HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20120918 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, September 18, 2012
4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. 1450 Crystal Lake Road — GMQS Review
B. S. Aspen Street Lodge — PUD Review
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number: 16
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission _
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
RE: 1450 Crystal Lake Road —GMQS Review
Resolution No._, Series of 2012
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2012
APPLICANT/OWNER:
Aspen Club and Spa, LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, LLC
LOCATION:
1450 Crystal Lake Road— Lot 15 of the
Callahan Subdivision
CURRENT ZONING:
RR/PUD (Rural Residential) zone district with a "
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay
SUMMARY:
The Applicant requests six (6) lodge pillow
allotments in order to add three (3) new
bedrooms to the timeshare approval previously
granted in 2012. The site plan does not change
and there are no external changes or new
building proposed. The proposed bedrooms are ;°
a result of internal reconfigurations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Growth Photo: Aspen Club building and location.
Management Request.
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION• The Applicant is
requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission:
• A Growth Management Review (Chapter 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing) for the
development of affordable housing. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final
review authority.)
Aspen Club Growth Management Review
Page 1 of 3
• A Growth Management Review (Chapter 26.470.080.3, Lodge development) for the
development of affordable housing. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final
review authority.)
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Aspen Club is located in the Rural Residential (RR) zone district with a PUD overlay and an
SPA overlay. The Club is part of the Callahan Subdivision and PUD, which was initially
approved in 1976. The original approval included sixteen (16) lots. Lot 14A was designated as
a parking facility for the use and benefit of the clubhouse and recreational facility that was
proposed on Lot 15 (the current location of the Aspen Club). The parking area on Lot 14A
includes thirty-five (35) spaces, and is accessed from Lot 15 via a bridge over the Roaring Fork
River and through Lot 14.
A number of PUD Amendments have been made to the Callahan Subdivision since the original
approval, the most recent of which was the PUD amendment approved in 2010 (Ordinance 2,
Series of 2010). This approval was for a redevelopment on the property of. 20 timeshare units,
12 2-bedroom affordable housing units, and a reconfigured recreation club (the Aspen Club). A
total of 132 parking spaces are approved for the development — 35 spaces across the river on lots
14A& 14W and 97 on the Club parcel(Lot 15-A).
After receiving all the final approvals, the Applicant began working on construction drawings
and perfecting the interior compilation of space. Based on some refinements, the Applicant was
able to reconfigure the space to create three new lodge bedrooms — one in a new unit, and
converting two approved 2-bedroom units into 3-bedroom units. This change requires 6
additional lodge pillow allotments (each bedroom requires 2 lodge pillow allotments). If
approved, the project will have a total of 21 timeshare lodge units. It is important to note that the
proposed new unit will not be developed at the same time as the original 20 units. It is intended
to be used as the timeshare sales office, as allowed in the original approval. When all the
timeshare units are sold, the applicant plans on converting that space into the new lodge unit.
STAFF COMMENTS:
LODGE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING RENEW:
This application amends the 2012 approval that included 20 timeshare units and 12 affordable
housing units. The applicant is requesting 6 lodge pillows from the 2012 Growth Management
year. The project is required to provide affordable housing mitigation for the increase in lodge
pillows proposed.
The original 20 units required mitigation for 18.6 FTEs. (Land Use Code section 26.470.100.A.1
states that there are .5 FTEs per lodging bedroom. Therefore, the employee generation was 31
FTEs (62 lodge bedrooms * .5 FTEs = 31 FTEs). At a mitigation level of 60%, the required
mitigation for the project was 18.6 FTEs (31 FTEs * 60% = 18.6 FTEs).)
The 12 affordable housing provided mitigation for 27 FTEs, or approximately 145% of the
required affordable housing mitigation. The applicant has requested to use that "credit" to
mitigate for this proposal. (27 FTEs mitigated — 18.6 FTEs required = 8.4 FTE "credit"). The
APCHA Board recommended the Applicant be able to use the credit for this proposal.
Aspen Club Growth Management Review
Page 2 of 3
This application results in a need to mitigate for 0.9 FTEs (3 new bedrooms * .5 FTE per
bedroom = 1.5 FTEs, 1.5 FTE * 60% = 0.9 FTE mitigation requirement), which is significantly
less than the "credit" from the PUD/SPA approval. With the additional lodge pillows, the
Applicant is mitigating approximately 138% of the FTEs generated, or 72% of the total
employees generated by the development.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The APCHA Board reviewed this application at their regular
meeting and recommends in favor of the request. Their comments are attached as Exhibit B.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the allotments.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # , Series 2012, approving Growth
Management Reviews for the Aspen Club project."
Attachments:
Exhibit A—Growth Management Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit B —APCHA Referral Comments
Exhibit C —Application (bound)
Aspen Club Growth Management Review
Page 3 of 3
RESOLUTION N0._,
(SERIES OF 2012)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING SIX (6) LODGE PILLOW ALLOTMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1450 CRYSTAL LAKE ROAD (THE ASPEN CLUB), LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS LOT 15 OF CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2737-181-32-019
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Aspen Club and Spa, LLC, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC requesting six
(6) lodge pillow allotments to add three lodge bedrooms to the Aspen Club Timeshare project;
and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received Conceptual Commercial Design Review from the
Planning and Zoning Commission on April 1, 2008 via Resolution 9, Series of 2008; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received final Specially Planned Area (SPA), final Planned
Unit Development (PUD), final Timeshare, Stream Margin, Affordable Housing Growth
Management Allotments, Multi-Year Growth Management Lodge Allotments, Rezoning, and
Subdivision, to develop a sub-grade garage, twenty (20) timeshare units and twelve (12)
affordable housing units, and to redesign existing commercial spaces, from the Aspen City
Council on June 1, 2010 via Ordinance 2, Series of 2010; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant received Final Commercial Design Review from the
Planning and Zoning Commission on September 6, 2011 via Resolution 17, Series of 2011; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission
for Lodging and Affordable Housing Growth Management Reviews; and,
WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the
Community Development Department recommended approval of the application; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on September 18, 2012, the Planning
and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. _, Series of 2012, by a to_ L— vote,
approving Lodging and Affordable Housing Growth Management Reviews; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the
development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein,
has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and
has taken and considered public comment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal
meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and,
Resolution No , Series 2012
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is
necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves six (6) lodge allotments through its lodge
development Growth Management Review, and approves the Aspen Club to utilize the
previously approved affordable housing units as mitigation through its affordable housing
Growth Management Review.
The project is approved to consist of 21 timeshare lodge units, 14 located in "townhome units"
and 7 located in the Aspen Club building ("club units"). This approval converts two 2-bedroom
"club units" to 3-bedroom units, and allows the applicant to build a seventh "club studio unit."
The seventh unit is approved to be utilized as sales space for the timeshare units, as permitted in
Ordinance 10, Series of 2012, but may be converted to a timeshare lodge unit in the future.
Section 2•
All conditions outlined in City Council Ordinance 10, Series of 2011 and Planning & Zoning
Commission Resolution 17, Series of 2011 remain valid and in effect.
Section 3•
The affordable housing commitment made by the applicant represents a voluntary negotiated
agreement between the applicant, the City and APCHA which has been proposed by the applicant
as a public benefit in connection with the Aspen Club development approved by Ordinance No. 2
(Series 2010), and as amended. Owner and APCHA stipulate and agree that, in accordance with
CRS 38-12-301(1)(a) and (b), the deed restriction that shall be recorded prior to Certificate of
Occupancy constitutes a voluntary agreement and the deed restriction limits the rent on the
property and is subject hereto and is to otherwise provide affordable housing stock. Owner waives
any right it may have to claim that the deed restriction will violate CRS 38-12-301.
Section 4•
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 5•
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Resolution No_, Series 2012
Page 2 of 3
Section 6•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this day of
September, 2012.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
Deb Quinn, Special Counsel LJ Erspamer, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Resolution No_, Series 2012
Page 3 of 3
Exhibit A—GMQS Staff Findings
26.470.050. General requirements.
B. General requirements: All development applications for growth management review shall
comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with
conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following
generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of
development:
1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed
development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Applications for multi year
development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to
meet this standard
Staff Findings: No other Growth Management Application has come forward in 2012, so all
lodge allotments are available. Staff finds this criterion is met.
2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well
as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan.
Staff Findings: There are not applicable adopted Master Plans, and the development
conforms with the neighborhood and the vested approvals for the site. Staff finds this criterion
is met.
3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district.
Staff Findings: The proposal is an internal change and does not change any of the approved
dimensions in the PUD/SPA. Staff finds this criterion is met.
4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation
Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the
Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable.
Staff Findings: This is an internal change only, and is consistent with the Conceptual and
Final Commercial Design approvals. Staff finds this criterion is met.
5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees
generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection
26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved
pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4,Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined
in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant
may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant
chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to
Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90
Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate.
Exhibit A—Staff Findings
Page 1 of 5
Staff Findings: This application amends a previously approved PUD/SPA that included 20
timeshare units and 12 affordable housing units. The original 20 units required mitigation for
18.6 FTEs. (Land Use Code section 26.470.100.A.1 states that there are .5 FTEs per lodging
bedroom. Therefore, the employee generation was 31 FTEs (62 lodge bedrooms * .5 FTEs =
31 FTEs). At a mitigation level of 60%, the required mitigation for the project was 18.6 FTEs
(31 FTEs * 60% = 18.6 FTEs).)
The 12 affordable housing mitigated for 27 FTEs, or approximately 145% of the required
affordable housing mitigation. The applicant has requested to use that "credit" to mitigate for
this proposal. (27 FTEs mitigated — 18.6 FTEs required = 8.4 FTE "credit"). The APCHA
Board recommended the Applicant be able to use the credit for this proposal.
This application results in a need to mitigate for 0.9 FTEs (3 new bedrooms * .5 FTE per
bedroom = 1.5 FTEs, 1.5 FTE * 60% = 0.9 FTE mitigation requirement), which is significantly
less than the "credit" from the PUD/SPA approval. With the additional lodge pillows, the
Applicant is mitigating approximately 138% of the FTEs generated, or 72% of the total
employees generated by the development. Staff finds this criterion is met.
6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above
natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to
at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area,for
which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is
higher.
Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable
housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide
mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being
provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of
affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate
of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation,pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate
shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative
Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100
Employee/Square Footage Conversion.
Staff Findings: No free-market residential component is proposed as part of this application.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such
additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project.
Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment,
energy and communication utilities, drainage control,fire and police protection, solid
waste disposal,parking and road and transit services.
Exhibit A—Staff Findings
Page 2 of 5
Staff Findings: The addition of one lodge unit and six total pillows represents a minimal
additional demand on public infrastructure. The Applicant remains bound by the PUD/SPA
approval, which states there cannot be an increase in trips to and from the Aspen Club. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
26.470.070. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance
with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with
conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria:
a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall
be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may
choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors.
Staff Findings: The proposed units comply with all APCHA standards, and are required to
comply with all previous approvals. Staff finds this criterion is met.
b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual
newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City
limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council,
pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1)
full unit, a cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu
payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A
Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation
requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director,
pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable
housing may be provided through a mix of these methods.
Staff Findings: The Applicant is constructing 12 affordable housing units, housing 27 FTEs.
This more than mitigates for the 19.5 employees required to be mitigated for in the project
(18.6 FTEs previously approved + 0.9 FTEs in this application = 19.5 FTEs). Staff finds this
criterion is met.
c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent
(50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade,
whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special
Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430.
Staff Findings: All of the previously approved affordable housing units are located such that
50% or more of the net livable space is above grade. Staff finds this criterion is met.
Exhibit A—Staff Findings
Page 3 of 5
d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as '!for sale" units and transferred to
qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the
aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the
Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority, as amended.
The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned
by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to
the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages
affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated
with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge.
Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject
to this mandatory ':for sale"provision.
Staff Findings: The affordable housing units have previously been approved as rental units.
The Applicant is required to comply with all previous approvals for the units. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
e. Non-Mitigation Affordable Housing. Affordable housing units that are not required
for mitigation, but meet the requirements of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). The owner of
such non-mitigation affordable housing is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit pursuant to Chapter 26.540.
Staff Findings: No non-mitigation units are not proposed in this application. Staff finds this
criterion is not applicable.
26.470.080. Major Planning and Zoning Commission applications.
3. Lodge development. The expansion of an existing lodge or the development of a new lodge
shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission
based on the following criteria:
b. If the project contains less than one (1) lodge unit per five hundred (500) square feet of
lot area, the following affordable housing mitigation standards shall apply:
1) Affordable housing net livable area equaling thirty percent (30%) of the additional
free-market residential net livable area shall be mitigated through the provision of
affordable housing.
Staff Findings: No free-market residential component is proposed as part of this application.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
2) Sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional lodge, timeshare
lodge, exempt timeshare units and associated commercial development, according to
Exhibit A—Staff Findings
Page 4 of 5
Paragraph 26.470.050.A.1, Employee generation, shall be mitigated through the
provision of affordable housing.
Staff Findings: This application amends a previously approved PUD/SPA that included 20
timeshare units and 12 affordable housing units. The original 20 units required mitigation for
18.6 FTEs. (Land Use Code section 26.470.100.A.1 states that there are .5 FTEs per lodging
bedroom. Therefore, the employee generation was 31 FTEs (62 lodge bedrooms * .5 FTEs =
31 FTEs). At a mitigation level of 60%, the required mitigation for the project was 18.6 FTEs
(31 FTEs * 60% = 18.6 FTEs).)
The 12 affordable housing mitigated for 27 FTEs, or approximately 145% of the required
affordable housing mitigation. The applicant has requested to use that "credit" to mitigate for
this proposal. (27 FTEs mitigated — 18.6 FTEs required = 8.4 FTE "credit"). The APCHA
Board recommended the Applicant be able to use the credit for this proposal.
This application results in a need to mitigate for 0.9 FTEs (3 new bedrooms * .5 FTE per
bedroom = 1.5 FTEs, 1.5 FTE * 60% = 0.9 FTE mitigation requirement), which is significantly
less than the "credit" from the PUD/SPA approval. With the additional lodge pillows, the
Applicant is mitigating approximately 138% of the FTEs generated, or 72% of the total
employees generated by the development. Staff finds this criterion is met.
Exhibit A—Staff Findings
Page 5 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Department
FROM: Cindy Christensen, APCHA Operations Manager
DATE: September 5, 2012
RE: ASPEN CLUB AMENDMENT
Parcel ID No.
ISSUE: The Aspen Club is proposing to the City of Aspen to expand the approved project by
adding three lodge bedrooms (six lodging pillows). The issue is affordable housing mitigation to be
required in connection with this request.
BACKGROUND: The City Council approved the development under Ordinance No. 2 (Series of
2010). The applicant was required to provide 12 on-site affordable housing units — 3 units 850
square feet at Category 2, 5 units 950 square feet at Category 3, and 4 units 950 square feet at
Category 4. The units will be rental units and owned and managed by the Aspen Club and Spa.
MITIGATION:
Based on the previous requirements of Section 26.470.100.A.1, the mitigation requirement was
calculated as follows:
Free Market Units Free Market Bedrooms
10 3-bedroom townhouse units = 30 bedrooms
4 4-bedroom townhouse units = 16 bedrooms
4 3-bedroom club units = 12 bedrooms
2 2-bedroom club units = 4 bedrooms
62 Total Bedrooms X 0.5 Employees/Bedroom = 31 Employees
31 Employees X 60% = 18.6 Employees
The additional 3 lodge bedrooms create 6 lodge pillows. At the code requirement of 60%, this
calculates to an additional .9 employees (3 new bedrooms X 0.5 employees/bedroom = 1.5
employees X 60% = 0.9 employees); therefore, the total required mitigation per the Land Use Code
at 60% is 19.5 (18.6 + 0.9). The 12 on-site units provide mitigation for 27 FTE's, which exceeds
the minimum requirement by 7.5 employees, or approximately 38%.
Aspen Club Amendment Page 1
RECOMMENDATION: The APCHA Board reviewed the application at their regular meeting
held September 5, 2012 and recommended that the applicant be allowed to utilize the additional
credits to mitigate for the 6 lodging pillows. Staff recommends approval of the credits with the
following conditions (as stipulated in Ordinance No. 2 (Series 2010)):
1. The affordable housing commitment made by the applicant represents a voluntary
negotiated agreement between the applicant, the City and APCHA which has been proposed
by the applicant as a public benefit in connection with the Aspen Club development
approved by Ordinance No. 2 (Series 2010), and as amended. Owner and APCHA stipulate
and agree that, in accordance with CRS 38-12-301(1)(a) and (b), the deed restriction that
shall be recorded prior to Certificate of Occupancy constitutes a voluntary agreement and
the deed restriction limits the rent on the property and is subject hereto and is to otherwise
provide affordable housing stock. Owner waives any right it may have to claim that the
deed restriction will violate CRS 38-12-301.
2. The applicant shall require all potential tenants to receive approval by APCHA prior to
occupancy. If the applicant does not receive approval of any tenant prior to occupancy, the
applicant shall be required to pay any penalties and/or fines required by the Land Use Code
and/or as stated in the AspenlPitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines.
3. The 12 on-site, two-bedroom affordable housing units shall be deed restricted to Category 2,
3 and 4 with the final category mix approved by APCHA in connection with the final
approval. The CO for the units shall be issued prior to or at the same time as the proposed
fractional ownership units.
4. The units shall be owned and managed by the Aspen Club and Spa. More detailed
information regarding the management and maintenance of the units shall be provided to
APCHA with the proposed deed restriction prior to CO.
5. The owner shall have the right to rent the units to qualified employees of the Club. If the
owner cannot provide a qualified tenant, the units shall be rented through APCHA's normal
advertising process. At no time shall the tenancy of the units during a lease period be tied to
continued employment by the owner. Tenant leases, however, may be terminated for cause
or at the end of the lease period upon termination of employment.
6. Each tenant in the rental units shall be required to be requalified by APCHA on a yearly
basis.
7. The deed restriction shall allow the units to become ownership units at such time as the
owner (the Aspen Club and Spa) elects to condominiumize and sell the units, or at such
time as APCHA determines one or more units are found to be out of compliance for one
year. If any of the units are found to be out of compliance for one year, or the owner elects
to sell the units, the units shall be listed for sale with APCHA at the categories specified in
Aspen Club Amendment Page 2
the deed restriction. The sales price shall be as stated in the APCHA Guidelines in effect at
the time of recordation of the deed restriction plus appreciation calculated at three percent
(3%) per annum or the Consumer Price Index (simple appreciation not compounded),
whichever is less, as of the listing date of the units. If the units are being sold due to
noncompliance, all of the units shall be sold through the lottery system. If the owner elects
to sell the units,the owner may choose 1/3`d of the initial buyers provided they qualify under
APCHA's top priority for the unit.
8. If the owner elects to sell the units, or they are required to be sold due to noncompliance,
owner shall condominiumize the units and form a condominium association for the
management and maintenance thereof. The affordable housing association shall be separate
from the fractional ownership unit's association.
9. In the event the rental units are required to become ownership units due to noncompliance,
APCHA or the City may elect to purchase them for rental to qualified tenants in accordance
with APCHA Guidelines.
10. The rental deed restriction will be recorded with the following conditions:
a. The use and occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Units shall henceforth be limited exclusively to
housing for employees and their families who are employed in Pitkin County and who meet the
definition of"qualified employee" as that term is defined by the qualification guidelines established
and indexed by the Authority on an annual basis,and as stipulated in#3 above. The Owner shall have
the right to lease the Employee Dwelling Unit to a"qualified employee"of his own selection.
b. The Employee Dwelling Units shall not be occupied by the Owner or members of the immediate
family("Immediate Family" shall mean a person related by blood or marriage who is a first cousin [or
closer relative] and his or her children),unless the family member is a qualified employee and obtains
approval by APCHA prior to occupancy. The unit shall at no time be used as a guesthouse or guest
facility.
C. Written verification of employment of employee(s) proposed to reside in the Employee Dwelling
Units shall be completed and filed with the Authority by the Owner of the Employee Dwelling Unit
prior to occupancy thereof, and such verification must be acceptable to the Authority. If found to be
occupied prior to approval, the applicant shall be required to pay any penalties and/or fines required
by the Land Use Code and/or as stated in the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Guidelines and as they
are amended from time to time.
d. The Employee Dwelling Units shall be required to be rented for periods of no less than six (6)
consecutive months. Upon vacancy of the Employee Dwelling Units, the Owner is granted forty-five
(45) days in which to locate a qualified employee. If an employee is not placed by the Owner, the
Authority may rent the Employee Dwelling Units to a qualified employee.
e. The maximum rental rate shall not exceed the Category as stipulated in the deed restriction and as
stated in#1 above, and the rental rates shall be as set forth in the Rental Guidelines established by the
Authority and may be adjusted annually as set forth by the Guidelines. The maximum permitted rent
for the unit on the date of execution of this deed restriction as stated in the Guidelines at the time the
deed-restriction is recorded. Rent shall be verified and approved by the Authority upon submission
Aspen Club Amendment Page 3
and approval of the lease. Employees shall be qualified by the Authority as to employment,maximum
income and asset limitations on a yearly basis. The signed lease must be provided to APCHA.
f. The Unit must meet minimum occupancy; i.e.,one person per bedroom.
g. Owner agrees to provide to APCHA upon request all information reasonably necessary to determine
if there is full compliance with this Agreement.
h. In the event that APCHA has reasonable cause to believe the Owner and/or tenant is violating the
provisions of this Agreement,the APCHA, by its authorized representative, may inspect the Property
or Affordable Housing Unit between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
after providing the Owner with no less than 24 hours'written notice.
i. The APCHA, in the event a violation of this Agreement is discovered, shall send a notice of violation
to the Owner and/or tenant, as may be applicable, detailing the nature of the violation and allowing
the Owner or tenant fifteen (15) days to cure. Said notice shall state that the Owner or tenant may
request a quasi-judicial hearing before the APCHA Board pursuant to the Grievance Procedures of
the APCHA Guidelines within fifteen (15) days to determine the merits of the allegations. If no
hearing is requested and the violation is not cured within the fifteen (15) day period, the Owner or
tenant shall be considered in violation of this Agreement. If a hearing is held before the APCHA
Board, the decision of the APCHA Board based on the record of such hearing shall be final for the
purpose of determining if a violation has occurred and for the purpose of judicial review.
j. There is hereby reserved to the parties' hereto any and all remedies provided by law for breach of this
Agreement or any of its terms. In the event the parties resort to litigation with respect to any or all
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall recover damages and costs, including
reasonable attorney's fees.
k. In the event an Affordable Housing Units is leased without compliance herewith, such lease shall be
wholly null and void and shall confer no title whatsoever upon the purported tenant. Each and every
lease, for all purposes, shall be deemed to include and incorporate by this reference, the covenants
herein contained,even without reference therein to this Agreement.
1. In the event that the Owner or tenant fails to cure any breach, the APCHA may resort to any and all
available legal action, including, but not limited to, specific performance of this Agreement or a
mandatory injunction requiring compliance by Owner and/or tenant, to include, but may not be
limited to, any penalty or fine as stipulated in the Land Use Code and/or Aspen/Pitkin County
Employee Housing Guidelines and as they are amended from time to time.
M. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement and any other related document shall be
interpreted in such a manner as to be valid under applicable law; but if any such provision shall be
invalid or prohibited under applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such
invalidity or prohibition without invalidating the remaining provisions of this Agreement or other
document.
n. This Agreement is to be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado.
o. No claim of waiver, consent or acquiescence with respect to any provision of this Agreement shall be
valid against any part hereto except on the basis of a written instrument executed by the parties to this
agreement. However, the party for whose benefit a condition is inserted herein shall have the
unilateral right to waive such condition.
Aspen Club Amendment Page 4
P. The parties to this Agreement agree that any modifications of this Agreement shall be effective only
when made in writing signed by both parties and recorded with the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin
County,Colorado.
q. The terms and provisions of this Deed Restriction shall constitute covenants running with the title to
the Affordable Housing Units as a burden thereon for the benefit of, and shall be specifically
enforceable by, the Managing Agent, the Association and/or Owner, by the Housing Authority, the
City of Aspen, Colorado, and by their respective successors and assigns, by any appropriate legal
action including,but not limited to, injunction,abatement,or eviction of non-qualified tenants.
r. Lease agreements executed for occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Units shall provide for a rental
term of not less than six (6) consecutive months. A signed and executed copy of the lease shall be
provided to the Authority by the Owner within ten (10) days of approval of employee(s) for the
Employee Dwelling Unit.
