park issue on or
before October 1, 1991.
5. Any and all development applications for Lots 3, 5 and
6 shall comply with the provisions of all land use and building
01 /SD2 -5-
#325320 08/1.5`/90 14:06 Ree $40.00 Bk-': 627 PG 462
Silvia Davis; F'itkiin Cnty C1er•1,:, Doc .00
regulations effective at the time of application except to the
extent that the provisions of the PUD Agreement pertaining
to the developments of Lots 3, 5 and 6 supersede then existing
regulations.
6. The provisions of paragraph 5 above notwithstanding,
each of the obligations, commitments and representations made in
the PUD Agreement by Savanah and the City of Aspen, including the
parameters of development activity contemplated in the PUD
Agreement for each component of the Project, shall survive this
amendment and the enactment of subsequent - legislation initiated
by the City in any manner inconsistent with such obligations,
commitments and representations.
7. The development schedule herein provided for is
separate and distinct from, and in addition to, the requirement
that Savanah provide periodic construction schedules and status
reports to the City Engineer and Chief Building Official
(Sections A2, pp. 7, 8; and H15, p. 47, of the PUD Agreement) and
participate in periodic reviews of the Project by the Planning
Office (Section I, pp. 48, 49, of the PUD Agreement). In no
event shall any action of (or failure to act by) the City
Engineer, Chief Building Official, or any planning official
constitute an extension, amendment or waiver of the development
schedule hereinabove provided for.
8. The revised development schedule herein contained may
be amended only by the Aspen City Council pursuant to Section M
of the PUD Agreement or as otherwise provided by law. Savanah
agrees to comply with the revised development schedule unless and
O1 /SD2 -6°
- #325320 08/ la /90.-- 1A.-06 Rec_ $40.00 81" 627 PG 463
Silvia D,�vis, F'it-.k:in Cr7ty Clerk; '.,,)cc $.00
until amended by the Aspen City Council. The City Council
reserves the right to initiate and investigate compliance with,
and enforce, the revised development schedule and the terms and
conditions herein stated, as the beneficiary of the PUD Agreement
and pursuant to its general power to enforce the provisions of
the City's land use and other regulations.
9. Savanah agrees that it will, upon execution of this
Amendment, dismiss, with prejudice, Civil Action 90 CV 35, and
waives any and all claims- against the City of Aspen by reason of
the City's enforcement actions contained in Resolutions 39 and 55
(both Series of 1989).
10. The City of Aspen agrees, upon recordation of the deed
restriction and dismissal of the litigation as provided for in
paragraphs 3 and 9, above, to forego any and all further
enforcement actions (including sanctions) for the actions of
non - compliance stated in Resolutions 39 and 55 (both Series of
1989) .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their
hands and seals the day and year first above written.
CITY: THE C TY OF SPEN, COLORADO
a mun ' al c rporation
By:
chael Gassma , Mayor Pro, Tem
ATTEST:
I
Kathryn Sy Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
O1 /SD2 - -7-
� #325320 08/15/90 14:06 Rec'
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty
STATE 0F COLORADO )
COUNTY OF PITKIN
day of
oc
and Kathryn S och
Witness my han(
$40.00 BK 627 PG 464
Clerk, Doc $ O0
instrument was ackn jed- before me this
as City Clerk of the City of Aspehlf",St�ate of
I and official seal.
My commission expires:
VA'
~ .
OWNER: SA\ANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a
District of Colombia limited
partnership -
By: l0OI Iu a District of
Corp
Columb* corporation
By:
STATE
)
) os.