S. Owner and APCHA stipulate and agree that, in accordance with CRS 38-12-301(l)(a)and(b),this
Deed Restriction constitutes a voluntary agreement and deed restriction to limit rent on the
property subject hereto and to otherwise provide affordable housing stock. Owner waives any
right it may have to claim that this Deed Restriction violates CRS 38-12-301.
t. When the option to convert any unit to a sale unit is exercised, the owner must adopt a new deed
restriction in the form adopted by APCHA that is applicable to sale units. A separate homeowner
association will be created for the 12 deed-restricted units. All condominium documents shall be
reviewed and approved by APCHA.
Sales Unit: Should the units become ownership units due to non-compliance or at the direction of
the Aspen Club:
1. The units shall be ownership units sold through the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
lottery system.
2. The unit shall be classified as stipulated in the recorded rental deed restriction.
3. The condominium documents shall reflect that any common area maintenance shall be
assessed based on the actual values of the free-market homes versus the deed-restricted
unit. Any property management fees or other fees associated with the commercial or
free-market aspect of the building shall not be charged to the deed-restricted owner. The
condominium documents shall be reviewed and approved by APCHA. The goal is to
protect the affordable housing unit from excessive monthly and/or special assessments
having to do with luxury items and/or expensive modifications.
Aspen Club Amendment Page 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director OJAw 1
RE: South Aspen Street Lodge PUD Review—Public Hearing
DATE: August 18, 2012
SUMMARY:
Tonight's hearing is the first in a series of planned meetings to review the South Aspen Street
PUD application. The subject property is three parcels located on the west side of South Aspen
Street south of the Lift One Condominiums and north of the Shadow Mountain Condominiums.
It is often referred to as the"Lodge at Aspen Mountain"property.
The property is entitled for a residential development known as the "townhomes plan." The
approval was granted in 2002. A summary of the project is attached. The townhomes plan was
recently granted an extension of vested rights in July in order to permit the applicant to more
fully explore a lodging development on this property.
Tonight's hearing will provide an orientation to the current project. The presentation will cover
the history of the project, the changes the project has undergone, and a description of the
program, site plan, and massing of the proposal.
The applicant team has evolved the COWOP II plan as the basis for this project. The
Commission will be asked whether the direction of the project— site plan, program, and massing
— are going in the right direction. It is important to the applicant team to understand acceptable
parameters of the project before significant additional investment in architectural detailing. The
public hearing portion of tonight's meeting can be used to permit members of the public to
likewise orient themselves to the project and identify site planning, massing and program issues.
The Commission's position on these conceptual parameters will then be forwarded to the City
Council for a similar discussion. If the project appears acceptable at a conceptual level, a more
refined final review would occur with the Commission and then again with City Council.
It may take more than one meeting for the Commission to respond to this first question.
September 25`h is reserved for this project as well as October 2°d
Staff recommends the Commission receive the presentation, become familiar with the
application, solicit public comment, and provide feedback regarding the project's site plan,
program, and massing.
BACKGROUND:
This neighborhood has had multiple development applications proceeding through development
review in the past few years. The owners of this South Aspen Street property, the Lift One
Page 1 of 2
Lodge project, the Aspen Skiing Company, and the City of Aspen jointly initiated a master
planning process in early 2008 —the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP. That process
incorporated a citizen task force and developed a master plan for the entire neighborhood. The
COWOP plan was supported by the task force and forwarded to City Council. The plan was not
adopted and that process was eventually terminated.
After the neighborhood master planning effort was terminated the "two sides" went their own
way. The Lift One Lodge PUD application was re-activated and forwarded to City Council.
Changes to their 2006 PUD application were made to incorporate aspects of the COWOP plan.
The final application for Lift One Lodge was supported by the Commission and was approved by
City Council in November 2011.
A second COWOP (COWOP II) was initiated for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain property. A task
force reviewed numerous changes to the project and forwarded a recommendation of approval to
City Council in December of 2009. A summary of the COWOP II Plan is attached. Economic
stresses prohibited the property owner from pursuing the COWOP II plan.
The property changed hands in 2010 and is now owned by ASV Aspen Street Owner, LLC. The
applicant applied to revise the townhomes plan and gained a recommendation of approval from
the Commission. The revised townhome plan was presented to City Council and was suspended
after discussion regarding the City's strong preference for lodging on this site. (The revised
townhome plan is still a valid application, but has been postponed for the pendency period of this
lodging application.)
In July City Council granted a vested rights extension of the townhomes plan to relieve the
applicant of upcoming deadlines. Also in July the City Council and the Planning and Zoning
Commission participated in a "sketch plan review." This is a step in the City's process that
permits a discussion of a project's goals in a public hearing format prior to a formal application
being submitted. There was general support for a lodging project on this site with
acknowledgement of the policy trade-offs that would need to occur. Minutes of the sketch plan
review are attached.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Commission receive the presentation and become familiar with the
application. Staff recommends the Commission open the hearing and solicit comments. Staff
requests the Commission provide feedback on the site planning, massing, and program aspects of
the project and continue the hearing as necessary.
ATTACHMENTS:
A— South Aspen Street PUD Application & Drawings
B— Sketch Plan Review meeting minutes.
C— Vested Townhomes Project Summary
D— COWOP II project summary
Page 2 of 2
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 13,2012
All in favor, motion carried. AW M hVkj�
SOUTH ASPEN STREET LODGE PROPOSAL—Sketch Plan Review
Councilman Johnson recused himself as he lives within 300 feet of the project. Planning and
Zoning members Stan Gibbs, Jim DeFrancia, Ryan Walterschied, Bert Myrin and Cliff Weiss
present. Chris Bendon,community development department, noted the sketch plan review is
seldom used part of the land use code and is an opportunity for P&Z and Council to meet with
the applicant prior to an application being submitted to talk about expectations, aspirations and
goals for the project. Bendon said this is an attempt to try and figure out how to have a lodge on
this site and to replace the existing townhome approval. There have been two COWOPs and
previous lodge applications for this parcel as well as the townhomes. Bendon said Councils
have expressed the idea that it would helpful to talk to applicant about height, bulk, mass,
development program, mitigation, financing strategies before the formal approval process.
Bendon encouraged Council to talk about what ingredients are necessary for success of a lodging
project on this site. Mayor Ireland said this process is not to create reliance and the applicant can
use this process as they see fit.
David Parker, representing the applicant agreed they cannot rely on this discussion; the applicant
does not want to waste city's time and appreciates honest feedback about a proposed lodge.
Parker showed a slide of COWOP I, which did not come to fruition. There was COWOP II also
which attempted to get away from the monolithic approach and had several discrete masses to fit
better in the neighborhood. COWOP 11 had a lot of community input and a positive
recommendation to Council. The COWOP II was shrunk down in both height and density.
Parker said the applicants have talked to hotel operators and there are certain metrics needed in a
hotel. Parker said this sketch plan attempts to make the hotel the focus and all else is
subservient. Parker said long double loaded corridors make a hotel work, a certain size of 30 by
15 for hotel rooms to work.
Parker said they are choosing to put the hotel on the lower, flatter portion of the site. The cars do
not have to go up hill and mix with the Lift One Lodge traffic. Parker pointed out the proposed
entrance to the lodge in the lower building. Parker told Council COWOP II talked a lot about
sight lines, stepping buildings back from the street, pushing the heights and masses to the back of
the site and leaving some open spaces. Parker said the COWOP II proposal seems to be more
residential in appearance. Parker said meeting with hotel operators, the applicants determined
that the lower building needs to be wider in order to get double loaded corridors.
Parker said the previous hotel plan had much below grade space and the applicants feel this
space needs to be reduced and not go down 4 stories,which is expensive. This will result in
fewer parking spaces. Parker said hotel guests do not generally bring cars to town. Parker said
the applicant does not think a below grade spa and some other back of house uses are necessary.
Parker noted the COWOP II heights are lower than those proposed in COWOP 1. Parker said
with these types of changes, the applicants believe they can make a hotel work. Parker pointed
out the changes eliminate the ability for affordable housing on the lower portion of the site.
Parker said there will be affordable housing, 7 or 9 units,through the upper building for hotel
6
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 13,2012
operations. Parker told Council the residential portions will be run as part of the branded hotel
and are more likely to be part of the hotel rental pool. - - -
Parker said a study was done several years ago which stated a residential component is needed to
make a hotel in Aspen work. Parker noted there are 200 nights of high season and if a hotel were
100%occupied during those 200 nights, it is 55% occupancy, and a hotel does not survive on
that. Parker said the applicants will need some fee waivers besides the residential component to
make a hotel project work. For the last project, the fees and affordable housing were figured at
$12 to $14 million.
Stan Gibbs said it is painful to reduce affordable housing, which is important need of the
community. Gibbs said he would like to see it somewhere in the project. Gibbs asked about the
impact on the Juan street affordable housing. Parker said all the hotel operators have said a
minimum of 75 rooms is needed and 100 rooms is preferred. This project is pulled back from
the Juan street project so there is green space between the two. Parker told the board the hotel
operators request room sizes of 400 to 450 square feet.
The architect pointed out the bottom of the site has a restrictive covenant against building on it.
Bert Myrin said sustainability of the community beyond the life of the building is important.
Parker said the initial build of a hotel is not sustainable without residential; once the building is
complete, it will stand for 50 years with renovations. Myrin said it is important to him that this
be a project the community would support. Parker reiterated that COWOP II had strong
community support. Myrin said he would like to hear about obtaining LEED platinum.
Walterschied asked if COWOP Il is the starting point with adjustment. Parker said the
applicants can live with COWOP II without adjusting any footprints, height and mass, the
bottom building will have to widen;the upper two buildings will be residential. The applicants
do not know whether it would be whole ownership or time share; the whole ownership units
would have lock offs to end up in the hotel rental pool. Bendon noted COWOP II contained 5
whole ownership units of about 4,000 square feet and 20 fractional units of sizes around 2200
square feet. Parker said hotel operators have suggested 30 to 35 smaller residential units would
be more rentable. Walterschied asked if the entry will be moved. Parker said the entry will be
moved down the site to the corner of the hotel.
Cliff Weiss said his fear is that this part of town would become a private enclave and not a part
of the community. Weiss said the townhomes are a failure for the community and for the resort.
Weiss agreed he is sorry to see the affordable housing be eliminated; however, there may have to
be sacrifices in order to get a hotel. Weiss said because this site is against Shadow Mountain, the
heights are not a concern to him. Weiss said he would like a viable hotel on this site.
Councilman Torre stated he supports the direction this is moving. Councilman Torre noted he
would like to see the height reduced from 60'. Councilman Torre went over some ways the
height on the middle building could be lowered. Councilman Torre agreed locating the hotel on
the lower parcel and with widening that lower building a bit. Councilman Torre said 35
residential units sounds large; he would like to hear more about the program. Councilman Torre
said there is a greater use for this property than townhomes. Councilman Torre said he would
like to know more about the proposed affordable housing units. Councilman Torre said there are
other affordable housing options, like certificate program, that the applicant may take advantage
7
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 13,2012
of Councilman Torre said he appreciates the lessening of underground space. Councilman
Torre stated he wants to see a lodge on this parcel.
Parker pointed out 98%of the project is below 42'; some architectural elements stick up. There
is a structure on the middle building that is 60', which could be lowered or eliminated.
Councilman Torre said he might consider buildings in the 50'-ish height for mechanical.
Councilman Torre said he would like to see a small number of family-type affordable housing in
the project. Parker noted all hotel operators have said in order to get a successful program, there
is no room on the site for affordable housing; they need every square foot for hotel operations.
Councilman Torre encouraged the applicant to keep moving in the direction they have presented;
the applicant should continue to look at affordable housing on the site.
Councilman Skadron asked what makes up the $12 to $14 million of impacts. Bendon said the
majority is affordable housing. There are impacts fees, school lands, parks, air quality,.water,
sewer, building and permit fees all of which add up to a significant amount. Councilman
Skadron asked what percent of the mitigation expense is untenable. Parker said in their
calculations, the applicants have assumed no other affordable housing than what is built on site
and about a 50%reduction in other fees. Parker said over half of the mitigation total is
affordable housing fees. Councilman Skadron said he will need to know what the trade offs are.
Parker said this plan will eliminate a lot of the affordable housing, and a majority of parking.
Councilman Skadron asked how much wider the lower building would have to be. Parker said in
the neighborhood of 10% wider. Councilman Skadron noted Myrin commented the desire is to
make Aspen better without making it bigger and this proposal does not fit that statement.
Councilman Skadron said what is important to him if this general direction is pursued is the
property continue to read a 3 distinct buildings; the height and masses be lowered and pushed
back; the gaps to Shadow mountain are critical; Juan street should not be vacated; the Barbee
restriction should remain in perpetuity; the impact to Juan street be as minimal as possible.
Councilman Skadron said he is open to discussing affordable housing option that might take
advantage of some of the opportunities and also to the applicant only providing 8 housing units
on site.
Mayor Ireland said the townhouse project is 95,000 square feet; this is about 35,000 square feet
bigger than the townhouses. Mayor Ireland agreed the lower building has to be wider. Mayor
Ireland suggested fees and affordable housing costs might be addressed through a public
improvement financing district and have the owners of the free market residential bear some of
that expense. Mayor Ireland stated 60' height will not be acceptable. Mayor Ireland said this is
a choice in lieu of townhouses, which is not a good outcome for the community. Mayor Ireland
stated he wants some guarantees on the sustainability of the hotel, with a long term deed
restriction to prohibit its conversion to another use. Mayor Ireland said he wants an intense
program around reducing the auto uses as part of the proposal with creative incentives to drive
guests away from cars. Mayor Ireland said he is willing to look at some negotiations but also to
look at alternative revenue sources to solve the mitigation problem. Mayor Ireland stated he
wants to see an enforceable program on rental availability of the residential units. Mayor Ireland
said he wants the heights as low as possible.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
8
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 13,2012
Paul Taddune, representing the Lift One condominiums, said his clients are concerned about the
lodge building expanding toward the Lift One condominiums. Taddune asked if there will be
underground parking for Lift One. Parker said there is no excess underground parking for other
than the Ski Company and the hotel.
Dave Ellis, Timberridge HOA, said he was part of COWOP II and supported that outcome. Ellis
stated he is encouraged the city is considering a hotel. Ellis said they hope to be able to support
it. Ellis said it is important to maximize the existing parking as much as possible.
Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing.
Bendon noted the next step p is for the applicant to design and submit an application which will
l then be scheduled in front-of P&Z for public hearings and recommendation to Council.
COMM + CIAL DESIGN ALL UP—602ji. Hyman Avenue
X an Johnson ved 2LL P decision to approve nceptual co ercial desig
r 602 E. man Av nded by Mayor Irel All in favor, otion carrie
COMME IAL DESIGN P—534 E. Copper Avenue
/equest s, comm ty development depa ent, told Cou HPC denied e applicant's
increa s a height to 42' for t proposed third oor. The pro sed third floor wi e
38'. Staff is re mmending Council a�cept HPC's deci 'on. Mayor Ir d said he was inor
of giving th 2' because the buildi across the alle will be 42' e did not see the Yationale
for restr' ng them to 38'. Co u members Jo n and Torre ted they support the 38'.
Co cilman Torre moved t accept HPC dec' on to approv height of 38' for.ate proposed
t rd floor addition at 54 Cooper; seco ed by Counc' an Johnson. All in favor with th
exception of Mayor I and, motion c ' d.
NOTICE F CALL UP 42 . HYMAN A NUE
Chr' endon, commu ' y development partment, said s' nificant changes to the design were
ught to the HPC eeting and were not discussed wit taff beforehand. Bendon noted they,
applicants stated ey wanted an oplpdrtunity to discus ass and scale a final HPC which
should be don t conceptual and hich puts HPC i a strange circu ance. All in fav ;motion
carried.
May reland moved to up 420 E. Hym PC commerci design; second, by
Co ncilman Torre. Al n favor, motion .ed.
Mayor Ireland mo ed to go into exec ive session at 8:4 M pursuant C.R.S. 24-6-4 (4)(a)
The purchase, uisition, lease, tr sfer, or sale of an real, persona or other prope interest,
9
SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/P.U.D. - SUMMARY
a reJr.�
Zoning& Regulatory Approvals
Ordinance#32(Series of 2003), adopted on July 28, 2003 and recorded as Reception No.486407
granted to Aspen Land Fund II, LLC("ALF II")final PUD and subdivision approval for development of 14
free market (FM) residential units and 17 affordable housing(AH) units.
Development Program
Parcel 1 (downhill parcel between Juan Street and Lift One Condos) Parcel 2 (middle parcel, currently
used as SkiCo parking lot) and Parcel 3 (uphill parcel, adjacent to Shadow Mountain Condos):
• Four(4)three-bedroom free market units and one(1)two-Bedroom free market unit configured
as 3-story townhomes with a maximum of 17,228 square feet of floor area. Average square
footage of the 3-bedroom townhomes is+/-4,238 square feet.
• Six(6)three-bedroom free market units configured as 3-story townhomes with a maximum of
24,554 square feet of floor area.
x
• Three (3)two-bedroom free market units configured as 3-story townhomes with a maximum of
10,337 square feet of floor area.Average square footage of the 2-bedroom townhomes is+/-
4,090 square feet.
• Twelve (12)three-bedroom affordable housing units in multi-family structures. Four(4) units in
one multi-family structure on each of the following Parcels: 1, 2 and 3.
• For(4) one-bedroom affordable housing units in multi-family structures.Two (2) units in one
multi-family structure on each of the following Parcels: 1 and 3.
• Two(2) enclosed parking spaces for each free market unit
• Twenty Seven (27) surface parking spaces for the affordable housing units:Twelve (12)on Parcel
1,five (5) on Parcel 2, and ten (10)on Parcel 3.
• 33-space sub-grade parking garage on Parcel 2—30 spaces to SkiCo, 3 spaces to affordable
housing units
Y4
Affordable Housing:
• Two (2)one-bedroom Category 1 units
• Two (2)one-bedroom Category 2 units
• Two(2)three-bedroom Category 1 units
• Seven(7)three-bedroom Category 2 units
• Four(4)three-bedroom Category 3 units
All affordable housing units are rental units.
Dimensional Requirements: - - - - - - - - - -
Minimum Lot Size: 6,000 square feet
Lot Area per Dwelling Unit(DU): 1,100 square feet per bedroom (81 bedrooms on 89,127 square
feet of lot area
Minimum Lot Width: 60 feet
Front Yard Setback: 10 feet per parcel
Side Yard Setback: 5 feet per parcel
Rear Yard Setback: 10 feet per parcel
Maximum Height: 28 feet
Percent Open Space: 27%cumulative over all three parcels
Allowable External FAR: 0.83:1(73,381 square feet cumulative over all three parcels)
Off-Street Parking(AH): 30 spaces (2 per DU of 2 or more bedrooms; 1 per DU of 1
bedroom)
Off-Street Parking(FM): 28 spaces (2 per DU of 2 or more bedrooms; 1 per DU of 1
bedroom)(cumulative overall three parcels)
Vested Rights
Vested rights period currently set to expire on January 28, 2011. 7 pCleww \ w fiqragti
+2y vna�i l�5
Building Permit Applications
Building permit applications for all three parcels were submitted in spring/summer of 2007.Applications
were placed on hold by City of Aspen as part of original Lift One Area Master Plan COWOP resolution,
and are currently"dormant". ALF II reserves the right to re-activate the permit applications at any time
in its sole discretion.
�4
,... + •k ''tm< +4 y. its '.Tr"S 4' a 4 ^�.t•ar
Z. i.4 b .ne 2
u y,. .,€:s•a t � 4 F�,.d�.�. +' r.u•. :t �`-,� 'L'a t9 _.,� s �$, A=, '.i�^� �" ,r'�•k
4F!." ue•,•w d r », 3 :;:e a �,h�.4t s!f,�;; � �at;:r �"`�� '� 'f a �: "'�� r ra >�."a<'� :��� `� s".zd� _(� x;',
��
IN o
=
P
F 4 ' r$F�r�"yu .'
5j, `.
r ...,., v?h ] } ! Y`•t' .bk,;x
,•Y ':.«2i,, `x'•( :::i &.if a-B .ad`e =,� ,2.. 1 '.. Ei �k. b s,... � fE
,- ' .7' "'" J 'i." �. + in..:nt o0
'r,�r.7
.e
.-r...
� —
€���
7Raa%=„an r :wr�?°�"^ .0 a ��r.x �8„ ¢a.._ 1 �N3"= �. Rs€• e;r �
I�a ,�, ':€ �c.€�•�.,,:.ae 3€�rss...�-. -r P i;, a. '3 �,� s E kr .4`R+r � g" €. �, �>.
Ik r ' ,� ' �•'' �'a:te� �°�*w';t,:. n N, ;pia ��I`-'�' 2, nit:”. '?r
omwo II■I!�#r �j�!1. ,� �„
y* ar '+°,oyd ¢ 7�1 '�n � ."'4ks� a� €..:.' �` r° `'?-€„ij'�1• ^,r v
s�.} wa) � �, '. :,��,.,., ,. �r t:p.,� yapld'°� a�w �.""F-�y ...•� y t � x 1. ',�5w €e
�,n�' �” --.€r°�1+�'€�,F�` ,r,�����,��` ' ��,Y�;,'� a,. �": h ' 4T a`�, L E�r.f� Y' ■�
'j�` ,s L" �� fin-' ,'� � ''v:€ F .;�; � =5�, � °�t "� �C I,' �€{ €w�ry�'1►,.
e;r. � � t,''�.€ `�-;`.°sn f �'+!�,x �a+'.;.::: �pt�n' as •„-.p ,� �� °I. ty '«,
•a+<- •��'d x 'f +tA �:' ���`t.�� a dN. .tiE�ia `1?F�? 1 1 1 .tiF��&� �7a �� "�
t.F
i,• 4 '4 ..F.:S' •k)p+.l `'.: !r �.» r. },.'. . '1 -., l- I
FNII
t �,z" �" >4��A 'l� ;�3�■y k�,{ d 3 � `�,�t .. :�, '€. §�` p, €t I '�' iM•'�"'!F'?
€ysb. >.�.st ��a`:� � e n°'fix �xr�.,�F} :kit � F�E„,�`& 7".:'. ,� �,.;�;- kt I I I� ii�- �.!_ I• �r,a t.
¢ b € 3 •'a,,., „ M"... N y :'Ij ``�I IS''.{ imn.ui+..Ww.A"MN^ti+ at
-4
+. `�,-�, ,� � ;,r� �ti�o-��F,2�s#. F�,» �' �.. ' ,d tr• I' �v .�cF:i I I r°;':'4r
"P tx`.'�` �� �'E., � y� �i�t.Ix� - :.. _.5.:,�i,P .s,''', <„�� ro.t �"Y::- � a. ���'b 1 I. €g� �I i�4-?t b:;'. 1•t
tx >.^<, ?' r4 1 _l 3 hy �� �''t�° t:�. ... i '''+., iY� r„ I-,....I 7 a a.<(! $' i f I'R. k';• �.,
•'}4.. ky,F
l
3- t s r q ”-,-�'
z �•;� � ?z eg&
4 F0 12",
,mom v
rn w^� •`' � ,>` ,.. � `ry . >.wi �4 � h1F €-- 1'�in,< 7y rl-. l �.b'�, ..co--<
N atF .t.,. x `s +Et t Ir n 4. € #. ,t �.?.
�'r t, � '' a 4r,,:;�7 e � •a� ;�+A �f:. �'. ..� fl�4: � ', F- � I u1s r 1. ZLII
} ,a° Ffz$l,:aa�sg 9F i�g•d '. t - aS I '�`... ' �' y,S, E ELF.,
p,�.:. � M z_I. �. I, I_ 1 I 41�• a ,a .. II s`a4• S.
� c r
z` a.�`
2F tt7 EA .'>, 'k� '€"3• 1j r ,° fie `i r ;.1' -R� , ra„Sk 41
■now N'Tomm m «.
Yp
t tli
--s > zt ,•..t ¢
y :A ''s
I I Piz
r s .,
v z
� seNi ,d ';y,?..
F*.,c :i'I� y & Ia v w� w ar:, " tom,*`�:. 1 rb i- :xE",,`• < rs{ �t�.
+
CL
F
;a��.a �'.�'�#* z °i•,F+ � �y ,y a +tr '? Q�
4 �@�az s!' �� �' �` is �S`..�e■ a t r �',. 't^ N \ :`�:'�}
t � ,�t�;�rS"y�-�- a�,.,,� E w�, �. u3 +S� i” 3 ,:.p, '$€ .'Y?. •.� yy s'.:i I� .�c �•;:, � •,� - ,� •$;
,'` 'v .::v �.`�?� ''>.�i a�� t ,�, n.;S: t„ r���� 'r+. 4-•, t x :; il: pia n� a >.„''��� �
,fit� ¢ i ��.^,�as r�'' *� •���N�'� :k"� � a. . � �� ° '� � t.
.ica,�k7 _ ��. �� •$°� w!� " rE � aF'�+ ' ��`F'F' i>.� ,y, '� apt ¢ � £r � ”.J"-'z ',"1 °;'�
£ ;) E � �'
�. <' .:7 its+ k ' y!'at!
� 1977 st P
�'7� 4� a. � �� �� � ^� ::.r �F._ � z. � � xyY x>+�+F°�"ii+"'a CW!,7■IN '��r's?` �.,.�, v
�a, f+ �" �t �• (`� 4?�' �.:� E a4�i 1$�"�za��! x p � ,�3 " � � � te. � :�<.. ', �p O
+�>s. � '"�5� =E� � � M .� ��� r � # � � r a.. -y�qr� � b:{ i�f:5 A• � ;b r_ i
�:b, s sksa.s f & 2• 1 E M .'s4:'�e_'t..ei�.+.lt:e € 3 � C.
€, E'`.3;ce t n, r 'w f 1 d. t a #. x:5 M- °., �* .l�da�Fs C .•t, ;'^'.� :J is CL
11 � � 1 111111 111T �'�11�1.1'. �■�'�
r,' t ' � .11llll�llllllli 1111111111111�1'��, ' iiilllllll�l � �� ' ii�llllllllll[[—lllllll�lllllli= ''�' �'' '��'� ,,
� • - / I IIIIIIIII��• 1 1 1. � 1, .1 �
III 1 Ir. ..� ;;C. .�I II� I► Illlllllllllu" sti, ::I a�... :'��I��; � , ; 1 ;tl,
11 1 111 1111111 11111111111 III III�I I :••� I I,Ij IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII�IIIIIIII- , - � �'. � I : '1 �
._ _ _-- : ..: � -I�IIII�II�IIIIIIII ��III IIIII -... Illlll II I II. Illlllllllllllllll I�IIh ... , ,
+ __ _mss ! - .. .. - �. -.. .. •• -- ■._ i--
iiilllTUiloulilio -
:. I111l11FlII illillllilll
��_ .lilllllllllllpllllgl '^ __ n _
/I II I ,I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII , ��\
.�illl �u111 1111/`n Ilh � / �-maim--. �I� \ - �� � • �
hI `I 11111 ■ICI Ih1 _ /\ _
IIII,,�II II�il� h�!�J �I/�J�I91�I���I�wJ III• .11 �/1110'"Ilu/�1 I'--\t �-'��I� %�� _
gpl!Illillll IIIIIUIIhili I • • 1 r Illlr \ nnnium \\\ -
'1111111111111G 1_II _ IIIIIIII� . -ll'IIIiIIIUII Itl�lpl!IiIIIIL ■'i I ,/ 1. I� i ,i + \'�'� � \ ` �
_( �� ■ ���II9i��M ■, 111 'ill�IIII�� 111 �� /1111':11111 ��1� maim—
II _ I li i it _. II Illullpl�lll III!Illlllilllllll� �' I�
ulllll 1�';� 111111 � nnuunn
• � �:: .—ir_-_• �— II II--�i 1__�� �� 1�-- tea ■ ��
q 1 _ ■ mu III'll 111111 IIILI IIIII um _� � — 1__�■ �■� -I-� i i
�� :.:.■■ •. ���-7.�I ■ ���_� lull -_---�III�II�I I IIIII IIII—li �___r _■' III IIII IIII _
-��! ■ I�I��I�I ■ IIIII� �I ■ Ir , �..... � — 1___.
- ---� �� �J � I ■ 1111 �� —III 11111
1 . LI __maim ■.�L■1 I����I
LIJ
.r•-
. I■■
'`�- �-„-. �� li■
lallllllllll 111111111111111' III 1� �� ail ---=-=- ------_•--maim---maim-_;--=�- �Ifa iI!�
— IIIIIIIIII Illull+ull IIIIIIIUIII IIIII
__
I'll lllh I�, I ��ai__
r � �'■■��ui �_ I I-- -1
I1111IIIIIIillllllhll 111111 IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII�••■IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i— •■ •I�I�
li ii I ■■ �'•■_IIII IIIIIIliln177— �I 1-1111--�-11IIlolf;l-��� i■ �.I �II�� ..
1111111 .111 _ _ Fl I,LIIIIIII �.._'- I— .r I �III� ■�11I�� ■. ■° �III�
°O r ■r. �III� u,i �L�I�III��_.
uu •= IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII Illllllllllllwi�� ' __���_-�!- ■, I, �'
_ uu.iinnm ... - �III�■ ■■ 'w111��..�4"J1
�ilillilluulllmullllliumlliullilllulliuil = •�.=�: �Im���� �• ��Inw'.
__ _ _ � �� �Illlw ��III� : ■° wlllw� 1
�III� _=r-
FEW
m III wlll����u■
POSS ARCHITECTURE+ PLANNINC Lodge at Aspen Mountain: Ballot Question 1:
November 18, 2009
Page 1 of 2
Gcm.VVV4N ' cun�ot
Lodge at Aspen Mountain
Building Program Comparison
November 18 2009
COWOP Version Original 2-Gap Version Current Version-"All Ones" Icurrent Version
Janua 2009 Aril 2009 October 7,2009 November 18,2009
• ROOMS
75 Hotel Rooms 74 Hotel Rooms 70 Hotel Rooms 94 Hotel Rooms w/lock-offs
500 SF standard room 450 SF standard room 450 SF standard room 450 SF standard room size
58-Standard Rooms
8 -Ex.Suites
7 -1 BR Suite
1 -Pres.Suite
20-Lock-Offs
FRACTIONAL
26 Fractional Units 22 Fractional Units 20 Fractional Units 20 Fractional Units
3;000 SF average size 2,800 SF average size 3,000 SF average size 2,789 SF average size
78,000 net SF 62,000 net SF 60,000 net SF 55,785 net SF
WHOLE OWNERSHIP UNITS
5 Whole Ownership Units 7 w--hole Ownership Units 5 Whole Ownership Units 5 Whole Ownership Units
3.500 SF average size 3,650 SF average size 3,500 SF average size 3,575 SF average size
17,500 net SF 25,500 net SF 17,500 net SF 17.875 net SF
AFFORD. -HOUSING
56.25 Employees Onsite 56.25 Employees Onsite 36.75 Employees Onsite 34 Employee Onsite
30 Dorm Rooms(Rental) 30 Dorm Rooms(Rental) 0 Dorm Rooms(Rental) 5-Studio Units
15 Neighborhood Units(For Sale) 15 Neighborhood Units(For Sale) 21 Neighborhood Units(Mix) 7-2 BR Units
4-3 BR Units
16 Total Neighborhood Units
256 spaces 256 spaces 147 spaces Parking Mix(142 Total)
30 Spaces SKICO
44 Spaces Neighborhood
16 AHU
52 Hotel/operations
13w y4f
POSS ARCHITECTURE+ PLANNING Lodge at Aspen Mountain: Ballot Question 1:
November 18, 2009
Page 2 of 2
Percentage of Program Components (Minus Parking & AHU)
Whole Ownership 9.5%
Fractional Ownership 30.3% +/-
Hotel 59,2%
Approximate Square Footage of Structures (Above Grade)
Lift Side Residences 36,696+/-
Lodge at aspen Mountain 53,700+/-
Mountain Side Residences 27,932+/-
Community Housing Residence 14,704+/-
Hotel Employee Housing 2,298+/-
Square Footage Above Grade & Below Grade by Level
Above Grade Below Grade
Square Footage Square Footage
1 st Level-B3 0 23,038
2nd Level-B2 4,971 46,164
3rd Level-B1 20,206 42.200
4th Level-L2 25,471 27,584
5th Level-L1 23,361 19,614
6th Level-2 21,929 6.343
7th Level-3 22,638 0
8th Level-4 11,624 0
9th Level-5 3650 0
Total 133,850+/- 164,943+/-
Comm.Housing -14,704
Total 119,146 +/- Total above grade structure without community housing
Percentage of Program Components by Level
Whole Fractional Hotel,with Parking Affordable
Ownership Ownership Related Garage Housing
Functions
(5 Units) (20 Units) (94 Rooms) (142 Cars
(16 Units)
1st Level-B3 18,465 4,213
2nd Level-B2 7,788 15,984 18,619 7.510
3rd Level-B1 10,529 15,760 29.935 51279
4th Level-L2 11,945 41.268
5th Level-L1 4,699 2,028 35,223
6th Level-2 12,756 15,478
7th Level-3 4,236 17,310 2,555
8th Level-4 7,888 2,818 916
9th Level-5 3,650
Total 2D,473+1- 66,174+/- 127,184+/- 87,019+/- 17,002 +/-
1 D i
POSS ARCHITECTURE+ PLANNING Lodge at Aspen Mountain: Ballot Question 2:
November 18, 2009
Page 1 of 1
i
tiT toF FFiiOf wcFi FgYF WF FpF
` I
Site Plan I November 18, 2009
POSS ARCHITECTURE+ PLANNINC Lodge at Aspen Mountain: Ballot Question 3:
November 18, 2009
Page 1 of 1
South Aspen Elevation November 18, 2009
40.4' _ 44.4'
40 3' .. / 51.4' 30.0'
4 -...�� —58.9' 45.4'
dg,d' 60.T 42,T
56.5' 43.9' 25.0'
r. 54.0 41.9'+I 29.0'
58.9' 32.0'
15.4'-
46.8'
23.4' \ '>
30.0'
....._ i
22.8'
25:0'
f
27.T---
5477-
47A'
22.4'
44.5'
33.8'
25.8'
2aa
\--23.0'
Estimated Heights from Existing Grade November 18, 2009
IJ 4
'
S"a ubl,'vv A s p,� ---m-1 S �rle e�t
(Pcwcel* 1, 2 Er 3, S&uti,-v A spa+v
Street Subd.�vaion�PUD)
AN APPLICArION Fog:
Subdo(lv(I�PUD a4/L&
A siof.�6ate& E
SuBmirrED BY
201 N. MILL STWEE-r, SUIT!E 108
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(970) 925-7819
fap (970) 925 -7395
Septembtr, 2012
AN APPLICATION FOR
SUBDIVISION/PUD AND
ASSOCIATED ENTITLEMENTS
FOR SOUTH ASPEN STREET
SUBDIVISION/PUD
Submitted by:
ASV Aspen Street Owner, LLC
One Post Office Square #3520
Boston, MA 02109
Prepared by:
HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC
Planning Consultant
201 North Mill Street, Suite 108
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 925-7819
Fax: (970) 925-7395
Email: mitch@hlpaspen.com
PID#2735-131-39-001,-002&-003
SOUTH ASPEN STREET SUBDIVISION/PUD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................1
II. PROJECT SITE &SURROUNDING AREA (EXISTING CONDITIONS)..........7
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...............................................................10
A. Overview,Zoning&Subdivision/PUD..............................................10
B. Growth Management Reviews..........................................................19
C. Timeshare Development Review.......................................................30
D. Off-Street Parking..........................................................................30
E. Conditional Use Review..................................................................32
F. 8040 Greenline Review....................................................................33
G. Commercial Design Review............................................................33
H. Residential Design Standards..........................................................35
I. Conclusion/Summary...................................................................36
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: PUD Review
Exhibit 2: Subdivision Review
Exhibit 3: Timeshare Development Review
Exhibit 4: Conditional Use Review
Exhibit 5: 8040 Greenline Review
Exhibit 6: Commercial Design Review
Exhibit 7: Residential Design Standards
Exhibit 8: Growth Management Review
A. General Requirements
B. Development of Affordable Housing
C. Multi-Year Allotment
D. Provision of Required Affordable Housing Outside City Limits
PID#2735-131-39-001,-002&-003
I. INTRODUCTION:
The applicants are, first and foremost, lodge developers and they have significant
experience in this niche. From the very first day they began considering the acquisition
of the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD property and its associated entitlements, a
primary goal was to find a way of viably accomplishing the development of lodging at
this site, which sits at the base of the Aspen Mountain ski area and immediately adjacent
to downtown. The applicants moved forward with the purchase of the property
recognizing that the vested town home approvals (14 free-market residential units and 17
affordable housing ("AH") units; collectively, the "town home approvals") provided an
economically viable fallback plan but still holding onto their hope of achieving a lodge
development. A full year was spent studying various scenarios and potential ways of
making a lodging project viable given the trends of development financing, the national
economy, and the City of Aspen's mitigation, impact fees and exaction requirements, as
well as its review processes (costs, uncertainties, associated timelines, etc.). The final
determination was that every reasonable option and variation lead to the same basic
conclusion; that lodge development --- regardless of whether traditional lodging,
condominium lodging, timeshare lodging, or any combination of these --- had simply
been rendered infeasible given the economic and regulatory environment.
As such, the applicants pursued an amendment of the vested town home approvals at
substantial cost in terms of time, effort and dollars. All through the process of reviewing
the amended townhomes proposal, staff and even the Planning and Zoning Commission
(P&Z) were clear in expressing a strong preference for a lodging project on this site. The
applicants understood this desire as they, too, would have preferred a lodging project but
just could not make sense of any such proposal. When the proposed town homes
amendment finally made it before the City Council, the preference for a lodging project
was reinforced by the Councilpersons. The City Council was quite direct and vocal in its
position that they did not even want to consider the amended town homes proposal but
instead wanted to work with the applicants to find a way of making the inclusion of
lodging viable and,thus, feasible on this important site.
It was made perfectly clear that the City, from staff on up through the City Council,
wanted to work in a cooperative manner with the applicants to enable development of a
lodge and that a streamlined review process to include significant and substantial
variations from typical mitigation, impact fees and exaction requirements would be
possible. The goal for the development of the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD
property is to find a reasonable way of including the development of lodging on this site
rather than town homes. All other typically applicable City goals and requirements ---
whether related to process, fees, affordable housing or other types of mitigation, or even
financing ---- are not as important in this particular case. The applicants have pushed
these vital questions with the City, explaining at several hearings that they could bring
forward a new proposal to include lodging only if the City will hold to maintaining that
development of a meaningful lodging component is the truly paramount goal for the site,
even if doing so means sacrificing significant and substantial portions of otherwise and
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 1
normally required affordable housing, zoning limitations, exactions and impact fees, and
procedural requirements.
The streamlined review process was made an understood condition of the applicants'
willingness to bring such a proposal forward so as to avoid the tendency for a long,
drawn-out process where one finds out only after substantial expenditures of time, effort
and funds that there is an unwillingness to accept such trade-offs.
The Applicant has been very clear that there is no viable way for the proposal outlined in
this application to be feasible unless the City accepts such trade-offs. Otherwise the
reality is that the applicant will be left with no choice but to pursue the entitled and
vested development of town homes whether amended or not.
Background
An application for the development of free market and affordable town homes as the
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD was submitted to and deemed complete by the City
of Aspen in September of 2000. The South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD was
eventually established by Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2003 (the "Ordinance"), which was
adopted in July of 2003 (recorded as Reception No. 486407). The Ordinance granted
Final PUD and Subdivision approval for the development of 14 free-market residential
units and 17 affordable housing ("AH") units (collectively, the "town home approvals")
on the subject property. These approvals remain valid and vested today.
In 2007, an application was submitted to the City for approvals to enable development of
the Lodge at Aspen Mountain ("LAM") on the property but, after a long and difficult
review process, the request was denied by the City Council. Thereafter, the Lift One
Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP was established and included the subject property
along with the Lift One Lodge (LOL)property across the street. Both the COWOP group
and the Planning and Zoning Commission ("P&Z") voted to adopt the Master Plan for
development of the two properties; however, after another long and difficult process, the
Ordinance did not pass at City Council. The LOL withdrew from the process and
pursued its own, separate PUD application.
In July of 2009, Resolution No. 45, Series of 2009, initiated(created) the Lodge at Aspen
Mountain (LAM) COWOP, and meetings were regularly held from August through
December of that year. Unfortunately, the LAM ownership group was upside-down
financially and unable to move forward with the plan that was approved by the COWOP
group in December of 2009. Around the same time, the nationwide economic downturn
approached bottom, leaving lodge development economically infeasible. More
specifically, the COWOP-approved lodging project included one large structure that was
incapable of being practically divided into phases for purposes of financing or
development, and it simply no longer penciled-out in any kind of reasonable pro forma
regardless of whether it could be developed as a traditional lodge, a condominium lodge,
a timeshare lodge, or any combination of these. As such, the COWOP-approved plan
never made it to a formal public review process or hearing.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 2
Aspen City Council Resolution No. 96 (Series of 2009) approved an extension of the
vested rights granted by Ordinance No. 32-2003 for the SAS Subdivision/PUD. While
Ordinance 96-2009 extended the SAS vested rights to January 28, 2016, it did so on/with
the following condition:
This extension is for the sole purpose of enabling the continued review of
the "COWOP" [LAM] application for an alternate development plan on
this site vis-a-vis lodging and fractional ownership uses. At the time the
"COWOP" land use application for a lodging/fractional ownership
development on this property is either approved, not approved, or is
withdrawn, including any time necessary for a public vote or referendum,
the vested rights associated with the "townhomes project" [SAS]
approved pursuant to Ordinance 32, Series of 2003, shall remain valid for
twenty-four additional months from the effective date of such action. A
six-month period of inactivity shall constitute a withdrawal of the [LAM]
application.
Since taking ownership of the property in 2010,the new/current ownership group studied
all types of lodging plans, lodging ownership and financing scenarios, and conferred with
numerous lodging operators, only to conclude that a lodging plan or even a lodging
component is not a possible scenario given the economic, political, and regulatory
climates. As a result, the COWOP plan was abandoned and the 24-month clock on the
vested rights for the townhomes project started ticking in March of 2011.
This put a great deal of pressure on the property owners to either move forward with
development of the vested town homes project or seek to improve upon those approvals
through an amendments process. After great deliberation, the owners decided to seek
amendment approvals to not only improve upon the entitled development but also to gain
a new three year vested property rights period. The applicants found themselves in a
scenario where either the amendment would be approved or they would be forced to
immediately begin the process of obtaining building permits for the development of the
14 free-market and 17 AH units that remained vested until March 1, 2013.
As such, the applicant requested a PUD Amendment, as well as amendments to the
Growth Management approvals, the Subdivision approvals, and the multi-family
replacement approvals.
In order to enable the forwarding of dialogue and eventually an application for a
development proposal that would include lodging, City Council approved Resolution
Number 68 granting an extension of the vested property rights for the town home
approvals on July 23, 2012. Said Resolution provides that the statutory vested rights
approved by Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2003, for Parcels 1, 2 and 3 of the South Aspen
Street Subdivision/PUD are extended with the following condition:
This extension is for the sole purpose of enabling the review of an
alternative development plan on the site vis-a-vis lodging, residential,
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 3
commercial, and fractional ownership uses. At the time the "Lodge" land
use application for this property is either approved, not approved, or is
withdrawn, the vested rights associated with the "townhomes project"
approved pursuant to Ordinance 32, Series of 2003, shall remain valid for
twenty-four additional months from the effective date of such action. A
six-month period of inactivity shall constitute a withdrawal of the
application.
Furthermore, Resolution No. 68 provides at Section 2 that,
Due to the Applicant's voluntary participation in developing an
alternative development plan on this site and its suspension of the current
land use application for an amended townhome project, City Council
considers the amended townhomes application to be suspended until a
lodging project is approved, denied, or withdrawn by the applicant. At
such time, the amended townhome application shall be considered
reactivated to continue in its review process. The "abandonment of
application" provisions of Section 26.304.070.F shall not apply during
this period of extension.
For the period of suspension of the amended townhomes application, the
"no-two-applications"provision of Section 26 304.030.F shall not apply.
An application for an alternative development plan on this property for a
lodge development maybe accepted and reviewed by the City.
The rest of June, July and August, 2012, were then spent engaging in various discussions
between the applicants, staff, and the P&Z and City Council, including a publicly noticed
Sketch Plan Review. These discussions centered on the types of trade-offs and sacrifices
that would be necessary to make a lodging proposal viable and for the applicant to be
willing to formally bring forward such a proposal forward. There was also discussion
about the degree to which and the conditions under which such tradeoffs and sacrifices
might be acceptable to the City.
Application Contents
The requests put forth herein require multiple approvals, including but not necessarily
limited to Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision, Commercial Design Review,
Residential Design Review, Timeshare Development, Conditional Use Review, Special
Review, and 8040 Greenline Review. In addition, several Growth Management Quota
System approvals are necessary, including but not necessarily limited to the development
of Affordable Housing; the Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing;
Lodge Development; New Free-Market Residential Units within a Multi-Family or
Mixed-Use Project; Provision of Required Affordable Housing Outside City Limits; and
Multi-Year Development Allotment.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 4
Accordingly, this application is submitted pursuant to the following chapters/sections of
the City of Aspen Land Use Code (the Code) that are applicable in one way or another:
Chapter 26.445, Planned Unit Development; Chapter 26.480, Subdivision; Chapter
26.410, Residential Design Standards; Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review;
Chapter 26.590, Timeshare Development; Section 26.425.040, Conditional Use Review;
Section 26.435.030, 8040 Greenline Review; Chapter 26.515, Off-Street Parking and
Special Review; GMQS Chapter 26.470 Sections 26.470.050.13, General Requirements;
26.470.040.4, Development of Affordable Housing; 26.470.070.5, Demolition or
Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing; 26.470.080.3, Lodge Development;
26.470.080.2, New Free-Market Residential Units within a Multi-Family or Mixed Use
Project; 26.470.090.1, Multi-Year Allotment; 26.470.090.2, Provision of Required
Affordable Housing Outside City Limits; and 26.470.100.A.1., Employee Generation;
Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures; Chapter 26.580,
Engineering Department Standards; Chapter 26.610, Impact Fees; Chapter 26.620,
School Land Dedication; Chapter 26.575, Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations; and
Section 26.710.190,Lodge (L) Zone District.
The application is divided into three sections. This Section provides a brief introduction
to the application, while Section II furnishes an overview of the neighborhood and
subject property (existing conditions). Finally, Section III of the application summarizes
the applicant's proposal relative to applicable Code provisions. In addition, eight (8)
separate exhibits to the application address the proposed development's compliance with
the specifically applicable review criteria of the Code to the extent such criteria are not
already specifically addressed under Section III. For the reviewer's convenience, all
other pertinent supporting documents, such as the applicant's authorization to submit this
application and the Land Use Application Forms are provided as appendices. Lastly,
plan sets representing the proposed development accompany this application as a separate
attachment.
The aforementioned Exhibits to this application include responses to the applicable
review criteria as follows:
Exhibit 1: PUD review;
Exhibit 2: Subdivision review;
Exhibit 3: Timeshare Development review;
Exhibit 4: Conditional Use Review;
Exhibit 5: 8040 Greenline Review;
Exhibit 6: Commercial Design Review;
Exhibit 7: Residential Design Review;
Exhibit 8: Growth Management Review, including:
A. General Requirements;
B. Development of Affordable Housing;
C. Multi-Year Allotment; and
D. Provision of Required Affordable Housing Outside City Limits.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential)
Page 5
While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code and
provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application,
questions may arise which require further information and/or clarification. Haas Land
Planning, LLC will gladly provide such additional information as may be required in the
course of the application's review.
This application will also be supplemented with the submittal of a separate addendum
addressing the various procedural requirements of the Code relative to all of the above-
described approval needs as well as associated submittal requirements. Said addendum
will clearly define and provide rationale for all variations/waivers with regard to codified
procedures and submittal requirements needed to accommodate the streamlined review
process staff outlined for City Council's acceptance in the July 23, 2102, "South Aspen
Street Subdivision/PUD Extension of Vested Rights — Resolution 68, Series of 2012 —
Public Hearing"memorandum.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 6
II. PROJECT SITE &SURROUNDING AREA(Existing Conditions):
The South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD consists of three parcels now described as
Parcels 1, 2 and 3, according to the Final Plat of South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD as
recorded on April 27, 2007,with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Plat Book 83 at
Pages 50-51 as Reception Number 537080. Parcel 1 (formerly described as Block 6 of
the Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen) is located on the north side of
Juan Street between South Aspen Street and South Garmisch Street. This Parcel contains
42,549 square feet of land inclusive of a ten foot wide alley which traverses the parcel
from east to west. The alley was vacated in 1967 pursuant to City Council Ordinance No.
24, Series of 1967. As part of the vested approvals, all three Parcels contained within the
subject property-were rezoned to Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) but have since been
rezoned again to Lodge with a Planned Unit Development Overlay (L/PUD).
Parcel 2 (formerly described as Lots 7-12, Block 11, Eames Addition) contains 18,000
square feet of land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Juan Street and
South Aspen Street. Parcel 3 (formerly described as Lots 12-20, Block 11, Eames
Addition plus a small metes and bounds area) contains 40,969 square feet of land and is
located south of Parcel 2, adjacent to South Aspen Street. The Parcel Identification
Numbers for the three Parcels are 2735-131-39-001, -002 and -003, respectively. For a
graphic and accurate depiction of the existing conditions, refer to the Improvement
Survey prepared by Sopris Engineering, LLC (copy provided with the town homes
amendment application). See the vicinity map, below, for an approximate representation
of the project site location relative to the surrounding area.
0 goo it
4.