TY
COUNTY OF,
The forego ng instrument was acknowledged -'bef ore me",--this
day of 1990
Witness hand and official eal
My commission expires:
) ^
0I/SDZ -8-
N$323996 06/28/90 13.. * ; "4 Re-c: $1.0e C)O BI-` 624 PG 51
Ci1 Vim Davis:-., F`i.tkin Cni_v C1Pr...4: :, Doc $.00
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
LOT 6, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION AND
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that:
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a District of Columbia limited
partnership ( "Savanah "), the owner of Lot 6 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned
Unit Development according to the First Amended Plat of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision
recorded in Plat Book 21 at Pages 35, et seq., of the Pitkin County, Colorado real property
records ( "Lot 6 "), hereby publishes and declares that in consideration of the approvals to it
granted in and by the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development /Subdivision
Agreement - Aspen Mountain Subdivision, recorded in Book 574 at Pages 792, et =., of the
Pitkin County, Colorado real property records (`1 UD Agreement"), and pursuant thereto, the
following shall run with Lot 6, shall be a burden thereupon, as well as upon Savanah, its
successors, grantees and assigns, and any other party acquiring any manner of record interest
in Lot 6, and shall inure to the benefit of and be specifically enforceable by the City of Aspen
( "City ") by any and all appropriate means, including mandatory injunctive relief, to wit:
Until otherwise specifically consented to by the City, the use of
Lot 6 shall be limited to a community activity center and public ice
skating rink meeting such dimensional and design constraints and
incorporating such accessory uses as may be approved by the City,
from time to time, during site specific review by the City of land
use approvals for Lot 6, all pursuant to and as is provided for in
the PUD Agreement.
Unless sooner released by the City by an instrument in writing placed of record in the Pitkin
County Colorado real property records, this covenant shall remain in full force and effect for
the period of the life of the longest living member of the presently. constituted Aspen City
Council and his or her now living heirs plus twenty -one years, or for a period of fifty years,
whichever period is greater.
IN WITN + S WHEREOF, this Covenant has been published and declared as
of the a0 —day of , 1990.
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a
District of Columbia limited partnership
By: 1001, Inc., District of Columbia
corporation, i General Partner
By:
Moha ed A. Hadid, President
(Notarial Clause on Page 2, following)
#323996 06/28/90 - '24
13. Rec $Io.00 Bj... 624 PS 52
Silvia Davis,, F'j.tl•::in
CI-ItY Clerk, Doc $. 0c)
STATE OFAULAI-ID
) ss.
COUNTY OF,4PT4-,6A6tj)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Qd-�'Lday of
'ONr IF— , 1990, by SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a District of Columbia
limited partnership, by 1001, Inc., a District of Columbia corporation, its General Partner, by
Mohamed A. Hadid, as President.
WITNESS my hand and official eal.
My commission expires: S/J.91)
P
Notary Public
OJOGS\c:bvenant. 6
U
Cn Vi
C ; _ BOOT; 601 pAGE.�8O
VE01
c9a
' A U[,a.
CtV COVENANT TO RELOCATE PARKING
lire,
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that:
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a District of Columbia
limited partnership ( "SAVANAH "), the owner of Lots 2 ( "Lot 2 ")
and 3 ( "Lot 3 ") of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision, according to
the First Amended Plat thereof recordedOOCZ" `j ,, 1988, in
Plat Book ;?/ at Pages 3 _� , et se q. , of the Pitkin County,
Colorado real property records, hereby publishes and declares
that, in consideration of the approval by the City of Aspen
( "City ") to the relocation of 6 parking spaces to the surface
of Lot 3 directly across Summit Street to the south of Lot 2
( "Temporary Parking "), which parking spaces are temporarily to
serve in lieu and in place of the underground parking configu-
ration previously approved by the City in conjunction with its
approval of the construction and development of a 3 —unit
condominium complex ( "Summit Place ") upon Lot 2, the following
shall run with and be a burden upon Lot 2 and Lot 3, as well as
upon SAVANAH, its successors, grantees and assigns, and any
other party acquiring any manner of record interest in Lot 2 or
Lot 3, and shall inure to the benefit of and be specifically
enforceable by the City by any and all appropriate means,
including mandatory injunctive relief, to wit:
At such time as any of'the following alterna-
tives shall first become available, SAVANAH
shall cause, at its expense, the Temporary
Parking to be fully removed and 6 parking
spaces, for the exclusive use and benefit of
the owners of Summit Place, shall either (a)
be incorporated and installed beneath Summit
Place if and at such time as SAVANAH is able
to negotiate, on terms acceptable to it, an
easement upon adjoining property for access
to any such underground parking; or (b.) be
incorporated and specifically earmarked for
the benefit of the owners of Summit Place
into any parking structure to be constructed
in conjunction with further development
activity upon Lot 3; or (c) upon SAVANAH's
inability to so provide for Summit Place
parking under either of the foregoing two
alternatives, installed at an alternative
location satisfactory to the City in its
reasonable discretion. At such time as the
Temporary Parking is removed, as above
provided, SAVANAH shall, at its expense,
replace the presently existing curb on Summit
C\j
CC
a
U
Ld
U
Cn Vi
C ; _ BOOT; 601 pAGE.�8O
VE01
c9a
' A U[,a.