82 'r � -
I I�
w�'Jeiq -.. Gtarde ;
rd
�
�a
rYa Malp Aspen
cvv n � kin
q ._y
AVY
r -
Wegner _-
Fgrk�
.c
Ec
: Cay,[1Prtrl h
park
sue+ pz� C5 Of
�s_ cr
ITl?�PgU�St R9 NaR ust Por[isn Y2011 snn .7wiECt
Vicinity Map—SAS Subdivision/PUD
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 7
Parcels 1 and 2 are physically separated by Juan Street. Parcels 2 and 3 are contiguous
although the lot line separating these parcels follows the centerline of a vacated alley
right-of-way (10 feet on either side). In vacating this alley, the City reserved the right of
access for utility construction and ingress/egress for emergency access to the project site
(but not to the "Barbee" site beyond). A relatively recent utility locate was done for
purposes of completing the Improvement Survey update and there are, in fact, no
permanent utilities which the City needs to maintain or access within the easement.
Dean Avenue, a platted but unimproved right-of-way abuts the northern boundary of
Parcel 1. The ownership of the easterly portion of this right-of-way was awarded to the
Lift One Condominiums' predecessor in title in 1969. A portion of the lift One
Condominium complex is located within this area of the right-of-way. While the
westerly portion of Dean Street remains in public ownership, it is presently being utilized
by the adjacent Timber Ridge Condominiums for landscape and parking (as well as
vehicle storage) purposes. This part of Dean Street is also the sole means of access to a
trash enclosure, four head-in parking spaces and an eight space surface parking lot under
the vested but as of yet undeveloped South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD approvals.
Parcel 1 remains undeveloped. The majority of Parcel 2 was paved in the late 1970s for
use as a tennis court by residents of the Lift One Condominiums in summer and as an
employee parking lot by the Aspen Skiing Company in the winter. The Lift One
condominiums' tennis court lease expired in the late 1980s. The parcel, however,
continues to be used by the Skiing Company as a parking lot in the winter. The Aspen
Skiing Company's use of Parcel 2 for parking purposes is secured by a ninety-nine year
lease between the Company and a predecessor in title to the land. The lease, however,
permits the applicant to substitute an equal amount of parking square footage in a
location proximate to Parcel 2, or to provide thirty (30) subgrade replacement parking
spaces in a proximate location, in exchange for the parking presently located on the
parcel. The applicant's ability to provide such substitute parking is subject to the Skiing
Company's approval which cannot be unreasonably withheld.
Parcel 3 remains undeveloped but was the former site of the Mine Dump Apartments.
The Mine Dump Apartments contained eighteen dwelling units in three structures. As
two of the structures each contained more than three dwelling units, they constituted
multi-family dwelling units as defined by the Code. The third structure was a duplex and
carried no associated replacement requirements. The vested approvals were found to
comply with all multi-family housing replacement requirements by including four (4) 3-
bedroom affordable housing units and one (1) 1-bedroom affordable housing unit, which
were not to exceed an average of Category 3. These units would provide housing for
13.75 Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) and constitutes the housing replacement requirement
for the property under the vested town home approvals.
Parcel 1 remains encumbered by several use restrictions running with the land until such
time as an existing residence owned by Mary K. Barbee and located on Lot 1 of the
adjacent Barbee Family Subdivision/PUD is sold. More specifically, the use restrictions
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 8
limit the height of development on Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Block 6, Eames Addition to a
maximum of sixteen feet, as measured from Juan Street, and entirely prohibit above
grade structures on Lots 12, 13 and 14 (but correctly sited as Lots 20, 21 and 22, Block 6,
Eames Addition). These restrictions will automatically terminate upon sale/transfer of
the Barbee residence. In the event that the applicant does not attempt to build the
proposed plans prior to Ms. Barbee's sale of her residence, then the restriction becomes a
moot point as it would have already automatically terminated. However, if actual
development is to occur prior to such sale, then the applicant will determine the proper
course for addressing the restriction. Either way, the restriction is privately enacted and
does not at all affect the City.
The topography on each of the three more or less evenly sloped parcels rises gently from
north to south. Minor reductions in allowable density and floor area were required due to
the limited presence of slopes greater than twenty percent. These reductions are
memorialized in the vested approval documents associated with the South Aspen Street
Subdivision/PUD, as follows: aggregate Net Lot Area for purposes of Density is 89,127
square feet, and aggregate Net Lot Area for purposes of allowable FAR is 88,411 square
feet.
Existing vegetation on the property consists only of four distinct groupings of trees
located along the perimeter of Parcel 1 and Juan Street (see Landscape Plan). Existing
utilities in the immediate site area include water, sewer, electric, telephone, natural gas
and cable television, all underground and in the surrounding rights-of-way. Fire hydrants
are conveniently located at the southeast corner of Parcel 3, at the entrance to the vacated
alley between Parcels 2 and 3, and on the south side of Juan Street near the northwest
corner of Parcel 2.
The existing conditions of the property necessarily includes the terms, conditions and
vested entitlements associated with Ordinance No 32, Series of 2003, and the SAS
Subdivision/PUD Final Plat and PUD Plans. Said Ordinance includes vested approvals
for the PUD Plan, Subdivision, Growth Management Quota System(GMQS) Exemptions
for Affordable Housing and for reconstruction of the multi-family units since demolished
at the Mine Dump Apartments, and Special Review establishing the off-street parking
requirements for the development of fourteen (14) free market (hereinafter "FM")
townhomes and =seventeen (17) affordable housing (hereinafter "AH") units. The
approvals granted pursuant to the Ordinance- are -further memorialized in a
Subdivision/PUD Agreement (hereinafter "the SAS Agreement") that was recorded on
April 27, 2007, as Reception No. 537079, as well as the Final Plat of South Aspen Street
Subdivision/PUD and Final PUD Plans (recorded together on April 27, 2007 in Book 83
at Page 50, as Reception No. 537080). Please refer to the Ordinance and the SAS
Agreement for a full explanation of the conditions associated with the approvals.
The rights entitled and vested pursuant to the above-cited documents and vested rights
extension approvals serve as the basis against which the current proposal should be
compared. The city's desire for lodging development notwithstanding, the vested
Subdivision/PUD Plans outline that which the applicant maintains a right to build without
any further approvals other than building permit review(s).
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential)
Page 9
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
While the subject property maintains PUD, Subdivision and Growth Management
approvals vested under the October 1, 2000 Land Use Code, and this application really
represents a major amendment of that approval (the City will not allow the town home
approvals and any approvals resulting from this application to both remain valid), the
applicants have agreed to forego use of the 2000 Land Use Code with regard to the
review of the requests made herein. Instead, this application is submitted under the
current, September, 2012 Land Use Code with only one exception relative to replacement
housing requirements, as described below.
For organizational purposes, the specific review criteria not addressed in this Section but
applicable to the requested approvals are addressed in the Exhibits to this application.
This section of the application provides an annotated summary of the applicable reviews
and the project's general consistency with the requirements of each review. Rather than
have a P&Z Resolution granting portions of the applicable approvals and a City Council
Ordinance addressing the remaining parts, it is suggested and hereby requested that,
pursuant to Code Section 26.304.060(B)(1), Combined Reviews, all final decisions be
documented in a single ordinance adopted by City Council and that, irrespective of Code
language which may run to the contrary, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z)
serve in a purely advisory capacity relative to all requested approvals.
Combining the reviews in this manner will eliminate or at least reduce duplication and
ensure economy of time, expense and clarity. All public noticing normally associated
with an application such as this will be maintained via publication, sign posting and
mailing. Moreover, a thorough and full review of the application and proposed
development will still be achieved. After all, the subject property has already been
considered and studied by the City, the review boards and the neighbors as much as, if
not more than, any other property in the City of Aspen.
A. Overview,Zoning& Subdivision/PUD
The codified Purpose of the underlying Lodge (L) Zone District within which the subject
property resides is,
...to encourage construction, renovation, and operation of lodges, tourist-
oriented multi family buildings, high occupancy timeshare facilities, and
ancillary uses compatible with lodging to support and enhance Aspen's
resort economy. Free-market residential units within this zone district
shall be permitted, but not required, to be used as short-term tourist
accommodations. The City of Aspen encourages high-occupancy lodging
development in this zone district...
The proposed development is completely consistent with this Purpose statement as it will
include a lodge with ancillary uses, as well as tourist-oriented free-market residential
units in a multi-family configuration. As envisioned, the lower/northerly parcel (Parcel
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 10
1) will be developed with a hotel/lodge to include seventy-three (73) rooms, but seventy-
six (76) keys due to lock-off capability in the suites, at an average unit size of
approximately 555 square feet. The proposed development on Parcel 1 includes
approximately 84,150 square feet that will be exposed above grade and count as Floor
Area.
The hotel building will sit atop a level of subgrade parking to include ninety-eight (98)
spaces, of which sixty-eight (68) will serve the lodge and thirty (30) will serve the
replacement needs of the Aspen Skiing Company. Access to the garage and the
delivery/loading dock area is gained off South Garmisch Street, immediately south of the
Dean Avenue right-of-way. The Dean Avenue right-of-way is left unused/unaltered so as
to allow it to continue to serve the needs of the Timber Ridge Condominium residents.
The-ground level of the hotel on Parcel 1- will include the entry/front desk/lobby/lounge
space, a restaurant/bar, a small/ancillary retail space, a ski concierge space;the spa/fitness
area, a ballroom, a meeting room, a board room, and circulation, service and back of
house spaces. Walk-up and vehicular access for drop-offs and pick-ups are
accommodated along Juan Street via South Aspen Street. The levels above the
entry/ground floor will accommodate the guest rooms. The floor below the entry level
will include eleven (11) guest rooms; six (6) dormitory style employee rooms to house
twelve (12) employees who will serve the operational needs of the lodge; and back of
house needs such as hotel administration offices, maintenance facilities, a function
support room, the main kitchen for the hotel, laundry and housekeeping facilities, service
and mechanical areas, and employee facilities. The guest rooms and employee housing
units on this level daylight on the north side of the structure while the remaining spaces
on this level are below grade. As such, the finished floor level of the guest rooms and
employee units will be at or above grade.
The hotel operator will also service the needs (i.e., reservations, house keeping, room
service, valet and shuttle services, etc.) and occupants of the units on the other two
parcels of the project, as described below. To accommodate this, the lodge on Parcel 1
will connect via skywalk over Juan Street with the lower of the multi-family structures on
Parcel 2, to its south. This connection will enable the lodge operator to service the
residential units and the short-term tourist accommodation uses that will happen in said
units without the burdens or inefficiencies that would come with having to leave the
building. These upper parcels (Parcels 2 and 3) will be developed with thirty-five (35)
free-market, whole ownership, residential condominiums containing a mix of two-
bedroom, three-bedroom, four-bedroom and five-bedroom units, all at an average of
approximately 2,475 square feet per unit. While the condominiums are proposed as
whole ownership units, the applicant seeks proactive approvals to allow conversion of
some or all of the units to fractional ownership/timeshare use at any time in the future.
The 35 free-market residential units have been designed to include 35 lock-off bedroom
suites (one per unit) so as to maximize the potential for rental of short-term tourist
accommodations and to accommodate the potential for future conversions to timeshare
lodging use.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 11
The proposed plan for adjusted Parcels 2 and 3 (the lot line adjoining these parcels will
be shifted to the south to accommodate the site plan) includes two buildings containing a
total of thirty-five (35) free-market multi-family condominium units averaging
approximately 2,475 net livable square feet per unit. These two structures also include
four (4) employee housing units (in the Parcel 2 structure), accessory spaces, and
enclosed parking areas. The architecture and layouts are modeled after the basic bulk,
massing and scale of development that was approved by COWOP 2 for lodge and
residential development thereon. That said, the exact architecture, massing, scale and
layout from the COWOP 2 plan could not be adhered to as the use mix has changed
substantially. Nevertheless, the current proposal provides an overall reduction in mass,
bulk and scale from the COWOP 2 plan, and an overall increase in open area.
The condominium building on adjusted Parcel 2 is "L" shaped with its long axis running
north-south roughly parallel to the westerly property line (which adjoins the Juan Street
Housing), and its shorter axis running east-west to front on South Aspen Street. The land
at the corner of South Aspen and Juan Streets is left undeveloped, as open public amenity
space. The northerly portion of this building on Parcel 2 sits atop a below-grade space
that includes fifteen (15) parking spaces that, due to the rise in topography from north to
south, is accessed from an entrance located at-grade along Juan Street. The same level
daylights on its north side, where the main building entrance provides access to a
lobby/lounge area, a ski valet, an administration space, a business center, mechanical and
housekeeping closets, and one (1) residential condominium (with a lock-off room). The
skywalk connection to the hotel on Parcel 1 sits just above the main entrance of the
condominium structure on Parcel 2.
The remaining/upper floors (2 through 5) of the building on Parcel 2 include seventeen
(17) additional free-market condominiums, each with a lock-off suite that can be added to
the short-term rental pool. In total, the Parcel 2 building includes approximately 42,015
square feet that will be exposed above grade and count as Floor Area. The eighteen (18)
units contain a total of fifty-eight (58) bedrooms where eighteen (18) of these bedrooms
(one per unit) are configured such that they can be locked-off for separate short-term
rental. Unit sizes range from two- to five-bedrooms, and average approximately 2,445
square feet. This structure is sensitively designed to have its mass and bulk recede from
view, with its two uppermost floors built into the roof pitches.
The condominium building occupying adjusted Parcel 3 is also "L" shaped and sited in
the same manner as the structure on Parcel 2. The open area resulting from this "L-
shape" resides along the South Aspen Street frontage. Vehicular access to an enclosed
parking garage underlying the building is gained via South Aspen Street, although the
garage entrance faces north (perpendicular to the street/sidewalks) to limit its visibility
and take advantage of the topography. The garage contains fifteen (15) parking spaces.
The rising topography from north to south puts the garage entrance/exit at-grade while its
roof nearly matches the grade along South Aspen Street and provides an open, public
amenity space and pedestrian arrival court for the building. The main entrance to this
building is in the corner of the open side of the "L-shape," behind the arrival court. The
seventeen (17) condominiums in this building are connected with the Parcel 2 structure
via another skywalk to provide indoor access between all three buildings.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 12
The Parcel 3 structure's architecture is"wedding caked" such that the upper floors recede
from view and the building's massing steps up with the topography of the site and its
surroundings. Further working in harmony with the surrounding topography,the Parcel 3
building has a rooftop deck at its southeast corner, which is the portion of the property
furthest uphill and closest to the Lift 1 base area. The rooftop deck includes a swimming
pool, hot tubs, and a bar. These functions will occur outdoors, without enclosure, and the
bar will be open to the general public during apres ski and other to be determined times.
The building on Parcel 3 includes a total of seventeen (17) free-market condominiums,
each with a lock-off suite that can be added to the short-term rental pool. In total, the
Parcel 2 building includes approximately 43,810 square feet that will be exposed above
grade and count as Floor Area. The seventeen (17) units contain a total of forty (40)
bedrooms where seventeen (17) of bedrooms
Unit sizeare ange rometwo ctotfour bedrooms,
locked-off for separate short-term rental.
and average approximately 2,480 square feet.
All of the proposed and above-described uses are consistent and in compliance with the
Lodge Zone District. For exampes,and structures (food service e for on-ripe lodge guests
conference facilities, accessory u s
is an accessory use), accessory storage, affordable multi-family housing accessory to a
lodging or timeshare operations and for employees of the operation, an d free-market
multi-family housing are all listed in Code Section 26.710.1903 as"Permitted Uses"that
are allowed as of right. Similarly, retail and restaurant uses, and service uses are listed in
Code Section 26.710.190.0 as "Conditional Uses" that are permitted subject to the
standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425 of the Code.
The proposal requires subdivision review and approval since it involves the development
of multi-family units intended to be condominiumized and separately transferred, and
because the existing boundary between Parcels 2 and 3 will be shifted to the south to
accommodate the proposed site plan/layout. Further, allowing the potential for future
conversion of some or all of the free-market condominiums to timesharing also requires
subdivision approval. The PUD review will establish Final PUD Plans, design standards
variations that would otherwise be handled through variance processes, and off-street
parking and dimensional standards particular to the site-specific development plan.
For ease of comparison, a summary of the proposed dimensional requirements and those
of the underlying Lodge (L) zone district are provided in the Dimensional Requirements
Table on the next page, which is followed by the rationale behind the requested PUD
variations. (All footnotes are explained immediately below the "Dimensional
Requirements Table.")
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential)
Page 13
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS TABLE
DIMENSIONAL LODGE (L) ZONE PROPOSED PUD
STANDARD DISTRICT DER L ZONING
Minimum "
Gross LotArea 3,000sf 3,000sf
3,000sf/free-market 2,545 sf/free-market multi-family
multi-family dwelling. dwelling(35 total units on 89,127sf of
Minimum' Net No requirement for Net Lot Area);
Lot ` Lodge, Timeshare
Ar'ea/Dwelling Lodge, Exempt Net Lot Area(for Density): 89,127se;
Unit Timesharing&
Affordable Multi- Net Lot Area(for FAR): 88,411sf
Family Residential. a rox.)1
Min.Lot Width 30 feet 30 feet
Parcel 1: 7 feet(from Juan St. R.O.W.)
Minimum
Front Yard 5 feet Parcel 2: 15 feet(from Juan St. ROW)3
Setback3
Parcel 3: 7 feet(from S. Aspen St.
ROW )3
Parcel 1: 12 feet on East Side Yard(S.
Aspen St.); and 5 feet on West Side
Yard (S. Garmisch St.).3
Parcel 2: 12 feet on East Side Yard
Minimum (Aspen St.); 10 feet on West Side Yard
Side Yard 5 feet (adjoining Juan St. Housing),g), except at
"Barbee Notch"where setback is
reduced to 2 feet.3
Parcel 3: 25 feet on North Side Yard
(adjusted Property Line between Parcels
2 and 3); 19 feet on South Side Yard.3
Min Parcel 1: 10 feet from north property
imum
line.3
Rear Yard - 5 feet
Setback3 Parcel 2: 5 feet(adjusted Property Line
between Parcels 2 and 3).3
Parcel 3: 10 feet.3
Minimum Per Code Sec.
Utility/Trash/ 26.575.060 Per Final PUD Plans
Recycle Area
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential)
Page 14
28 feet(could increase Parcel 1: 54 feet
Maximum up to 40' with certain
Height9 lodging density and/or Parcel 2: 60 feets
Commercial Design
Review a royal) Parcel 3: 55 feets
Min: Distance
b/w Bnildings on 10 feet Per Final PUD Plans
i Lot
Minimum Per Code Sec. Per final PUD Plans
Public Amenity 26.575.030
Space
Parcel 1: 84,150 square feet '
Parcel 2: 42,100 square feet"5
Maximum Total for the PUD: Parcel 3: 43,900 square feetl,s
Floor Area Ratio' 1:1 (88,411sf)"4
1 [Cumulative: 1.93:1 (170,150sf on
��) ,4;5,6
88,411 sf of Net Lot Area)''s,where:
Commercial Uses: 0.071:1 (6,240sf)6;
Lodging Uses: 0.882:1(77,910sfJ6;
and FM Multi-Family Uses: 0.973:1
(86,000sf)6j 1,4,5
Maximum
Multi=Family 1,500sf,but 2,000sf No requirement/Per Final PUD Plans
Dwelling with use of TDR
Unit Size'
For Multi-Family
Residential: 1
space/d.u. (fewer may
be approved by Special
Minimum Review); For
OStreet Hotel/Lodge: 0.5 89 spaces
ff-
Parking spaces/unit(fewer may
be approved by Special (the PUD Plan includes 128 spaces, of
Review);For which 30 are for Aspen Skiing
Commercial Use: 1 Company use only)
space/1,000sf of Net
Leasable Space (100%
may be provided via
payment in lieu)
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential)
Page 15
Footnotes:
1: The Net Lot Area figures are as stipulated in the vested town home approvals; these
exclude the vacated alley on Parcel 1 and were calculated pursuant to the definition of
Lot Area contained in Section 26.575.020(C) of the October 1, 2000 Aspen Land Use
Code. Given the vested status of these figures, Net Lot Area has not been
recalculated for purposes of determining allowable density or FAR, and the Net Lot
Areas apply to the PUD as a whole/cumulatively (rather than using Net Lot Areas for
the individual parcels).
2: Lot Width is measured along the front yard setback line of each parcel.
3: Due to the nature of this site and consistent with the approach taken in the review of
this project, the minimum setbacks for development within this project shall be
calculated and depicted in the building permit submission as the minimum distance
possible measured horizontally from the front, side or rear property line, as
applicable, to the footprint of structures at finished grade, excluding subgrade areas,
cantilevered building elements, eaves and roof overhangs, balconies, exterior
stairways, gazebos, porches and similar architectural features or projections, light
wells, driveways and parking areas, landscaping, retaining walls/structures, and
patios, decks, and similar features constructed within 30 inches of finished grade.
4: Per Code Section 26.710.190.D.1 Lb., the allowable cumulative FAR for the project is
1:1 since there is fewer than one lodge unit per 500 square feet of Gross Lot Area and
the PUD parcels total more than 27,000 square feet. Pro-rated shares of non-unit
space per use category count toward the cumulative FAR limit; however, the pro-
rated shares of non-unit space for the lodge and affordable housing uses shall not
count toward the FAR cap for those uses while the pro-rated share of non-unit space
attributable to the free-market multi-family housing component does count toward the
FAR cap for said use. As such, the allowable Commercial Use FAR is 0.25:1,
exclusive of non-unit space; the allowable Lodge units, Timeshare Lodge units and
Exempt Timesharing units FAR is 1:1, exclusive of non-unit space; the allowable
Affordable Multi-Family Housing FAR is 0.25:1, exclusive of non-unit space; and the
allowable Free-Market Multi-Family Housing FAR is 0.25:1, inclusive of its pro rata
share of non-unit space. All proposed FAR limits based on the cumulative Net Lot
Area of 88,411 square feet. Notwithstanding FAR caps for individual use types, the
cumulative FAR cap of 1:1 for the project cannot be exceeded without PUD variation.
5: Both Height and Floor Area (FAR) are defined and measured in the same manner as
was approved under Section 8, Measurements, of City Council Ordinance No. 28,
Series of 2011, for the development of the Lift One Lodge PUD,to wit:
Height: Due to the nature of this site and consistent with the approach taken in the
review of this project, the maximum height for development within this project, shall
be calculated and depicted in the building permit submission as the maximum
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 16
distance possible measured vertically from interpolated natural grade to the highest
point or structure within a vertical plane. Architectural and mechanical
appurtenances, including but not limited to elevator overruns, mechanical equipment,
antennas, chimneys, flues, vents, trellises, or similar structures shall be depicted and
not extend over ten(10) feet above the specified maximum height limit and be limited
to areas fifteen(15) or more feet from the outermost wall edges.
Floor Area: Due to the nature of this site and consistent with the approach taken in
the review of this project, floor area shall be calculated as that floor space within the
surrounding exterior walls as measured from the outside face of the nominal
structure. For any story that is partially above and partially below interpolated natural
grade, only the floor space above the point at which interpolated natural grade crosses
the subfloor elevation of that story shall be counted towards floor area. The floor area
tabulation shall include a separate measurement for decks, balconies, exterior
stairways, gazebos, porches, and similar features. Areas exempt from the calculation
of Floor Area shall be those areas identified in the Land Use Code in effect on the day
of initial application — September 7, 2012, as applicable to this project. There is no
limitation for at-grade landscape terraces.
Reversion to Current Code: The above provisions for measuring improvements shall
be in effect through the vested period or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
each building, plus six months, whichever is later. Upon reversion, all built
improvements and dimensions thereof shall be considered conforming. Subsequent
improvements shall be measured according to the method in effect at the time of
building permit submission for such improvements.
6: The "Lodge Uses" FAR includes all improvements on Parcel 1 only, exclusive of the
Entry Level "Restaurant/Bar" and "BOH/Pantry Kitchen" spaces, measured pursuant
to the definition providedhe Note
mmer�al,Usesb m
FAR includesonlylthe Entry Lev
of 88,411 square feet. T el
"Restaurant/Bar" and "BOH/Pantry Kitchen" spaces on Parcel 1, measured pursuant
to the definition provided in Note 5, above, and based on the cumulative Net Lot Area
of 88,411 square feet. The Free-Market Multi-Family Residential FAR includes all
Floor Area on Parcels 2 and 3, measured pursuant to the definition provided in Note
5, above, and based on the cumulative Net Lot Area of 88,411 square feet.
7: Significant Parking and Transportation Demand Management measures are proposed
as part of the PUD and as explained below/herein.
The proposed intensity of development with regard to all dimensional standards is
appropriate for this PUD given the mix of uses included and the fact that the whole
program suits and flatters its ski area base location. The number and types of residential
and lodge units included in the PUD are necessary in today's environment to make the
inclusion of 76 units of traditional lodging (152 "pillows") workable for the applicant.
However, the awkward reality is that making all of the above possible requires certain
trade-offs in terms of allowing the PUD variations outlined in the Dimensional
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential)
Page 17
Requirements Table proposed above, accommodating flexibility with regard to location
and types of affordable housing mitigation as well as an overall reduction in quantity,
substantially decreased impact fee and exaction requirements, and procedural variations
to accomplish a streamlined review process.
In a concerted effort to make these necessary trade-offs palatable to the City and its
citizens, the applicant has carefully reviewed and taken into account in this application
the design, neighborhood and general sensitivity considerations that were integral to the
COWOP 2 plan that was strongly supported by the stakeholders group. With regard to
the proposed South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD,the overall massing, scale and bulk of
development on Parcels 2 and 3 have been appropriately reduced from that approved by
the COWOP 2 Group and a viable, appropriately scaled, traditional lodge development
has been included on Parcel 1. Furthermore, the proposed PUD accomplishes the mass,
scale, bulk and use program goals of the COWOP 2 group while:
• maintaining sustainability;
• adding meaningful building setbacks and open areas for solar gain, opening of view
angles, and allowing a sensitive response to the location of the Lift One Lodge's busy
areas, to the corner of South Aspen Street and Juan Street, to the proximity of the
Juan Street Affordable Housing, to the need for accommodating drainage and
geologic conditions along the westerly property line, and to the intersection of Juan
and Garmisch Streets;
• enlivening and invigorating the neighborhood, the streetscapes and the pedestrian
experience with a complete and interconnected sidewalk system featuring the addition
of a resort with a restaurant/bar and outdoor dining and patio areas along the
frontages on South Aspen and Juan Streets;
• delivering architectural interest and vitality with an organic design that reads as three
distinct developments interconnected through a series of skywalks;
• designing and locating all access points sensitively with regard to visual impacts,
appropriate distribution of vehicular flows, and accommodation of emergency access
requirements;
• proposing innovative and substantial parking and transportation demand management
programs (described below);
• maintaining similar view angles for the neighbors to the north and avoiding all use of
the Dean Avenue right-of-way so as not to permanently interfere with use of this
public area by residents of the Timber Ridge Townhomes;
• supplying meaningful on- and off-site employee housing as part of an appropriate
overall employee housing package;
• enclosing the SkiCo parking lot and all parking, for that matter;
• including public apras ski amenities; and
• providing a development pattern deserving of its location.
Finally, the suitability of the site for the proposed land uses and character of development
has long been established and recognized through: prior approvals and review processes
for not only the subject property but surrounding sites; various types of engineering
studies that have been completed; adopted community plans and design guidelines; and
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 18
two rounds of COWOPs. It is understood that the proposed development can and will be
engineered prior to building permit issuance to comply with all applicable requirements
relative to road/sidewalk improvements, utilities and public service needs, stormwater
drainage management, mitigation of geologic conditions,road,traffic and transit impacts,
and the similar without adversely affecting future development of the surrounding area or
resulting in unnecessary public costs.
B. Growth Management Reviews
1. Introduction Employee Generation & the Proposed Overall Employee
Housing�Package
This application requires growth management approvals for lodging units, commercial
net leasable space (NLS), free-market residential units, and affordable housing units
including the demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing. Due to the location
of the proposed affordable housing mitigation, approval for the provision of some
affordable housing outside City limits is also necessary. Finally, given the limits on
annual availability of free-market residential and lodging allotments established by Code
Section 26.470.030.D, multi-year allotments may be needed for both uses.
Since there is no established annual limit for affordable housing allotments, the ten (10)
on-site units can be accommodated, and the eight (8) off-site units already maintain
County-issued growth management approvals. The approximately 5,620 square feet of
net leasable commercial space (NLS) included within the proposed PUD can be
accommodated under the 33,300 square feet of NLS available through the 2012 annual
allotment pool. There are thirty-five (35) free-market residential units in the proposed
PUD, twenty-one (21) of which still require allotments (as described below), and just
eighteen (18) such allotments are available per calendar year. Therefore, three (3) free-
market residential allotments are needed from a future year unless unused allotments
from previous years remain available (in which case, priority for carry-forward
allotments over future year allotments is hereby requested to accommodate this project).
Similarly, there are only 112 "pillows" available for allotment to lodge uses per calendar
year (where each lodging bedroom is considered to be two pillows) and the proposed
PUD includes 152 pillows (in 76 lodge units). Accordingly, all 112 pillows available for
2012 are required and another 40 pillows are needed from any available carry-forward
allotments from previous years and/or from the 2013 annual allotment pool (with
preference/priority given to carry-forward allotments).
As explained earlier, the paramount goal for the development of the South Aspen Street
Subdivision/PUD property is to find a reasonable way of including the development of
lodging on this site rather than a development of purely town homes. All other typically
applicable City goals and requirements --- even those associated with affordable housing
---- are not as important in this particular case. The number and types of residential and
lodge units included in the PUD are necessary in today's environment to make the
inclusion of 76 units of traditional lodging(152 "pillows")workable for the applicant.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential)
Page 19
Notwithstanding the letter of some growth management regulations, it is in the spirit of
making lodging development achievable in this PUD that the City's cooperation is
needed in accepting certain trade-offs in terms of allowing the PUD variations outlined in
the Dimensional Requirements Table proposed above, and accommodating flexibility
with regard to location and types of affordable housing mitigation as well as an overall
reduction in quantity. As such, this PUD includes a proposed overall employee housing
package with a unique combination of unit types located both on-site and off-site and that
will adequately address the demands of the proposal. Thus, the city is being asked to
accept the proposed overall employee housing package, and in doing so balance the value
of realizing the goal of having a lodge at the subject location, as mitigation of a sufficient
portion of the incremental increase in employee housing demand that may result from the
development.
Code Section 26.470.100.A explains that, whenever employee housing is required to
mitigate for employees generated by a commercial or lodging development, an analysis
of net new employee generation resulting from the development must be carried out. The
employee mitigation requirement is then based upon the incremental employee
generation difference between the pre-existing development and the proposed
development. The proposed development site had no pre-existing lodging bedrooms or
commercial net leasable space and, therefore, no credit for FTE generation from such
uses can be claimed or applied. However, the applicant maintains fourteen (14) free-
market residential reconstruction credits from the demolition of the Mine Dump
Apartments, meaning the incremental FTE generation resulting from this use component
is attributable to only the twenty-one (21) additional free-market residential units,
averaging 2,475 net livable square feet each,that are proposed in the PUD.
Subsection 26.470.100.A.1. of the Code establishes employee generation rates quantified
as full-time equivalents (FTEs) per 1,000 square feet of net leasable space or per lodge
bedroom. Based on the codified FTE generation rates, the proposed 76-bedroom lodge
on Parcel 1 would generate a total of thirty-eight (38) FTE (76 x 0.5 FTE per lodging
bedroom). Note that lodging bedroom generation rates are understood to include FTE
generation resulting from all hotel operations, including ancillary/accessory spaces and
functions. However, the restaurant/bar space in the hotel will serve not only guests and
residents of the project, but also the public at large and is, therefore, not truly
ancillary/accessory space; thus, the 6,240 gross square feet of restaurant/bar space
(including its kitchen/pantry/back of house space) represents approximately 5,620 square
feet of new commercial net leasable space (it is assumed for purposes of this review and
approval that net leasable space will equate to 90% of the gross space) which generates
twenty-three (23) FTE (5,620 square feet at 4.1 FTE per 1,000 square feet of net leasable
space).
In addition to the lodge and commercial employee generation, a housing mitigation
requirement equal to 30% of the additional free-market residential net livable area is also
required. With twenty-one (21) new free-market residential units averaging 2,475 net
livable square feet each, a requirement for the provision of 15,593 net livable square feet
of employee housing is generated ([21 x 2,475] x 30%). Per Code Section
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 20
26.470.100.A.4.,whenever an affordable housing mitigation requirement is required to be
converted between a number-of-employees requirement and a square-footage
requirement, regardless of direction, the following conversion factor shall be used: 1
FTE = 400 square feet of net livable area. Therefore, the requirement for 15,593 net
livable square feet of employee housing is understood to equate to a requirement for
housing of 39 FTE.
The development of a new lodge requires development of certain types and amounts of
affordable housing to receive the necessary number of pillow allotments. The amount of
affordable housing required is equal to 30% of the free-market residential net livable area
included in the development and/or 60% of the employees generated by the lodge,
timeshare lodge, exempt timeshare units and associated commercial development
included in the project. With regard to the "and/or" in the previous sentence, the code
provides that the requirement is "or" when all mitigation required is being supplied with
newly built, on-site units but that, instead, the "and" applies when the mitigation
requirement is being satisfied by other means. By contrast,when mitigation requirements
can be satisfied on-site with newly built units, only the highest of the various
requirements (i.e., those attributable to the lodge, commercial, multi-family replacement,
"or" free-market residential use)needs to be provided/met.
The effect of these requirements would be a need to house: 39 FTE as mitigation for the
twenty-one (21) additional free market residential units; 22.8 FTE for the seventy-six
(76) lodging bedrooms (i.e., 38 x 60%); and 13.8 FTE as mitigation for the commercial
(restaurantibar) space (i.e., 23 x 60%). These mitigation requirements are in addition to
the 13.75 FTE that are supposed to be housed in response to the demotion of the Mine
Dump Apartments. As such,the cumulative mitigation requirement per letter of the Code
is housing for 89.35 FTE (39 + 22.8 + 13.8 + 13.75). If the provisions of Code Section
26.470.100.A.6.were applicable,this total would revert to the highest of the four separate
mitigation requirements and result in a need to provide housing for just 39 total FTE.
As provided and explained throughout the foregoing,the ability to meet the letter of these
standards at best severely compromises but more likely fully eliminates the applicant's
ability to deliver any viable lodging on the subject property. First,the realities of the site
preclude the location of all mitigation for either the free-market residential component or
the lodging and associated commercial component, much less all of these, on-site with
actual, newly built units. Therefore, the combined/cumulative requirement for mitigating
89.35 FTE would actually apply and effectively preclude the applicant's ability to deliver
on the City's goal of achieving meaningful lodging at this location. Moreover, the same
elimination of feasibility effectively results from a requirement to meet even the free-
market residential or the lodging/associated commercial mitigation requirements on-site.
In other words, if the lodging is desired on the subject property, then a great deal more
flexibility than the Code provides with regard to employee housing mitigation
requirements is absolutely necessary.
This flexibility can be accommodated under the terms of Code Section 26.470.100.A.1.
Said Code Section explains that, "Applicants may request an employee generation review
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential)
Page 21
with the Planning and Zoning Commission [which, in this case of Combined Reviews,
shall be finally conducted and decided upon by the City Council] ... In establishing
employee generation, the Planning and Zoning Commission [or City Council] shall
consider the following: [These criteria are provided below in italics and are followed by a
response.]"
a. The expected employee generation of the use considering the employment
generation pattern of the use or similar use within the City or a similar resort
economy.
b. Any unique employment characteristics of the operation.
c. The extent to which employees of various uses within a mixed-use building or of a
related off-site operation will overlap or serve multiple functions.
d. A proposed restriction requiring full-time employee generation mitigation upon
vacation of the type of business acceptable to the Planning and Zoning
Commission [or City Council].
e. Any proposed follow-up analyses of the project (e.g., an audit) to confirm actual
employee generation.
f. For lodge projects only: An efficiency or reduction in the number of employees
required for the lodging component of the project may, at the discretion of the
Commission [or Council] as a means of incentivizing a lodge project, be applied
as a credit towards the mitigation requirement of the free-market residential
component of the project. Any approved reduction shall require an audit to
determine actual employee generation after two (2) complete years of operation
of the lodge.
The subject PUD is deserving of and requires a reduction in the number of employees
necessitating mitigation as a means of incentivizing the inclusion of a substantial lodging
component. That is, for the reasons explained above and throughout this application, if
lodging is truly desired on the subject property, then a great deal more flexibility than the
Code provides with regard to employee housing mitigation requirements is absolutely
necessary.
The subject PUD will have unique employment characteristics. While the free-market
multi-family condominiums are proposed as whole ownership units, the applicant seeks
proactive approvals to allow conversion of some or all of the units to fractional
ownership/timeshare use at any time in the future. The 35 free-market residential units
have been designed to include 35 lock-off bedroom suites (one per unit) so as to
maximize the potential for rental of short-term tourist accommodations and to
accommodate the potential for future conversions to timeshare lodging use. Moreover,
the hotel operator will service not only the traditional lodge units but also the needs (i.e.,
reservations, house keeping, room service, valet and shuttle services, etc.) and occupants
of the free-market multi-family residential units (any short-term tourist accommodation
uses that will happen in said units) by means of a pair of skywalk structures efficiently
connecting all three of the buildings.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 22
The city is being asked to accept the proposed overall employee housing package, and in
doing so balance the value of realizing the goal of having a lodge at the subject location,
as appropriate mitigation of a sufficient portion of the incremental increase in employee
housing demand that may result from the development.
The proposed overall employee housing package includes six (6) dormitory style units
that will house twelve (12) employees within the lodge building, four (4) one-bedroom
units that will house seven (7) employees in the Parcel 2 building, and eight (8) three-
bedroom units that will house twenty-four (24) employees at the Pacific Avenue
Condominiums. In total, therefore, the PUD's overall employee housing package
includes provision of housing for forty-three (43) FTE, of which nineteen (19) are on-site
and the other twenty-four(24) of which are at the same location approved by the City for
mitigation of the employees generated by the Residences at Little Nell project.
The dormitory style units will house two (2) FTE per room for a total of twelve (12)FTE
housed and these units benefit from generous on-site employee facilities outside of the
rooms but just down the hallway on the same floor. The finished floor level of these
units is located at or above grade. The applicant is willing to deed restrict these units to
whatever category/categories the City desires and deems appropriate. As was approved
for the on-site employee units in the Mountain Chalet lodge expansion, the employee
units located within the lodge structure will be limited to occupancy by employees of the
lodge. Also as was done with the Mountain Chalet approvals, since the units are to be
used only by employees of the lodge itself, income and asset restrictions will be waived,
and the applicant will meet with Housing Office staff prior to the completion of the
development to establish mutually acceptable lease terms for employees whose units are
attached to the business.
Parcel 2 includes four (4) one-bedroom employee units that will house seven (7) FTE.
While the applicant would like to retain the option of making these units either rental or
sale units, the category mix of deed restrictions for these units is being left to City
Council to decide. The finished floor level of these units is not located at or above grade,
but adequate light, ventilation and egress will be provided for through the placement of
light wells. In addition, provisions to ensure the true affordability of these units with
respect to dues, fees, and assessments will be made as part of any owners' association
documents.
In addition, the applicant has entered into a contract to purchase the Pacific Avenue
Condominiums property (formerly known as Alpine Grove) at the ABC where BOCC
approvals allow for the development of eight (8) 3-bedroom affordable housing units
(approximately 9,656sf of net livable area, total) in two (2) four-unit structures. These
County approvals remain valid under BOCC Resolution Number 135-2004, and the
vested rights were extended pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 081-2007. In consulting
with County staff, it is not clear if the vested property rights remain valid but, more
importantly, it has been determined that one can still obtain a building permit for
development of the remaining Pacific Avenue Condominiums, and that there have been
no amendments to the County Code that would preclude or significantly affect such a
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 23
building permit. The Pacific Avenue Condominiums are outside of the City limits but
within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), in a well established affordable housing,
transit-oriented development and neighborhood.
Should this proposed PUD be approved by the City, the applicant will close on the
purchase and complete the development of these units. As indicated above, these eight
approved units include 24 bedrooms and housing for 24 FTE. The approvals and
Subdivision Agreement for Alpine Grove Subdivision provide that these will be Category
3 for-sale units and some or all of them units may be deed restricted to Category 2
guidelines following further discussions with APCHA; nevertheless, the applicant
remains open to accepting whatever category mix the City would like provided the
proposed PUD is approved. Since the Pacific Avenue Condominiums are part of an
established wholly affordable development, there is no concern that an owners'
association of free market residents will levy dues or assessments that can compromise
the true affordability of living in the units.
All of the proposed affordable housing is being provided for mitigation purposes and in
the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. The Parcel 2 units and the off-site
units will be deed-restricted as "for-sale" while those associated with the lodging
operation will be rental units, as appropriate. As already stated, the applicant is offering
to provide the mitigation units at whatever category of deed restriction the City Council
deems desirable and appropriate, and the applicant will cooperate with the City/APCHA
in the drafting of any owners' association documents to assure the permanent and true
affordability of the units.
This overall employee housing package supplies housing for forty-three (43) FTE, which
equates to slightly more than 48% of the total/cumulative requirement otherwise
stipulated by the Code. Nineteen (19) FTE will be housed on-site, which equates to 38%
more FTE housed on-site than was required in connection with replacement provisions
for the demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments. The highest of the employee
mitigation requirements (housing for 39 FTE) is generated by the free-market residential
component of the development; if the incentive provisions of Code Section
26.470.100.A.6. for on-site housing were available for development that includes
lodging, the proposed overall employee housing package would actually exceed the total
mitigation requirement by slightly more than 10%.
The applicant has offered to deed restrict all of the housing units included in the overall
employee housing mitigation package at whatever categories the City desires, thereby
allowing the City the opportunity to ensure that employee housing goals are furthered
with units established as priority through the current APCHA Guidelines. Furthermore,
the proposed employee housing units provide a very desirable mix of types, economic
levels and lifestyles inasmuch as the dormitory-style units within the lodge will serve
single (i.e., unmarried) employees of the lodging operation while the eight three-bedroom
units of the Pacific Avenue Condominiums will house families. The proposal adequately
addresses the APCHA Housing Priorities as well as the true needs of the project, and it
mitigates a sufficient portion of the incremental increase in employee housing demand
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 24
that may result from the development when balanced against the value of realizing the
goal of having a lodge at the subject location.
With regard to audits and the similar, it is understood that Code Section 26.575.210,
Lodge Occupancy Auditing, already stipulates that,
The Community Development Director shall be authorized to require
periodic operational audits of lodge developments to ensure compliance
with the Land Use Code and requirements for lodge operations. This audit
may include, but is not limited to, an occupancy report of the lodge and
individual units therein; rate schedules; the manner in which short-term
occupancies are marketed and managed; physical p o f the
operation, such as the number of units and pillows in the lodge, the
number of affordable housing units provided on site, other units and
amenities on site and the number of parking spaces provided on site; the
dimensional characteristics of the lodge; and any additional conditions of
approval. The Community Development Director may request that
information be provided in a specific time frame, and may request a site
inspection as part of the audit. Property owners may request that certain
information, such as marketing strategies or rate schedules, be held in
confidence by the City.
2. General Requirements
For responses to the specific review criteria of Section 27.470.050, General
Requirements,please refer to Exhibit 8-A of this application.
The proposed PUD is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, which include
multi-family residential of both free-market and affordable nature, lodging and associated
commercial uses, and mixed-use developments, and these are the same uses included
within the proposed PUD. Thd development
uses and and to dimensional rstandard as
limitations of the Lodge Zone District
varied through the PUD process. Mitigation of employee generation as specifically
reviewed for this PUD is being satisfied in accordance with Subsections 26.470.100.A
and 26.470.1110 while the proposed employee generation mitigation plan is being
approved pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4. The applicant is offering to provide the
mitigation units at whatever category of deed restriction the City Council deems
necessary and appropriate. Any additional demand on public infrastructure resulting from
the project will be mitigated through improvements proposed as part of this PUD.
3. Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing
As mentioned earlier,while the subject property maintains PUD, Subdivision and Growth
Management approvals vested under the October 1, 2000 Land Use Code, and this
application really represents a major amendment of that approval (the City will not allow
the town home approvals and any approvals resulting from this application to both
remain valid), the applicants have agreed to forego use of the 2000 Land Use Code with
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging(Residential)
Page 25
regard to the review of the requests made herein. Instead, this application is submitted
under the current, September, 2012 Land Use Code.
That said, there is one exception being made. Since the replacement housing requirement
associated with the demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments was established with the
old approvals (5 AH units, with 13 bedrooms was required as replacement housing) and
the apartments have long since ceased to exist (it is assumed all of the former residents
have successfully relocated by now), the applicant sees no reason to attempt to define
what that replacement requirement would be under today's Code, especially since the
required information to do so relative to square footages, bedroom counts, etc. is no
longer readily available. Given the City of Aspen's established position with regard to an
applicant's ability to take and make applicable only the most beneficial of the vested
codes and the new codes (see Conner Cabins file), and the applicant's willingness to
forego such "cherry-picking" in every other regard with respect to this application, it is
reasonable that the vested multi-family housing replacement requirement for the subject
PUD be carried forward without reevaluation under today's Code.
Under the vested approvals, the development rights for the 14 FM town home units were
derived from the demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments. The reconstruction of
demolished multi-family dwelling units was exempt from growth management subject to
the requirements of Chapter 26.530 of the October 1, 2000 Code, the "Resident Multi-
Family Replacement Program." The development of the affordable housing units
themselves was also exempt from growth management subject to compliance with the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's ("APCHA") affordable housing guidelines.
Among other things, upon demolition of multi-family units (as then defined in the Code),
the program required the construction of replacement affordable housing containing a
minimum of 50% of the net residential area demolished. The replacement square footage
also had to be configured so as to also replace at least 50% of the bedrooms that were lost
to demolition, and at least 50% of the replacement housing had to be located above
natural grade. In the end, the vested plans satisfied the replacement requirements with
provision of four 3-bedroom units and one 1-bedroom unit, all on Parcel 3 and not to
exceed an average of Category 3 under the APCHA Guidelines. These units would house
a total of 13.75 FTE in five (5)units containing thirteen(13) bedrooms.
In light of the foregoing, with acceptable satisfaction of the replacement housing
requirement being carried forward for the current PUD proposal, the GMQS exempted
fourteen (14) free-market residential development rights should rightfully be carried
forward as well. Therefore, of the thirty-five (35) free market residential units included
in the current proposal, twenty-one (21) still require growth management approval.
Furthermore, the proposed overall employee housing plan includes housing for nineteen
(19) FTE on-site, which equates to 38% more FTE housed on-site than was required in
connection with the replacement provisions.
4. Lodge Development
As provided and explained throughout the foregoing, the ability to meet the letter of these
standards at best severely compromises but more likely fully eliminates the applicant's
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 26
ability to deliver any viable lodging on the subject property. First, the realities of the site
preclude the location of all mitigation for either the free-market residential net livable
area or the lodging units and associated commercial net leasable space, much less both of
these, on-site with actual, newly built units. Therefore, the combined/cumulative
requirement would actually apply and effectively preclude the applicant's ability to
deliver on the City's goal of achieving meaningful lodging at this location. Moreover,
the same elimination of feasibility effectively results from a requirement to meet even the
free-market residential or the lodging/associated commercial mitigation requirements on-
site. In other words, if the lodging is desired on the subject property, then a great deal
more flexibility than the Code provides with regard to employee housing mitigation
requirements is absolutely necessary. Thus,the city is being asked to accept the proposed
overall employee housing package, and in doing so balance the value of realizing the goal
of having a lodge at the subject location, as appropriate mitigation of a sufficient portion
of the incremental increase in employee housing demand that may result from the
development.
5. New Free Market Residential Units within a Multi-Family or Mixed Use
Project
Approval of the new free-market residential units in the proposed mixed-use
development is to be based on the General Requirements discussed above. For responses
to the specific review criteria of Section 26.470.050, General Requirements, please refer
to Exhibit 8-A of this application.
6 Multi-Year Allotment
For responses to the specific review criteria of Section 27.470.090.1, Multi-Year
Development Allotment, please refer to Exhibit 8-C of this application.
There are thirty-five (35) free-market residential units in the proposed PUD, twenty-one
(21) of which still require allotments (as described above), and just eighteen (18) such
allotments are available per calendar year. Therefore, three (3) free-market residential
allotments are needed from a future year unless unused allotments from previous years
remain available. Similarly, there are only 112 "pillows" available for allotment to lodge
uses per calendar year (where each lodging bedroom is considered to be two pillows) and
the proposed PUD includes 152 pillows (in 76 lodge units). Accordingly, all 112 pillows
available for 2012 are required and another 40 pillows are needed from any available
carry-forward allotments from previous years and/or from the 2013 annual allotment
pool. To the extent that carry-forward free-market residential and/or lodging allotments
from previous years exist and remain available, the applicant would prefer to use these
types of allotments as opposed to multi-year allotments from future growth management
years; should any such carry-forward allotments be available, the applicant hereby
requests those allotments first and will then use future/multi-year allotments only as may
remain necessary.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 27
To be granted a multi-year allotment, the City Council must find that the project qualifies
as "exceptional" per the guiding criteria of Code Section 26.470.090.1.a. The City has
been extremely clear in publicly expressing its desire to realize the development of
lodging units in meaningful numbers at the subject site. Yet, the growth management
regulations make only 112 pillows (or just 56 lodge units) available per year. As such,
the only possible way of forwarding the City's lodging goals is to request a multi-year
allotment and, in doing so, be faced with the subjective requirement that the development
proposal be deemed "exceptional." In this way, the goals and the regulations seem to be
at odds.