CtV COVENANT TO RELOCATE PARKING
lire,
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that:
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a District of Columbia
limited partnership ( "SAVANAH "), the owner of Lots 2 ( "Lot 2 ")
and 3 ( "Lot 3 ") of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision, according to
the First Amended Plat thereof recordedOOCZ" `j ,, 1988, in
Plat Book ;?/ at Pages 3 _� , et se q. , of the Pitkin County,
Colorado real property records, hereby publishes and declares
that, in consideration of the approval by the City of Aspen
( "City ") to the relocation of 6 parking spaces to the surface
of Lot 3 directly across Summit Street to the south of Lot 2
( "Temporary Parking "), which parking spaces are temporarily to
serve in lieu and in place of the underground parking configu-
ration previously approved by the City in conjunction with its
approval of the construction and development of a 3 —unit
condominium complex ( "Summit Place ") upon Lot 2, the following
shall run with and be a burden upon Lot 2 and Lot 3, as well as
upon SAVANAH, its successors, grantees and assigns, and any
other party acquiring any manner of record interest in Lot 2 or
Lot 3, and shall inure to the benefit of and be specifically
enforceable by the City by any and all appropriate means,
including mandatory injunctive relief, to wit:
At such time as any of'the following alterna-
tives shall first become available, SAVANAH
shall cause, at its expense, the Temporary
Parking to be fully removed and 6 parking
spaces, for the exclusive use and benefit of
the owners of Summit Place, shall either (a)
be incorporated and installed beneath Summit
Place if and at such time as SAVANAH is able
to negotiate, on terms acceptable to it, an
easement upon adjoining property for access
to any such underground parking; or (b.) be
incorporated and specifically earmarked for
the benefit of the owners of Summit Place
into any parking structure to be constructed
in conjunction with further development
activity upon Lot 3; or (c) upon SAVANAH's
inability to so provide for Summit Place
parking under either of the foregoing two
alternatives, installed at an alternative
location satisfactory to the City in its
reasonable discretion. At such time as the
Temporary Parking is removed, as above
provided, SAVANAH shall, at its expense,
replace the presently existing curb on Summit
z = �
BOOK 601 PAGE201
Street, which curb is to be removed in order
to install and accommodate the Temporary
Parking.,
5.� IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Covenant has been given this
day of 1989.
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a
District of Columbia limited
partnership
By: 1001, I ., a District of
Columbia c poration, its
general �p trjer ,
By: 1 -- ---- ---- --
M a ed A. Ha id, Pres1 en
STATE OF Oe t.dr o-6 0 )
�� ss.
COUNTY OF
The forego ng instrument was acknowledged before me
this alst day of .cam , 1989, by Mohamed A. Hadid, as
President of 1001, INC., a District of Columbia corporation, as
.g,eneral partner for SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a District of
CCQlumbia limited partnership.
WITNESS my hand and
My commission expir
r.rwh32.30
-2-