Nevertheless, the proposed PUD is exceptional in many significant ways. For example,
the applicant has offered to deed restrict all of the housing units included in the overall
employee housing mitigation package at whatever categories the City desires, thereby
allowing the City the opportunity to ensure that employee housing goals are furthered
with units established as priority through the current APCHA Guidelines. Furthermore,
the proposed employee housing units provide a very desirable mix of types, economic
levels and lifestyles inasmuch as the dormitory-style units within the lodge will serve
single (i.e., unmarried) employees of the lodging operation while the eight three-bedroom
units of the Pacific Avenue Condominiums will house families.
Impacts on public infrastructure will be minimized within reason simply by virtue of
complying with the City's adopted, strict Canary Initiatives, and the cost of any utility
and public service upgrades required as a result of this development will be borne by the
applicant. All City requirements relative to, among other things, storm drainage, utility
installations, right-of-way improvements, and building and energy codes will be satisfied.
Similarly, the current proposal is innovatively designed to take better advantage of the
rising topography of the site than was the case with any previously studied or approved
development plan for the site; as a result, the amount of energy spent on excavation, soils
removal, and site retaining necessary to accommodate this development plan is far less
intensive that had been thought practicable until now and associated construction impacts
will decrease markedly.
The applicant has offered extraordinary and innovative steps to maximize potential public
transit usage and minimize reliance on the automobile. The volunteered parking and
transportation demand management measures described below will keep the development
"green," reduce automobile usage and dependency, and minimize traffic generation,
parking demand and associated impacts.
The proposal undoubtedly promotes sustainability of the local economy. For example, in
a March 1, 2011, letter from the City of Aspen Community Development Director to the
applicant it is stated that, "The Community Development Department continues to believe
this property should be developed in away that serves the resort economy. The property
remains ideally situated for lodging, fractional ownership, or short-term
accommodations." The proposed development is certain to deliver otherwise unrealized
large economic benefits to the City in terms of property, sales, use, lodging, real estate
transfer, and other taxes. With the development of employee housing units that will be
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 28
occupied on a year-round basis and the lodge's inclusion of conference and function
spaces, many of these economic benefits will continue to be realized even in the shoulder
seasons.
As clearly demonstrated above (see pages 10-18), the proposal represents a desirable site
plan and architectural design solutions while providing for compatibility with the
character of existing and anticipated land uses in the surrounding area. Also as provided
earlier herein, the proposal is in complete harmony with the purpose of the underlying
Lodge Zone District, and it goes the extra mile to include several features that will benefit
the neighborhood and the general public at large (i.e., open areas and public amenity
spaces,public apras ski opportunities,vitality and streetscape improvements, etc.).
Finally, the goal for the development of the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD
property is to find a reasonable way of including the development of lodging on this site
rather than town homes. All other typically applicable City goals and requirements are
not as important in this particular case. The Applicant has been very clear that there is no
viable way for the proposal outlined in this application to be feasible unless the City
accepts certain trade-offs. Otherwise the unfortunate reality is that the applicant will be
left with no choice but to pursue the entitled and vested development of town homes
whether amended or not. Therefore, the very fact that a sensitively designed 76-unit
lodge and many additional opportunities for short-term accommodations are included in
this proposal makes it"exceptional."
7. Provision of Required Affordable Housing Outside City Limits
For responses to the specific review criteria of Section 27.470.090.2, Provision of
Required Affordable Housing Units outside City Limits, please refer to Exhibit 8-D of
this application.
City Council is authorized to accept any percentage, including all or none, of a project's
total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through units outside the City's
jurisdictional limits. The applicant is offering off-site, "for sale" AH units located
outside the City but within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
More specifically, in addition to the units proposed for development on-site,the applicant
has entered into a contract to purchase the Pacific Avenue Condominiums property
(formerly known as Alpine Grove) at the ABC where BOCC approvals allow for the
development of eight (8) 3-bedroom affordable housing units (approximately 9,656sf of
net livable area, total) in two (2) four-unit structures. The County approvals for these
structures remain valid and one can still obtain a building permit for development of the
remaining Pacific Avenue this proposed
purchase Uand completetthe
approved by the City, the applicant will close on
development of these units. The eight (8) Pacific Avenue units will include 24 bedrooms
and housing for 24 FTE.
(Lodging/Residential) age 29
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD )
Pitkin County has jurisdiction over the off-site parcel, which has previously been
approved for an AH development, three-fifths (3 of 5 total buildings) of which has
already been built. The proposed off-site units have already been deemed to comply in
every way with the APCHA Guidelines. While the BOCC approvals and Subdivision
Agreement for Alpine Grove Subdivision provide that these units may be deed restricted
for sale at the Category 3 level, the applicant will restrict the units to whatever category
mix the City deems appropriate and desirable. Furthermore, since the Pacific Avenue
Condominiums are part of an established wholly affordable development, there is no
concern that an owners' association of free market residents will levy dues or
assessments that can compromise the true affordability of living in the units.
The off-site units, when combined with the on-site units, provide a desirable mix of
affordable unit types, economic levels and lifestyles. The Pacific Avenue Condominiums
are part of a well-established affordable housing and transit-oriented development and
neighborhood. The very same neighborhood includes the employee housing that was
accepted and approved by the City as mitigation for the Residences at Little Nell.
C. Timeshare Development Review
The City's intent in adopting the timeshare regulations was to promote increased tourism
and vitality, to preserve and enhance the lodging inventory, to upgrade the quality of
accommodations, and to provide for the protection of the character of Aspen as a resort
community.
While the condominiums are proposed as whole ownership units, the applicant seeks
proactive approvals to allow conversion of some or all of the units to fractional
ownership/timeshare use at any time in the future. Each of the free-market residential
units has been designed to include lock-off bedroom suites (one per unit) so as to
maximize the potential for rental of short-term tourist accommodations and to
accommodate the potential for future conversions to timeshare lodging use. Such a
proactive approval as requested herein can be adequately handled through the inclusion
of necessary conditions of approval and will serve to further the adopted goals for
timeshare development.
For responses to the specific criteria of Section 26.590.070, the required contents of a
timeshare application (Sec. 26.590.050), and the required characteristics of a timeshare
development(Sec. 26.590.060),please refer to Exhibit 3 of this application.
D. Off-Street Parking
With the requests made herein being combined such that City Council will have final
authority over the entirety of the application, it is suggested that all parking requirements
be established as part of the PUD review, rather than duplicating efforts through a
separate and unnecessary Special Review process.
Section 26.515.030 of the Code establishes all off-street parking requirements. Since the
subject property is located within the defined Aspen Infill Area, one (1) space is required
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 30
for every 1,000 net leasable square feet of commercial space; one (1) space is required for
aces
every residential dwelling; and half(0.5) a space is required per lodge unit. The
slieu
required for commercial and residential uses can be offset through payment-in
(pursuant to Section 26.515.050, and at $30,000 per space), while fewer spaces for the
lodging units can be approved pursuant to Special Review (in accordance with Sections
ach
26.430 and 26.515.040). As with other requirements associated with
type of fle able eunit
separate "key," or rentable division of a lock or of parking requirements.
configuration, is considered to constitute a unit for purposes p
The proposed development includes 76 lodge bedrooms inedefree-marketuland employee
off-street parking spaces (76 x 0.5). The 45
dwelling units require 45 off-street parking spaces,rovide 5.6 off st square
parking spaces.restaurantibar space generates a nee p
is
Therefore, the cumulative off-street parking requirement fr t tha ,subject when a pro eot has
88.6 spaces (38 + 45 + 5.6). However, the C ode provides the
parking requirements in multiple categories (residential,
satisfy the commercial, lodging,
for each use
provision of on-site parking may be approved
ay
concurrently pursuant to Special Review (same sections as referenced abohe), or as five
be the case here, through approval of a Final PUD Plan. Thus, be concurrently
requirement for 88.6 off-street parking spaces'rements the flexible ropertyi s encumbered with
satisfied. In addition to the City's parking requirements, p
a private requirement separate from the City standards to replace thirty (30) off-street
parking spaces for use by Aspen Skiing Company.
The
The proposed development includes a total of 128 off-street/on-site parking spaces.which
garage below the hotel structure on Parcel 1 includes ninety-eight (98) spaces,
below
thirty (30) are dedicated to and for use by the Aspen Skiing Company. garage
the Parcel 2 structure includes fifteen(15)parking spa e and the gathe proposal e P rcel
3 structure includes another fifteen (15) spaces. In
is
98 spaces to satisfy and exceed its 8 he space requirement surplus placement o Aspen
provided), plus 30 spaces to satisfy t private
Skiing Company parking.
Nevertheless, the applicant intends to provide several
aimed at keeping the deve opmeng
and Transportation Demand Management m easure
"green," reducing automobile usage and dependency,on-s-sit
minimizing parking so as e toramipima Ze
ensuring the adequacy of the provided off st p
impacts on the neighborhood. For example, the applicant volunteers to provide the
following programs:
• Encourage guests and employees to use all available means of alternative
transportation to the maximum extent possible.
• Ensure that, when a booking is made, the guest will be told that automobiles are not ell
needed and will be notified of the bus system's free e and av Basedtupon the
as the lodge's proximity to downtown and
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential)
Page 31
experience of many Aspen lodges, most guests do not bring or rent cars in the winter.
In the summer, many guests do bring or rent cars. The opportunity for pedestrian
and/or bicycle use in the summer is substantial and if proper marketing is done, a
significant reduction in the number of vehicles can be accomplished. Guests
arranging reservations will also be informed about the facilities, services and
programs described below.
• Provide bus passes to all employees who live down valley of available free service.
• Provide locker and shower facilities for employees who walk, jog, bike, or ride the
bus to work.
• Ensure continuous provision of airport and local destination shuttle services via
vehicles exclusive to the development or through an agreement with an existing lodge
or management company that maintains such shuttle services.
• The lodge will provide and maintain a fleet of not fewer than twelve (12) bicycles for
free use by its guests. The availability of these bikes will be included in marketing
materials, and guests will be informed of their availability when reservations are
made and during check-in. It is anticipated that many guests will use the bikes when
coupled with the shuttle service and bus system convenience, and will neither rent
cars nor choose to drive in Aspen. Secure bicycle storage/parking is accommodated
in each of the two multi-family residential structures.
With implementation of the above-described programs and measures, parking and
transportation demand attributable to the proposed development will be substantially
decreased and effectively minimized. These commitments will set the project up as a
model for other developments in Aspen to follow and go a long way toward qualifying
the project as "exceptional."
E. Conditional Use Review
The proposed development includes a restaurant/bar that, because it will be open to the
general public, is more than simply ancillary/accessory to the lodge operation. Given the
provisions of the underlying Lodge (L) Zone District, this restaurant/bar use must be
specifically approved as a conditional use. For responses to the specific review criteria of
Section 26.425.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses,please refer to Exhibit
4 of this application.
The proposed conditional use(s) is consistent with the intent of the Lodge Zone District
and will comply with all other applicable Code requirements. The restaurant/bar uses are
compatible in terms of density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping, and open space
with the character and mix of development proposed for the PUD, approved on adjacent
sites, and existing in the immediate vicinity. Furthermore, the restaurant/bar space,
including its outdoor dining/patio spaces, enhances the mixture of complimentary uses
and activities in this area at the base of Aspen Mountain and adjacent to the downtown.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential)
Page 32
The use's location, size, design and operating characteristics minimize adverse affects;
instead, as described in subsection "A" above, the restaurant/bar space is located and
designed in such a manner as to result in net positive affects on both the proposed
development and the neighborhood. There are adequate public facilities and services to
accommodate to conditional uses, and the cost of any necessary upgrades or extensions
generated by the development will be borne by the applicant. The incremental need for
mitigation of increased employees generated by the conditional uses is discussed at
length above and has been factored into the proposed overall employee housing package.
F. 8040 Greenline Review
Section 26.435.030 of the Code states that all development located at or above 8,040 feet
above mean sea level (the "8040 Greenline") and all development within one-hundred
fifty (150) feet below, as measured horizontally, are subject to 8040 Greenline review in
order to reduce impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff, minimize air
pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche, ensure availability of utilities and to keep
disturbance to existing terrain and natural land features to a minimum.
Since the subject property is located within 150 horizontal feet of the 8,040 foot
elevation, and the proposed development does not meet the standards for an exemption as
outlined in Code Section 26.435.030(B), this application is subject to 8040 Greenline
Review. Although the property has already been subject to 8040 Greenline Review (the
vested approvals for thirty-one (3 1) townhomes received 8040 Greenline Review
approval),it follows that the newly proposed development also complies with the
standards for 8040 Greenline Review enumerated in Section 26.430.030(C), as more
specifically demonstrated in Exhibit 5 attached to this application.
Moreover, issuance of a building permit for the development will already require
Engineering Department review and approval which, in turn, will require reduced
impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff per the City's adopted Stormwater
Management Plan, mitigation of any potential avalanche and debris flow hazards,
acceptable connection to and service by necessary utilities, and the minimization of
disturbance to existing terrain and natural land features. In addition, compliance with
Environmental Health Department requirements coupled with the proposed parking and
transportation demand management measures described above will assure minimization
of air pollution. The proposed plan is not affected by any adopted regulatory plans of the
Open Space and Trails Board.
G. Commercial Design Review
The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines (the
"Commercial Guidelines") set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that
are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. They are organized to
address the different design contexts that exist in the City. These distinct settings are
defined as "Character Areas," within which variations exist among the physical features
that define each area. The subject site is located in the Mountain Base Character Area,
which is mostly isolated between the Commercial Core and the base of Aspen Mountain.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 33
Per the Commercial Guidelines,
The Mountain Base Area includes the greatest concentration of the most intensely
developed sites within the City, with some buildings rising to four stories. The
steep topography creates the opportunity for visual presence but, concomitantly,
increases the challenge of reducing the apparent scale of a building. Building
scale is much greater than elsewhere, but is also extremely varied, with smaller
and often older development within close proximity to more recent and much
more extensive hotel buildings.
The Lodge Zone District corresponds with the Mountain Base Character Area. The City
encourages high-occupancy lodging development in this zone district. Therefore, certain
dimensional and other development incentives are provided in this zone district for the
development of lodging. With specific regard to design, the key objectives in the
Mountain Base Character Area are as follows:
1. Provide a pedestrian friendly street edge.
Detached sidewalks with street landscaping are characteristic and should be
encouraged.
2. Provide a sense of human scale.
New development should establish a close relationship with the street frontage.
3. Encourage pedestrian serving uses at the street level.
Cafes, bars and other pedestrian and public serving uses should be located at the
street level to help encourage pedestrian activity and animate the area
4. Reflect the natural topography.
This area is one where topography and a more natural setting increasingly influence
the form and location of development. It is important that new development step in
height in accordance with the natural topography.
5. Provide an interconnected pedestrian circulation system.
New development should make provision for access through and between sites.
6 Maintain views to the mountain and other natural features.
The area will continue to experience pressure for increased and enhanced hotel and
lodging accommodation space and facilities. As this occurs, views through
properties should be provided.
Please refer to subsection A of this application, above; as summarized therein, the
applicant has carefully reviewed and taken into account in this application the design,
neighborhood and general sensitivity considerations that were integral to the COWOP 2
plan that was strongly supported by the stakeholders group. With regard to the proposed
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD, the overall massing, scale and bulk of
development on Parcels 2 and 3 have been appropriately reduced from that approved by
the COWOP 2 Group and a viable, appropriately scaled, traditional lodge development
has been included on Parcel 1. Furthermore, the proposed PUD accomplishes the mass,
scale, bulk and use program goals of the COWOP 2 group while:
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 34
• adding meaningful building setbacks and open areas for solar gain, opening of
view angles, and allowing a sensitive response to the location of the Lift One
Lodge's busy areas, to the corner of South Aspen Street and Juan Street, to the
proximity of the Juan Street Affordable Housing, to the need for accommodating
drainage and geologic conditions along the westerly property line, and to the
intersection of Juan and Garmisch Streets;
• enlivening and invigorating the neighborhood, the streetscapes and the pedestrian
experience with a complete and interconnected sidewalk system featuring the
addition of a resort with a restaurantibar and outdoor dining and patio areas along
the frontages on South Aspen and Juan Streets;
• delivering architectural interest and vitality with an organic design that reads as
three distinct developments interconnected through a series of skywalks;
• designing and locating all access points sensitively with regard to visual impacts,
appropriate distribution of vehicular flows, and accommodation of emergency
access requirements;
• implementing innovative design solutions to take better advantage of the rising
topography of the site than was the case with any previously studied or approved
development plan for the site; as a result, the amount of energy spent on
excavation, soils removal, and site retaining necessary to accommodate this
development plan is far less intensive that had been thought practicable until now
and associated construction impacts will decrease markedly;
• maintaining similar view angles for the neighbors to the north and avoiding all
use of the Dean Avenue right-of-way so as not to permanently interfere with use
of this public area by residents of the Timber Ridge Townhomes;
• enclosing the SkiCo parking lot and all parking, for that matter;
• including public apeas ski amenities; and
• providing a development pattern deserving of its location.
Section 26.412.050 of the Code provides the review criteria for Commercial Design
Review and states, in relevant part, that the proposed development must comply with the
requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial Design Standards, as well as the
Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines. Please
refer to Exhibit 6 of this application, which outlines the Commercial Design Standards of
Section 26.412.060, as well as each of the Mountain Base Character Area's Design
Review Guidelines, and demonstrates compliance and/or consistency with each
standard/guideline, as applicable.
H. Residential Design Standards
Chapter 26.410 of the Code establishes the Residential Design Standards for the City of
Aspen. The Code states that the purpose of these standards is to preserve established
neighborhood scale and character, and to ensure that Aspen's streets and neighborhoods
are public places conducive to walking.
Per Section 26.410.010(B)(5), this development would be exempt from the Residential
Design Standards if the City considers these buildings to be one mixed-use structure by
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 35
virtue of its interconnecting skywalk system. Not only are all three proposed buildings
connected via skywalks, but the uppermost residential building contains the roof deck
that serves the lodge building.
If the City does not consider these three building masses to constitute a single, mixed-use
structure, Code Section 26.410.010(B)(1) states that only the following residential design
standards apply to multi-family housing: Section 26.410.040(A)(1), building orientation;
Section 26.410.040(C)(1)(a), access, or if not applicable, Section 26.410.040(C)(2)(b),
garage setback; and, 26.410.040(D), building elements. These standards, and their
applicability to the proposed development, are specifically addressed in Exhibit 7
attached to this application. To the extent that any variations from these standards are
necessary, such can be accommodated under the PUD architectural review standards.
L Conclusion/Summary
For at least the last twelve (12) years, the citizens and officials of the City of Aspen have
been expressing a strong desire and preference for lodge development along South Aspen
Street, near the base of Aspen Mountain. This preference was made clear in the Aspen
Area Community Plan and again in its recent update, when the vested town home
approvals were considered and granted, through the COWOP 1 process and again
through the COWOP 2 process, and most recently throughout the review process for a
proposed amendment of the vested town home approvals. The applicants, who are
resort/lodging developers to begin with, recognize this preference and understand lodging
and tourist accommodations to represent the highest and best use of the property.
However, in some cases --- and this is one of those cases --- the highest and best use of a
property is not feasible or viable given the economic and regulatory realities under which
development of such use would need to occur. When realities work in an unfortunate
manner that makes the highest, best and preferred use of a property infeasible, then the
only way to create a more favorable environment is by adjusting the economic and
regulatory forces at play.
The economics of lodge development, in general, are not particularly favorable in today's
market. The environment for lodge development in Aspen is even less friendly due not
only to the extreme costs of land and construction locally, but also due in large part to a
regulatory environment that tends to involve very lengthy and unpredictable entitlements
processes as well as relatively excessive and costly exactions and fees. It is these
realities, in particular, that have grounded all attempts over the last dozen or so years to
deliver the highest, best and most preferred land use --- lodging --- at the South Aspen
Street Subdivision/PUD site. This application attempts to overcome these obstacles by
enlisting the cooperation of the City of Aspen in creatively and adequately adjusting the
economic and regulatory environment in a manner friendly to the development of a lodge
and tourist accommodations.
Thus, while it has been made perfectly clear that the City, from staff on up through the
City Council, wants to work in a cooperative manner with the applicants to enable
development of a lodge and that a streamlined review process to include significant and
substantial variations from typical mitigation, impact fees and exaction requirements
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 36
would be possible, the applicant has been and continues to be wary of asking for too
much assistance from the City. It is in this spirit that the applicant has been careful to
make sure the end result is not merely a project that includes lodging, but instead a
project that includes worthy and worthwhile lodging while sufficiently addressing other
City goals and objectives that remain important.
In the end, the goal for the development of the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD
property remains finding a reasonable way of including the development of lodging on
this site rather than town homes. All other typically applicable City goals and
requirements --- whether related to process, fees, affordable housing or other types of
mitigation, or even financing ---- are simply not as important in this particular case as
they are normally. The applicants explained on several occasions that a new proposal to
include lodging could be brought forward only if the City will hold to maintaining that
development of a meaningful lodging component is the truly paramount goal for the site,
even if doing so means sacrificing significant and substantial portions of otherwise and
normally required affordable housing, parking, zoning limitations, exactions and impact
fees, and procedural requirements. The Applicant has been very clear that there is no
viable way for the proposal outlined in this application to be feasible unless the City
accepts such trade-offs. Otherwise the unfortunate reality is that the applicant will be left
with no choice but to pursue the entitled and vested development of town homes whether
amended or not.
The proposal is in complete harmony with the purpose of the underlying Lodge Zone
District, and it goes the extra mile to include several features that will benefit not only the
neighborhood but also the general public at large (i.e., open areas and public amenity
spaces,public apr6s ski opportunities, vitality and streetscape improvements, etc.). All of
the proposed uses are consistent and in compliance with the Lodge Zone District. The
proposed intensity of development is appropriate for this PUD given the mix of uses
included and the fact that the whole program suits and flatters its ski area base location.
The number and types of residential and lodge units included in the PUD are necessary in
today's environment to make the inclusion of 76 units of traditional lodging (152
"pillows") workable for the applicant. However, the awkward reality is that making all
of this possible requires certain trade-offs in terms of allowing the PUD variations
outlined in the Dimensional Requirements Table proposed herein, accommodating
flexibility with regard to location and types of affordable housing mitigation as well as an
overall reduction in quantity, substantially decreased impact fee and exaction
requirements, and procedural variations to accomplish a streamlined review process.
Parcel 1 will be developed with a hotel/lodge to include seventy-six (76) keys at an
average unit size of approximately 555 square feet. Parcels 2 and 3 will be developed
with thirty-five (35) free-market, whole ownership, residential condominiums at an
average of approximately 2,475 square feet per unit. While the condominiums are
proposed as whole ownership units, the applicant seeks proactive approvals to allow
conversion of some or all of the units to fractional ownership/timeshare use at any time in
the future. The free-market residential units have been designed to include thirty-five
(35) lock-off bedroom suites (one per unit) so as to maximize the potential for rental of
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 37
short-term tourist accommodations and to accommodate the potential for future
conversions to timeshare lodging use.
In a concerted effort to make the necessary trade-offs palatable to the City and the
citizens, the applicant has carefully reviewed and taken into account in this application
the design, neighborhood and general sensitivity considerations that were integral to the
COWOP 2 plan that was strongly supported by the stakeholders group. With regard to
the proposed South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD,the overall massing, scale and bulk of
development on Parcels 2 and 3 have been appropriately reduced from that approved by
the COWOP 2 Group and a viable, appropriately scaled, traditional lodge development
has been included on Parcel 1. Furthermore, the proposed PUD accomplishes the mass,
scale, bulk and use program goals of the COWOP 2 group while:
• maintaining sustainability;
• adding meaningful building setbacks and open areas for solar gain, opening of
view angles, and allowing a sensitive response to the location of the Lift One
Lodge's busy areas, to the corner of South Aspen Street and Juan Street, to the
proximity of the Juan Street Affordable Housing, to the need for accommodating
drainage and geologic conditions along the westerly property line, and to the
intersection of Juan and Garmisch Streets;
• enlivening and invigorating the neighborhood, the streetscapes and the pedestrian
experience with a complete and interconnected sidewalk system featuring the
addition of a resort with a restaurant/bar and outdoor dining and patio areas along
the frontages on South Aspen and Juan Streets;
• delivering architectural interest and vitality with an organic design that reads as
three distinct developments interconnected through a series of skywalks;
• designing and locating all access points sensitively with regard to visual impacts,
appropriate distribution of vehicular flows, and accommodation of emergency
access requirements;
• proposing innovative and substantial parking and transportation demand
management programs;
• maintaining similar view angles for the neighbors to the north and avoiding all
use of the Dean Avenue right-of-way so as not to permanently interfere with use
of this public area by residents of the Timber Ridge Townhomes;
• supplying meaningful on- and off-site employee housing as part of an appropriate
overall employee housing package;
• enclosing the SkiCo parking lot and all parking, for that matter;
• including public apras ski amenities; and
• providing a development pattern deserving of its location.
The realities of the site, coupled with outside economic and regulatory forces, preclude
the location of all mitigation for either the free-market residential component or the
lodging and associated commercial component, much less all of these, on-site with
actual, newly built units. Therefore, the combined/cumulative requirement for mitigating
89.35 FTE would actually apply and effectively preclude the applicant's ability to deliver
on the City's goal of achieving meaningful lodging at this location. Moreover, the same
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 38
elimination of feasibility effectively results from a requirement to meet even the free-
market residential or the lodging/associated commercial mitigation requirements on-site.
The subject PUD is deserving of and requires a reduction in the number of employees
necessitating mitigation as a means of incentivizing the inclusion of a substantial lodging
component. The PUD's overall employee housing package includes provision of housing
for forty-three (43) FTE, of which nineteen (19) are on-site and the other twenty-four
(24) are at the same location approved by the City for mitigation of the employees
generated by the Residences at Little Nell project.
This proposed overall employee housing package equates to 48% of the total/cumulative
requirement otherwise stipulated by the Code. The nineteen(19) FTE that will be housed
on-site equates to 38% more FTE housed on-site than was required in connection with
replacement provisions for the demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments. The highest of
the employee mitigation requirements (housing for 39 FTE) is generated by the free-
market residential component of the development; if the incentive provisions of Code
Section 26.470.100.A.6. for on-site housing were available for development that includes
lodging, the proposed overall employee housing package would actually exceed the total
mitigation requirement by slightly more than 10%.
The applicant has offered to deed restrict all of the housing units included in the overall
employee housing mitigation package at whatever categories the City desires, thereby
allowing the City the opportunity to ensure that employee housing goals are furthered
with units established as priority through the current APCHA Guidelines. Furthermore,
the proposed employee housing units provide a very desirable mix of types, economic
levels and lifestyles inasmuch as the dormitory-style units within the lodge will serve
single (i.e., unmarried) employees of the lodging operation while the eight three-bedroom
units of the Pacific Avenue Condominiums will house families. The proposal adequately
addresses the APCHA Housing Priorities as well as the true needs of the project, and it
mitigates a sufficient portion of the incremental increase in employee housing demand
that may result from the development when balanced against the value of realizing the
goal of having a lodge at the subject location.
Finally, the current proposal is innovatively designed to take better advantage of the
rising topography of the site than was the case with any previously studied or approved
development plan for the site; as a result, the amount of energy spent on excavation, soils
removal, and site retaining necessary to accommodate this development plan is far less
intensive that had been thought practicable until now and associated construction impacts
will decrease markedly. The proposal represents a desirable site plan and architectural
design solutions while providing for compatibility with the character of existing and
anticipated land uses in the surrounding area.
The applicant has offered extraordinary and innovative steps to maximize potential public
transit usage and minimize reliance on the automobile. The volunteered parking and
transportation demand management measures will keep the development "green," reduce
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 39
automobile usage and dependency, and minimize traffic generation, parking demand and
associated impacts.
The proposal undoubtedly promotes sustainability of the local economy. The proposed
development is certain to deliver otherwise unrealized large economic benefits to the City
in terms of property, sales, use, lodging, real estate transfer, and other taxes. With the
development of employee housing units that will be occupied on a year-round basis and
the lodge's inclusion of conference and function spaces, many of these economic benefits
will continue to be realized even in the shoulder seasons. The very fact that a sensitively
designed 76-unit lodge and many additional opportunities for short-term accommodations
are included in this proposal makes it"exceptional."
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD(Lodging/Residential) Page 40
ATTACHMENT 2—LAND USE APPLICATION
PROJECT: nn ii
Name:
Location: 1 S
Indicate street address,l t&block numbe ,le al descri tion where appropriatef
Parcel ID# QUIRED D_-1
APPLICANT: /� i
Name: l C�WY" V I Ci
Address: "T alce-
- ) . ,
Phone to la vi d rL- q1 9 3-5'9-I�l
REPRESENTATIVE: /� ]
Name: A Lt. N 1A I)V I n c
Address: - !-1 1 L 1 'I a I
Phone#: '1 Q"1'5`
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check al1 that apply):
0 GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use
GMQS Allotment Final PUD(&PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment
Special Review Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA
[� ESA—8040 Greenline,Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption(includes ❑ Final SPA(&SPA
Margin,Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment)
Mountain View Plane
® Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/
Expansion
Q Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment Other:
] Conditional Use
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses,previous approvals,etc.)
'Jac.'am OW-Cf LS (fJ A an oa I/f �P� b�Cos '0 n y f-r--per"
11 -r��►IaE
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings,uses,modifications,etc.
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE:$
❑ Pre-Application Conference Summary
❑ Attachment#1,Signed Fee Agreement
❑ Response to Attachment#3,Dimensional Requirements Form
❑ Response to Attachment#4,Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards
❑ 3-D Model for large project
All plans that are larger than 8.5"X 11"must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text
(Microsoft Word Format)must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an
electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model.
ATTACHMENT 3
sl
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM {�a
Project: �U U'A 3 Y) - S06 i`• '
Applicant: ASO AspeA t L LC,
Location: Pn 1-, ' t i
Zone District: L v r
LotSize: ' q�jp-l_(-4-L,5gR ST ` parzeI e2--= 12•Cl� arw-y q0 q�1sF
Lot Area: T:;a �N S i7�1- S9 , 121 �� --o,t rl ou Arr&= YL yl l S-P
(for the purpo es of calculating Floor Area,Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark,easements, and steep slopes.Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: t) ,A Proposed:
Number of residential units: Existing: �Proposed:
Number of bedrooms: Existing: NProposed:
Proposed%of demolition(Historic properties only):
DIMENSIONS: �l ec�� C � 0IYY)eY1s1()/?c J i equ f rem Tob c I f' 4-he APP11 c_uh"cly
Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
Principal bldg.height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed.•
Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed:
On-Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed:
% Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed:
% Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed.•
Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed.
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed.
Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed:
Distance Between Existing Required: Proposed.
Buildings
Existing non-conformities or encroachments: (P U �)
Variations requested: N A ( � ��
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
130 S.Galena Street
Aspen,CO 81611
RE: South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD
(PID#s 2735-131-39-001, -002&-003)
To whom it may concern:
In July of 2012, the City Council passed Resolution No. 68, Series of 2012,
approving an extension of the vested rights for a townhome development
granted to the subject property by Ordinance No. 32, Series of 2003. This
extension was made for the sole purpose of enabling the review of an alternate
plan on this site with a lodging component.
The current land use application for an amended townhome project has been
"suspended" until such time as a lodging project is approved, denied, or
withdrawn. As such, the "abandonment of application' provisions of Section
26.304.070E do not apply, meaning that an application for a lodge development
plan for this property may be accepted and reviewed by the City.
As owner of the South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD, ASV Aspen Street Owner
LLC hereby authorizes Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) and Poss Architecture
and Planning (Poss) to continue to act as designated and authorized
representatives for the preparation, submittal and processing of the alternate
lodge development application, as well as, any subsequent applications that may
be associated therewith. HLP and Poss are also authorized to represent Aspen
Street Venture, LLC in meetings with City staff, the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and the Aspen City Council.
Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review, please
do so through Haas Land Planning, LLC.
Yours truly, _
1\'LL
By: David Parker, Authorized Signatory for ASV Aspen Street Owner LLC
ASV Aspen Street Owner,LLC
One Post Office Square #3520
Boston, MA 02109
124 E DURANT AVENUE LLC 603 SOUTH GARMISCH LLP ACR CAPITAL LLC
533 W FRANCIS 603 S GARMISCH ST N57W30614 STEVENS RD
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HARTLAND,WI 53029
ALYEMENI ALICE APRIL FAMILY TRUST ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC
3109 OAKMONT DR 3501 S 154TH ST PO BOX 1248
STATESVILLE, NC 28625 WICHITA, KS 67232-9426 ASPEN,CO 81612
BARBEE MARY K LIV TRUST BECKLEY KATHERINE BERHORST JERRY&CAROLE
625 SKYLINE DR 2 COLUMBUS AVE#5-C 7161 LINDENMERE DR
CODY,WY 82414 NEW YORK, NY 10023 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301
BIEL ALEXANDER L BILLINGSLEY FAMILY LP BRENNAN JOHN PATRICK
381 LOVELL AVE 1206 N WALTON BLVD 31 TRAINORS LANDING
MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 BENTONVILLE,AR 72712 ASPEN,CO 81611
BRETTMANN KILLEEN BRIGHT GALEN BROWN JAMES R JR
38 TRAINORS LANDING 407 S HUNTER ST#3 195 HUDSON ST#46
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10013
BUSH STEVENS CABELL JOE
BRYAN HELEN C/O THE CHART HOUSE WAIKIKI
2011 LAKE SHORE DR 0046 HEATHER LN 1765 ALA MOANA BLVD
AUSTIN,TX 78746 ASPEN, CO 81611 HONOLULU, HI 96815
CAIN DOUGLAS M CASPER MARY LYNN CHAPIN ANZLE TRUST
CAIN CONSTANCE MOFFIT TRUSTEES 124 E DURANT#4 1887 STILLWATER ST
1960 HUDSON ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ST PAUL, MN 55110-8507
DENVER,CO 80220
CHAPLIN ARLENE&WAYNE 0 15 BOOMERANG RD#5 01 OWNER LLC ZOOE1010 8TH AVE SW
LP
54 LMGORCE CIR CALGARY ALBERTA T2P 1J2,
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33141 ASPEN, CO 81611
CHIATE PROPERTIES LLC CHILES DWIGHT CHRISTENSEN CINDY
20628 ROCKCROFT DR 113 JUAN ST 109 JUAN ST
MALIBU, CA 90265-5342 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN CONNOLLY MICHAEL M&ASHLEY
CHU FAMILY TRUST ATTN FINANCE DEPT 48 TRAINORS LANDING RD
42 HILLSDALE DR 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN,CO 81611
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 926604234 ASPEN,CO 81611
COPE SHADOW MOUNTAIN LP CROW MARGERY K CYS RICHARD LAND KAREN L
419 WINNEBAGO DR 46103 HIGHWAY 6 5301 CHAMBERLIN AVE
JANESVILLE,WI 53545 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815
CZAJKOWSKI MICHAEL
CZAJKOWSKI SANDRA J DAYBREAK ASPEN LLC DOLINSEK JOHN 50%
90 LA SALLE ST APT 16G 22 PERKINS RD 619 S MONARCH ST
NEW YORK, NY 10027 GREENWICH,CT 06830 ASPEN, CO 81611
DONCER ASPEN LP DUNN STEVEN G EAST JAMES COLLIER TRUSTEE
9651 W 196TH ST 107 JUAN ST 2 LONGFELLOW LN
MOKENA, IL 60448 ASPEN, CO 81611 LITTLE ROCK,AR 72207
ELDER TRUST
ELDER JERRY TRUSTEE ELLIS JAMES BYRON ELLIS PAUL DAVID
PO BOX 308 17 1/2 FLEET ST 100 E DEAN ST #2F
LA JOLLA, CA 92038-0308 MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292 ASPEN, CO 81611
EVANS DAVID COURTNEY FALL CREEK CONSTRUCTION LLC FARR BRUCE K&GAIL H
PO BOX 952 PO BOX 648 PO BOX 4844
ASPEN, CO 81612 SHARON, CT 06069 ANNAPOLIS, MD 21403
FAULKNER JOHN L FLETCHER JAY R FOUR JLM LLC
2433 ROCKINGHAM ST PO BOX 3476 101 DESTIN LN
ARLINGTON,VA 22207 ASPEN, CO 81612 RIVER RIDGE, LA 70123
FREIRICH MARK A FRIEDKIN THOMAS H&SUSAN J GALAS THOMAS E&PATRICIA A
PO BOX 774056 PO BOX 1116 10706 BRIDGE HOLLOW CT
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS,CO 80477 RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 95067 DALLAS,TX 75229
GARMISCH LLC
C/O MIE PROPERTIES GERBER ANDREW GILBERT DONALD C 2004 TRUST
2560 LORD BALTIMORE DR 201 N MILL ST #201 67 TURTLE BACK RD S
WINDSOR MILL, MD 21244 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
GILLESPIE JOHN E REV TRUST GINSBURG ANNE C&ROBERT B GLENOCK INVESTMENTS LLC
775 GULFSHORE DR #4219 4010 NW 10TH ST PO BOX 207
DESTIN, FL 32541 DELRAY BEACH, FL 334451929 ASPEN, CO 81612
GOLDSMITH ADAM D GREGORY NEIL MARTIN&LYNETTE
SMITH RONA K 1801 PITTWATER RD GREINER JERRY M&TERESA U
PO BOX 9069 MONA VALE NSW 2103 323 HOLMECREST RD
ASPEN, CO 81612 AUSTRALIA, JENKINTOWN, PA 19046
GROOS NICHOLAS D 40% GSJ CAPITAL LLC 50% H2 ASPEN LLC
210 N INDUSTRIAL PARK RD N57 W30614 STEVENS RD 501 ALLIS RANCH RD
HASTINGS, MI 49058 HARTLAND,WI 53029 SEDALIA, CO 80135
HANG TEN ADVENTURE HANSEN JULIA HARRIS NORMAN LINDSAY JR
2305 CANYON BLVD#200 255 SEASPRAY AVE 232 CLIPPER PL
BOULDER, CO 80302 PALM BEACH, FL 33480 CARBONDALE, CO 816238618
HARVEY JEFFREY&NANCY HATCHER HUGH S HEIM WILLIAM D
5811 S DORCHESTER AVE#4G 205 E DURANT AVE APT 2E 124 E DURANT AVE APT 1
CHICAGO, IL 60637 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1769
HENRY WAYNE SCOTT HILL EUGENE D III&JOAN L TRUST HI ES TO & AROLYN
100 E DEAN ST 3C 3310 KINGSLEY CT 21
ASPEN, CO 81611 PEBBLE BEACH,CA 93953 ASPEN, CO 81611-1652
HOLLY TREE INVESTMENTS LLC HOTEL DURANT IAVARONE GIANFRANCO&RITA
4823 HOLLY TREE DR 122 E DURANT 341 ORIENTA AV
DALLAS,TX 75287 ASPEN, CO 81611 MAMARONECK, NY 10543
ICAHN LIBA IMHOF FAMILY TRUST IMREM SUE GORDON TRUSTEE
PO BOX 11137 2409 GREEN ST 219 E LAKE SHORE DR#5D
ASPEN, CO 81612-9627 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 CHICAGO, IL 60611
JAMES FAMILY TRUST JOHNSON KERRI&DEREK JOHNSTON MARGARET S 9.87%
1 CASTLEWOOD CT 117 JUAN ST #1 30 DEXTER ST
NASHVILLE,TN 37215-4617 ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80220
JRD 2004 IRREV TRUST JUAN STREET HOA KABERT INDUSTRIES INC
510 BERING DR#455 119 JUAN ST PO BOX 6270
HOUSTON,TX 77057 ASPEN, CO 81611 VILLA PARK, IL 60181
KAPLAN BARBARA KAUFMAN STEVEN TRUST&HARLOW KINGSBURY FAMILY TRUST
VIRGINIA TRUST PO BOX 198
3076 EDGEWOOD RD 0554 ESCALANTE HOLDERNESS, NH 03245
PEPPER PIKE, OH 44124 CARBONDALE,CO 81623
KLINDWORTH J TODD&HEATHER KOSTER DEREK N KUHLMAN CARI D&JEFFREY W
PO BOX 25318 100 E DEAN ST #2E 58 TRAINORS LANDING
ST CROIX VI 00824, ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
KULLGREN NANCY A LACY ROANE M JR&ANN MINYARD LARKIN THOMAS J&MARYANN K
205 E DURANT AVE UNIT 2-C PO BOX 367 1 SHELDRAKE LN
ASPEN, CO 81611 WACO,TX 76703-0367 PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL 33418-6820
LEONARD-PECK SHEILA KATHRYN LEVY HELEN JOAN TRUST LIFT ONE 105 LLC
PO BOX 375P 421 WARWICK RD 105 S CHEROKEE ST
VINEYARD HAVEN, MA 02568 KENILWORTH, IL 60043-1145 DENVER, CO 80221
LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUM ASSOC LIFT ONE LLC 72.40% LOCHHEAD RAYMOND R&EMILIE M
131 E DURANT AVE 24 LINDENWOOD LN 200 SHERWOOD RD
ASPEN, CO 81611 LITTLETON, CO 80127 PASO ROBLES, CA 93446
LU NANCY CHAO TRUST LUNDHOLM KERSTIN M MACDONALD KENNETH HUGH REV
38 CORMORANT CIR 115 JUAN ST TRUST
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ASPEN, CO 81611 44 W HANNUM
SAGINAW, MI 48602
MACHUCA EDGAR F MAGES LAWRENCE M&MARY K 84% MANDICH ROBERT M
11 TRAINORS LANDING 216 LINDEN AVE PO BOX 1230
ASPEN, CO 81611 WILMETTE, IL 60091 CRESTONE, CO 811311230
MARK KENNETH A MATZORKIS NICHOLAS J&SUSAN P MCKENZIE BART B&PAIGE PARAVANO
10 KATH CT 2600 SCENIC DR 4840 30 YR ST NORTH
SAYVILLE, NY 11782 AUSTIN,TX 78703 ARLINGTON,VA 22207-2716
MCNAMARA CHRISTIANE J TRST MEEPOS PENNY KELEN 1996 LIV TRUST MONIGLE ETHEL M
117 WIND HILL RD 2999 OVERLAND AVE#130 803 S GARFIELD ST
DORSET,VT 05251 LOS ANGELES, CA 90064 DENVER, CO 80209
MORADA VENTURES INC MORGAN MICHAEL L MULKEY CHRISTOPHER IRR TRST
866 S DIXIE HIGHWAY 115 JUAN ST 1340 W HENDERSON ST#2W
CORAL GABLES, FL 33146 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60657
MULKEY JOHN IRR TRST MURRAY DENIS NOBLE GUY T
8913 PLAYERS CLUB DR PO BOX 3770 PO BOX 9344
LAS VEGAS, NV 89134 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612
NOREN LARA L 75% NORTH LAUDERDALE PETROLEUM LLC OLSON PAUL S&DIANE C
11211 FONTHILL DR 6318 23RD ST NW PO BOX 128
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46236-8630 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 BRECKENRIDGE, CO 804240128
PASCO PROP LLC PATERSON JOHN
8100 E PROPERTIES LLC SMITH PATRICK A 88 GRANGE RD
8100E DALE, A 8 25#31 360 SOUTHFIELD RD SANDRINGHAM
SCOTTSDALE,AZ 85251-2773 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 MELBOURNE VICTORIA AUSTRALIA
3191,
PIECE OF THE PIE LLC PINES LODGE CONDO ASSOC PINES LODGE DEVELOPMENT LLC
PO BOX 2492 152 E DURANT AVE 2353 IRVINE AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
RINGSBY GRAY ROARING FORK MTN LODGE ASPEN LLC ROARING FORK PROPERTIES
PO BOX 1292 PO BOX 6237 N 9242 SOUTH SHORE DR
HAIKU, HI 96708 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 816156237 EAST TROY,WI 55120
ROBERT FAMILY TRUST ROBLES ENRIQUE ALVAREZ ROSE JON E&RITA L
771 FERST DR ALVAREZ CRISTINA 333 TRISMEN TERR
MONTES ATLANTA,GA 30332-0245 CHAPUL EPEC M XI O DF M WINTER SPRINGS, FL 32789
CHAPULTEPEC MEXICO DF MEXICO
11000,
ROTMAN KENNETH B RUDERMAN ERIC P&MIMI E RYAN ELIZABETH H
22 ST CLAIR AVE EAST#1700 1536 OGDEN ST 419 WINNEBAGO DR
TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA M4T 253, DENVER,CO 80218-1406 JANESVILLE,WI 53545
S C JOHNSON AND SON INC SCHAINUCK LEWIS I&MICHELLE T SCHAPIRO MARC&PATRICIA
TAX DEPT 412 1221 W COAST HWY#201 1685 TAMARAC DR
1525 HOWE ST NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 GOLDEN, CO 80401
RACINE,WI 53403
SCHAYER CHARLES M III SCHERER ROBERT P TRUST SCHUMACHER JUDY M
2601 S QUEBEC ST#17 239 GILBERT ST 0115 GLEN EAGLES DR
DENVER, CO 80231 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
SEVERY FAMILY TRUST 70.39% SEVERY RICHARD L 9.87% SHADOW MTN AERIE PTNRSHP LLP
8815 YUBA C I R#1103B 30 DEXTER ST 21 BRIARCLIFF RD
HUNINGTON BEACH,CA 92646 DENVER, CO 80220 LARCHMONT, NY 10538
SHEFFER DOUGLAS&BARBARA SHENK ROBERT D SHINE FAMILY LLC
PO BOX 2763 0326 HWY 133,STE 130 8677 LOGO 7 COURT
BASALT,CO 81621 CARBONDALE,CO 81623 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46219-1430
SILVER SHADOW AKA 651 MONARCH SILVERMAN MARC A&MARILYN L SIMON HERBERT REV TRUST
CONDO ASSOC 937 DALE RD 8765 PINE RIDGE DR
651 MONARCH MEADOWBROOK, PA 19046 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46260-1778
ASPEN,CO 81611
SKY BLUE LLC 27.60% SLOAN SUSAN MARIE SM-15
5743 CO RSA AVE#101 500 S ORANGE AVE 45000 S WOODLAND
WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362 SARASOTA, FL 34236 CHAGRIN FALLS, OH 44022
SOUTH POINT CONDO ASSOC SOUTH POINT CONDO LLC SOUTHPOINT ASPEN 1B LLC
205 E DURANT AVE#2F 150 N MARKET PO BOX 1499
ASPEN, CO 81611 WICHITA, KS 67202 CARBONDALE, CO 81623
SOUTH POI NT-SUMNER CORP SPACCARELLI SELMA I SPAULDING RICHARD W&THOMPSON
3940 7TH AVE#212 300 S POINTE DR#2403 ELEANOR M
SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 200 WHEELER RD FL 2
BURLINGTON, MA 018035501
SPRING LANE INVESTMENTS LLC STANTON JAMES STARK RENEE A
8 OAK LAKE DR C/O WORLD-WIDE HOLDINGS CORP 205 E DURANT AVE APT 1 D
BARRINGTON, IL 60010-5914 950 THIRD AVE 18TH FL ASPEN, CO 81611-3813
NEW YORK, NY 10022
STONE FAMILY TRUST STRAWBRIDGE GEORGE JR STUART FAMILY TRUST
1 THROCKMORTON LN 3801 KENNETT PIKE STE 8100 1 CASTLEWOOD CT
MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 WILMINGTON, DE 19807 NASHVILLE,TN 37215-4617
SZYMANSKI WILLIAM R&LYNNE E TAROCH HOLDINGS LTD TAYLOR ELAINE D
131 E DURANT AV#409 315 E HYMAN AVE#305 W301 N9430 COUNTY ROAD E
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-2909 HARTLAND,WI 530299515
TELEMARK APARTMENT 2 LLC TELEMARK ASPEN LLC THREE REEDS LLC
20351 NE 61ST CT 55 SECOND ST 2224 VIA SEVILLE RD NW
REDMOND,WA 98053 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80906 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87104-3096
TOWNE ASSOC INC PLACE OF ASPEN CONDO TUCKER TIMOTHY H&PATRICIA A TYDEN FAMILY FARMS PTNP 60%
C/O ASPEN LODGING COMPANY 6420 STAUDER CIR 1730 IROQUOIS TR
C/O AS
747 S GALENA ST EDINA, MN 55436 HASTINGS, MI 49058
ASPEN, CO 81611
UHLFELDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS UNIFIED CREDIT TRUST VANDER WALL DEAN ROBERT&
RLLP 300 S POINTE DR#2403 BEVERLY J
210 C MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 PO BOX 189
ASPEENN,, CO 8 81611 LONE PINE, CA 93545
VANTONGEREN HAROLD V&LIDIA M VISCONSI DOMINICA JR WEINGLASS GABRIELE PEPPER TRUST
2000 E 12TH AVE BOX 8 30050 CHAGRIN BLVD#360 PO BOX 7816
DENVER, CO 80206 CLEVELAND,OH 44124 ASPEN, CO 81612
WHITE JALEH
D AVID
THICKMAN D WOLF FAMILY TRUST 12/23/1986 WOODING MERRITT B
1221 MYRTLE AVE
152E SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 HOPED, NJ 3
ASPEN,, CO C07844
O 8 81 6111-1-1737 1
WOODSON TATJANA REV TRUST WOW LIFT ONE LLC WRIGHT LISA
PO BOX 1845 3225 ELK CANYON CIR PO BOX 3770
WILSON,WY 83014 SEDALIA, CO 80135-8573 ASPEN, CO 81612
WWSP3G LLC YEWER ELISABETH B YOMAC MANAGEMENT LIMITED
PO BOX 4290 6259 HWY 83 410 GILES BLVD E
ASPEN, CO 81612 CHENEQUA,WI 53029 WINDSOR ONTARIO CANADA N9A4C6,
ZEFF CAPITAL LP
555 E DURANT AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD (Mixed Lodeing Residential Proiect)
Exhibit 2-Subdivision Review
The proposal requires subdivision review and approval since it involves the development
of multi-family units intended to be condominiumized and separately transferred, and
because the existing boundary between Parcels 2 and 3 will be shifted to the south to
accommodate the proposed site plan/layout. Further, allowing the potential for future
conversion of some or all of the free-market condominiums to timesharing also requires
subdivision approval.
A. General Requirements
i. The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the mix of development in
the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk,
architecture, landscaping and open space, as well as with any applicable
adopted regulatory master plan.
In the current case, subdivision review is required because of the multi-family residential
units as well as to enable an adjustment of the lot line between Parcels 2 and 3. However,
this will not affect the dimensional standards since those will be set for the overall PUD.
Demonstration of the proposal's compatibility with the mix of development in the
immediate vicinity has been provided in the main body of the application as well as in
response to the reviews standards for PUD (Exhibit 1).
ii. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing
land uses in the area.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the
area, which include free-market and affordable multi-family residential, lodging and
associated commercial uses, and mixed-use developments, and these are the same uses
included within the proposed subdivision.
iii. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
The suitability of the site for the proposed land uses and character of development has
long been established and recognized through: prior approvals and review processes for
not only the subject property but surrounding sites; various types of engineering studies
that have been completed; adopted community plans and design guidelines; and two
rounds of COWOPs. It is understood that the proposed development can and will be
engineered prior to building permit issuance to comply with all applicable requirements
relative to road/sidewalk improvements, utilities and public service needs, stormwater
drainage management, mitigation of geologic conditions, road, traffic and transit impacts,
and the similar without adversely affecting future development of the surrounding area or
resulting in unnecessary public costs.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Exhibit 2, Page I
iv. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable
requirements of this Title.
As provided throughout the application and exhibits, the proposed subdivision is in
compliance with all applicable requirements of the Code. The project is being reviewed
for the necessary approvals. If those approvals are granted,this criterion is met.
B. Suitability of land for-subdivision
i. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep,
mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other
natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
The land on which the approved subdivision is located is surrounded by developed
properties; indeed, it is within the designated Aspen Infill Area. The vested subdivision
has already been determined to be located on land suitable to accommodate it without the
potential for being harmful in any way to the health, safety, or welfare of its future
occupants. The proposed development (as opposed to the vested town homes approvals)
will be subject to the current, more stringent storm drainage, utility service, engineering,
and building requirements, thus further guaranteeing that the requirements of this
standard will be satisfied.
The suitability of the site for the proposed land uses and character of development has
been long since established and recognized through prior approvals and review processes
for not only the subject property but surrounding sites as well, various types of
engineering studies that have been completed, adopted community plans and design
guidelines, and two rounds of COWOP processes. It is fully understood that the
proposed development can and will be engineered to comply with all applicable
requirements.
ii. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to
create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature
extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
This proposed subdivision will not cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature
extension of public facilities as the property was previously developed and the
surrounding area is already developed and served by public facilities and services. The
cost of any necessary utility extensions or upgrades will be borne by the applicant. The
proposed development will have no affect on efficiency of spatial patterns but will
provide an improved transition over the vested plans from the anticipated development
pattern across the street and at the Ski Area base to the neighborhood of residents
occupying the various properties on and west of this side of South Aspen Street.
C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided
for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review
(See Chapter 26430) if the following[omitted] conditions are met:
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Exhibit 2,Page 2
w
The proposed subdivision will provide for compliance with the improvements set forth in
Chapter 26.580. The improvements will also comply with the design standards contained
in said Chapter. In the event that any variances from the engineering design standards
become necessary due to unforeseen circumstances, appropriate approvals will then be
sought.
The applicant will enter into a Subdivision/PUD Agreement with the City binding the
subdivision to any conditions placed upon it. This will be done concurrently with the
preparation and recordation of the Subdivision Plat and PUD Plans. All required
elements of the Subdivision/PUD Agreement, Plat and PUD Plans will be provided for
review by the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, and the City
Attorney, as applicable,prior to being executed and recorded.
D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling
units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the
requirements of Section 26470.070.5. Demolition or redevelopment of multi-
family housing. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be
required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of
Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System.
Please refer to the main body of the application as well as Growth Management Exhibit
8B for a discussion of the affordable housing requirements.
E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards
set forth in Chapter 26620.
This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment
of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. The applicant will not be
dedicating land for schools, but the development will be subject to payment of in-lieu
fees as due at the time of building permit issuance(s).
F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to
applications for which all growth management development allotments have been
granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to
Chapter 26.470.
Please see GMQS Exhibits 8A and 8C which discuss the proposed development's
consistency with the general GMQS requirements and the multi-year allotments needed.
The proposal requires allotments for lodging, free-market residential units, affordable
housing, and commercial space. The allotments have been requested and these requests
are being reviewed concurrently. If all of the requested growth management actions are
approved,this criterion is met.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Exhibit 2,Page 3
South Aspen Street Subdivision (Mixed Lodoyinor Residential Pro iect)
Exhibit 3-Timeshare Lod a Develop ment Review
While the free-market multi-family condominiums are proposed as whole ownership
units, the applicant seeks proactive approvals to allow conversion of some or all of the
units to fractional ownership/timeshare use at any time in the future. The 35 free-market
residential units have been designed to include 35 lock-off bedroom suites (one per unit)
so as to maximize the potential for rental of short-term tourist accommodations and to
accommodate the potential for future conversions to timeshare lodging use. Such a
proactive approval as requested herein can be adequately handled through the inclusion
of necessary conditions of approval and will serve to further the adopted goals for
timeshare development.
The purpose of Chapter 26.590, Timeshare, of the Code is to establish the procedures and
standards by which timeshare development may be permitted within the City of Aspen.
The City's intent in adopting the timeshare regulations was to provide for the protection
of the character of Aspen as a resort community, and to promote increased tourism and
vitality. Specifically, the City intended that new timeshare projects in Aspen would help
to achieve the following public purposes:
A. Increased Vitality. Timeshare developments can provide the opportunity for
increased tourism to Aspen, can add to the level of community vitality, and can
help to create a more sustainable local economy. This can be accomplished by
expanding the number and variety of "hot beds" available to visitors, raisin
occupancy levels in the accommodations sector, and attracting "new trials" to
Aspen,from persons who have not previously visited this community.
The proposed project, with its 76 traditional lodge units and 35-70 (depending on lock-off
unit usages) potential timeshare units, will clearly provide an opportunity for increased
tourism in Aspen which, in turn, will add to the level of community vitality and help to
create a more sustainable local economy. The number and variety of"hot beds" will be
expanded, raising occupancy levels in the accommodations sector and will attract "new
trials"to Aspen.
B. Preserve and Enhance Lodging Inventory. Aspen's tourist accommodations
inventory has for some time included a significant percentage of traditional
lodges. The community would like to preserve and enhance this lodging inventory,
by encouraging timeshare units to be contained in projects that look and operate
in a manner similar to Aspen' s traditional lodges. These regulations have been
designed to accomplish this purpose by establishing standards for the physical
and operational features of timeshare lodges, to ensure that new and re-
developed timeshare lodges maintain Aspen's lodging traditions.
The proposed development includes 76 new units of traditional lodging without in any
way affecting the existing lodge unit inventory ion the City (i.e., no units are being
removed). To a significant extent, the providing of these lodging units is made possible
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD
Exhibit 3, Page 1
r
by the 35 multi-family units with their 35 lock-off units, all of which the applicant seeks
permission to convert some or all of to timeshare use in the future.
C. Upgrade Quality of Accommodations. It is important to Aspen's tourist economy
that its accommodations are kept up-to-date. Timeshare development offers the
opportunity to infuse capital into the short term accommodations inventory, so
facilities can be modernized. It is equally important to ensure that once facilities
are upgraded, the facility is managed to provide a quality visitor experience over
time. These regulations are intended to ensure that timeshare lodges are properly
maintained over the life of the development.
The proposed development will upgrade the quality of accommodations in the City of
Aspen. Adequate provisions will be made to assure the long-term maintenance of the
entire development.
D. Maintain Community Character. Aspen has a valued reputation as a quality
resort community. The city intends to regulate timeshare marketing and sales
practices, to ensure that the way timeshare estates are marketed and sold is
consistent with the character of this community, and to minimize the potential for
practices that would create an inappropriate image of Aspen. The city also
intends to provide protection for its long term residential neighborhoods, to
ensure that the impacts of timeshare development do not adversely affect the
character of these residential areas, by limiting this use to the city's lodge and
selected commercial zone districts.
Any marketing for the sale of timeshare estates in the future will be carried out in a
manner wholly consistent with City of Aspen and State regulations. Marketing and sales
will be handled in a professional, honorable way, and will be consistent with the
character and image of the Aspen community.
Section 26.590.050. Contents of Application
Pursuant to Section 26.104.100 of the Code, a "timeshare lodge" is defined as, "a
development ... that has been approved for timesharing pursuant to Chapter 26.590 and
has the characteristics of a timeshare lodge as specified in Section 26590.060."
Although the applicant is currently proposing whole-ownership of the free-market
residential units, proactive approvals are now being sought to allow conversion of some
or all of the units to fractional ownership/timeshare use at any time in the future. Each of
the 35 free-market residential units has been d short-term t urs t accommodat ons and to
so as to maximize the potential for rental of
accommodate the potential for future conversions to timeshare lodging use.
Pursuant to Section 26.590.050, in addition to the general application information
required in Section 26.304.030, Application ds' dh contents s
PUD and subdivision, an application for timeshare lodge development approval must
provide the following information.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD
Exhibit 3, Page 2
f
A. Timeshare Use Plan. A detailed description of the basic elements of the proposed
timeshare use plan. The use plan shall describe the number of estates being created
in each unit, the total number of estates to be created, the expected price for each
estate, and whether a purchaser is buying a specific unit for a specific time, a
specific unit for a floating time, or whether there is no specific unit but just a specific
time. It shall also describe whether owners will be able to participate in an
exchange program, and if so, in which program(s) they will be eligible to
participate. The use plan shall also provide a specific description of how the
development will comply with the requirements of Section 26590.060,
Characteristics of a Timeshare Lodge.
B. Summary of Disclosure Statement and Timeshare Instruments. A detailed summary
of each of the key points that will be included in the disclosure statement and the
timeshare development instruments (see Section 26.590.090) if the project receives
approval from the City.
C. Management Plan. A plan for how the timeshare development will be managed,
describing whether the applicant will manage the project, or if it will be managed by
a management company, a branded company, or other entity, and describing how
the project will be operated.
D. Marketing Plan. The marketing plan for the timeshare development, including
information on proposed sales techniques (including a description of gifts,
premiums, or promotions to be offered), sales packaging, and whether a sales
office will be established off-site.
E. Budget. A planned budget for the proposed homeowners/condominium association
estimating the proposed costs and expenditures for the management and
maintenance of the timeshare development.
F. Upgrading plan. For any existing project that is proposed to be converted to a
timeshare lodge development, the applicant shall submit a plan of how the project
will be physically upgraded and modernized.
G. Tax collection. A statement indicating the manner in which real estate transfer
taxes and sales taxes will be collected.
H. Developer's registration. A copy of the Developer's registration with the
Colorado Real Estate Commission. If the Developer has not so registered at the
time of submission of the application, then this information shall be submitted at
the time the timeshare documents are submitted for recordation, pursuant to
Section 26.590.090 of this Code. (Ord. No. 21-2002§I [part])
As mentioned above, the applicant is currently proposing full-ownership of the free-
market residential units; however, proactive approvals are now being sought to allow
conversion of some or all of the units to fractional ownership/timeshare use at any time in
the future. Each of the 35 free-market residential units has been designed to include a
lock-off bedroom suite so as to maximize the potential for rental of short-term tourist
accommodations and to accommodate the potential for future conversions to timeshare
lodging use. With the proactive approvals sought herein, the specifics of the timeshare
use plan, disclosure statement, timeshare instruments and other requirements of Section
26.590.050 will be provided to staff for administrative review and acceptance prior to any
actual conversions to timeshare use taking place.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Exhibit 3, Page 3
f
26.590.060. Characteristics of a Timeshare Lodge Development
In order to assist the City of Aspen in reaching its goals relative to fractional/timeshare
lodge developments, applicant's proposal provides .the following Mandatory Physical
Elements:
1. All timeshare lodge developments shall have a staffed on-site front desk, located
within a lobby that is sized to meet the needs of the project. If the timeshare lodge is
part of a multi-site development, there may be a single front desk for these sites. The
staffed front desk shall be open at least during regular business hours, and shall be
managed to provide full-time registration and reservation services, including
provision for late check-in and for other off-hours guest needs. The front desk shall
accommodate walk-in rentals.
The lodge proposed for Parcel l will have a staffed on-site front desk,located within a lobby
that is sized to meet the needs of the project. The staffed front desk will be open at least
during regular business hours, and will be managed to provide full-time registration and
reservation services, including provision for late check-in and for other off-hours guest
needs. The front desk shall accommodate walk-in rentals. If and when the residential units
are converted to timeshares, the lodge's front desk and other services will be available to
accommodate those guests.
2. A timeshare lodge development shall contain a sufficient level of recreational
facilities (such as exercise equipment, a pool or spa, or similar facilities) and other
amenities (such as a lobby, meeting spaces, and similar facilities) to serve the
occupants, including facilities that can be used in the winter and the summer
seasons. The extent of the facilities provided should be proportional to the size of the
timeshare lodge development. The types of facilities should be consistent with the
planned method and style of operating the development.
As the architectural plans illustrate, the proposed recreational facilities and other amenities
are adequate to serve the guests and owners of the lodge year-round. These same facilities
and amenities will be available timeshares. Further Aspen itelf guests
whether they are fully owned or and the surrounding areas
provide all the recreational opportunities one can possibly need.
3. A timeshare lodge in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district shall not have any
lodge rooms located on the ground floor.loon. Instead, a timeshare lodge in the CC zone
district shall contain at least one of the following elements: a bar, restaurant, or
retail facilities. The element(s)provided shall be located along the street front, shall
be accessible from the street, and shall be designed to serve the public, not just the
occupants of the timeshare lodge.
This project is not within the Commercial Core zone district; therefore, these requirements
are not applicable.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD
Exhibit 3,Page 4
In addition to the mandatory physical elements of a timeshare lodge development, the City
has enumerated a number of Mandatory Operational Practices with which the proposal's
consistency is demonstrated below.
B. Mandatory Operational Practices. The City wants to ensure that the units in a
timeshare lodge development are available for rental to the public when they are
not being occupied by the owner, the owner's guests, or persons occupying the
unit under an exchange program. The City has identified certain operational
practices that will accomplish this intent, which are listed in this section. An
applicant who agrees to include all of the practices listed below in the operation
of the timeshare development shall be deemed to have complied with the
requirements of this sub-section B and need not address any of the optional
operational practices of sub-section C.
The City recognizes, however, that there may be other ways to comply with this
intent, and will consider these and other operational practices. Applicants may
propose to substitute one or more of the optional practices listed in Section C.,
below, for one or more of the mandatory practices listed in this Section B.
Applicants may also propose other operational practices not listed in Section C. as
a means of demonstrating compliance with this standard. Acceptance of the
proposed optional practices as a substitute for one or more of the mandatory
practices shall be at the sole discretion of the City Council.
If and when multi-family units in the proposed development are converted to timeshare use,
the applicant will demonstrate compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section
26.590.060(B)(1-5) of the Code, inclusive, as listed below. As an applicant who agrees to
include all of the practices (131 through B5, inclusive) in the operation of the timeshare
lodge development, the applicant shall be deemed to have complied with the
requirements of this sub-section B and need not address any of the optional operational
practices of sub-section C. Nevertheless, the applicant will also satisfy many of the
optional operational practices desired by the City.
1. Timeshare estates shall be made available for short-term rental when the estate
is not in use by the owner of the unit, the owner's guests, or persons occupying
the unit under an exchange program. Units that are available for rental shall be
listed at competitive rates in a central reservation system. Listing of the unit
with a recognized central reservation system in Aspen, or through the central
reservation system of the company that will manage the timeshare development,
is preferred.
2. The covenants of the homeowners association shall permit walk-in rental of
units. The association shall not limit rental of units to such arrangements as
only weekly rentals or Saturday-to-Saturday rentals; instead the association
shall permit shorter stays, split-week rentals, and similar flexible
arrangements.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Exhibit 3, Page 5
r
3. Owners of timeshare estates shall be required to reserve their unit/time
sufficiently far enough in advance to enable the public to obtain access to those
units that are not so reserved.
4. The owner of a timeshare estate shall not be permitted to occupy that estate for
any period in excess of thirty(3 0) consecutive calendar days.
5. The units that remain in the developer's inventory shall be made available for
rental to the public while the estates are being sold, except for models and other
units that are needed for marketing or promotional purposes.
The applicant will ensure that,if and when the units are converted into timeshare estates,the
units will be available for rental to the public when they are not being occupied by owners,
owners' guests, or persons occupying the unit under an exchange program, subject to
whatever limitations on rental pool arrangements that may exist under applicable securities
laws. As currently envisioned, any timeshare units and their reservations will be operated
by the lodge operators on Parcel 1. Any unit available to the general public for short-term
rental will be listed with a central reservation system at competitive rates. The covenants for
the project will permit unrestricted walk-in rental of unoccupied units. Specific dates for
owner reservations requirements will be established in final timeshare documents and such
dates will allow sufficient lead time to enable the public to obtain access to those units that
go unreserved. No owner will be permitted to occupy their timeshare estate for any period
in excess of thirty consecutive calendar days. With the exception of models and units
needed for marketing/promotional purposes, all units remaining in the applicant's inventory
will be made available to the general public for rental while estates are still being sold.
With the proactive approvals sought herein, the specifics of the operational practices will
be provided to staff for administrative review and acceptance prior to any actual
conversions to timeshare use taking place.
C. Optional Operational Features.
1. Timeshare lodge developments that subdivide each unit into a larger number
of estates (more than 10 estates per unit) are preferred to those which subdivide
each unit into a smaller number of estates (less than 10 estates per unit).
The number of estates will be determined at a later date.
2. Applicants may formulate their timeshare use plan such that the purchaser
would not expect to occupy the same unit each visit; instead the purchaser
would purchase the right to occupy a certain type of unit for a certain period of
time. Applicants may also include provisions in the homeowners association
documents prohibiting owners from personalizing the unit they have purchased.
Compliance with this standard is not mandatory. Applicant seeks to reserve the right to
make use of the flexibility afforded under this standard at its own discretion.
3. Applicants may design their development as a mixed project, which includes
not only timeshare units, but also some units that would continue to be owned
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Exhibit 3, Page 6
and operated by the applicant and his successors or assigns as traditional
lodge units. Another type of use plan that is encouraged would be for the
applicant to agree not to sell all of the shares in every unit, but to instead keep
some time reserved for rental to the public at market rates during both the high
seasons and the off-seasons.
The applicant currently proposes full ownership of the residential units. The number of
units that may be converted into timeshares will be determined at a later date, and the result
may well be a mixed project as contemplated under the terms of this code provision.
4. Applicants may decide to sell on and off-season estates as a package.
As explained, the applicant is currently proposing full-ownership of the free-market
residential units; however, proactive approvals are now being sought to allow conversion
of some or all of the units to fractional ownership/timeshare use at any time in the future.
With the proactive approvals sought herein, the specifics of the timeshare use plan,
disclosure statement, timeshare instruments and other requirements of Section 26.590.050
will be provided to staff for administrative review and acceptance prior to any actual
conversions to timeshare use taking place.
S. Applicants may include in their use plan provisions that allow for a wide range
of exchange opportunities for owners, which will promote new Aspen trials.
Exchange opportunities may be included in the use plan if and when the units are converted
into timeshares.
Section 26.590.070. Review Standards for Timeshare Lodge Develo ment
An applicant for timeshare lodge development must demonstrate compliance with each of
the Section 26.590.070 standards, as applicable to the proposed development. These
standards are in addition to those standards applicable to the review of the PUD and
Subdivision applications. The standards of Section 26.590.070 are provided below in
indented and italicized text, and each is followed by a response that demonstrates
satisfaction of and/or compliance with the standard,as applicable.
A. Fiscal Impact Analysis and Mitigation. Any applicant proposing to convert an
existing lodge to a timeshare lodge development shall be required to
demonstrate that the proposed conversion will not have a negative tax
consequence for the City. In order to demonstrate the tax consequences of the
proposed conversion, the applicant shall prepare a detailed fiscal impact study
as part of the final PUD application. The fiscal impact study shall contain at
least the following comparisons [omitted] between the existing lodge operation
and the proposed timeshare lodge development:
The proposal does not include a conversion of existing lodging into a timeshare lodge
development. The redevelopment contemplates development of entirely new buildings.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Exhibit 3, Page 7
ti
The properties are not in current lodging use. This criterion applies to the conversion of
existing buildings from traditional lodging operations to fractional ownership and,
therefore, this criterion is not applicable. No Fiscal Impact Analysis and Mitigation is
required as the property is currently vacant land.
B. Upgrading of Existing Projects. Any existing project that is proposed to be
converted to a timeshare lodge development shall be physically upgraded and
modernized. The extent of the upgrading that is to be accomplished shall be
determined as part of the PUD review, considering the condition of the existing
facilities, with the intent being to make the development compatible in character
with surrounding properties and to extend the useful life of the building.
1. To the extent that it would be practical and reasonable, existing structures shall
be brought into compliance with the City's adopted fire, health, and building
codes.
The property is vacant. There is no existing project that would be upgraded.
2. No sale of any interest in a timeshare lodge development shall be closed until a
certificate of occupancy has been issued for the upgrading.
While not technically applicable, this requirement is understood and the applicant will not
sell any timeshare interests until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the affected
building.
C. Preservation of Existing Lodging Inventory. An express purpose of these
regulations is to preserve and enhance Aspen's existing lodging inventory.
Therefore, any proposal to convert an existing lodge or other property that
provides short term accommodations to a timeshare lodge should, at a minimum,
replace the existing number of units on the property in the planned timeshare lodge.
If the applicant is unable to replace the existing number of units, then the timeshare
lodge development shall replace the existing number of bedrooms on the properly,
or the applicant shall demonstrate how the proposal complies with the purposes of
these regulations, even though the planned timeshare lodge will not replace either
the existing number of units or bedrooms.
There is no existing lodging inventory to preserve.
D. Affordable Housing Requirements.
1. Whenever a timeshare lodge development is required to provide affordable
housing, mitigation for the development shall be calculated by applying the
standards of the City's housing designee for lodge uses. The affordable housing
requirement shall be calculated based on the maximum number of proposed
lock out rooms in the development, and shall also take into account any retail,
restaurant, conference, or other functions proposed in the lodge.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Exhibit 3,Page 8
Please refer to the main body of the application as well as the responses provided for the
affordable housing review standards in the GMQS Exhibits.
2. The conversion of any multi family dwelling unit that meets the definition of
residential multi family housing to timesharing shall comply with the provisions
of Chapter 26530, Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program, even when
there is no demolition of the existing multi family dwelling unit.
The applicant is seeking proactive approvals to allow the conversion of not yet built multi-
family housing to timeshare use; with such proactive approvals, the resident multi-family
housing replacement program will not be triggered. With regard to the Mine Dump
Apartments that were demolished some ten or so years ago, the applicant has addressed the
applicable replacement requirements in the main body of the application.
E. Parking Requirements.
1. The parking requirement for timeshare lodge development shall be calculated
by applying the parking standard for the underlying zone district for lodge uses.
The parking requirement shall be calculated based on the maximum number of
proposed lock out rooms in the development.
2. The timeshare lodge development shall also provide an appropriate level of
guest transportation services, such as vans or other shuttle vehicles, to offer an
alternative to having owners and guests using their own vehicles in Aspen.
3. The owner of a timeshare estate shall be prohibited from storing a vehicle in a
parking space on-site when the owner is not using that estate.
Please refer to the narrative provided in response to the off-street parking requirements in
the main body of the application.All parking requirements are being satisfied.
F. Appropriateness of Marketing and Sales Practices. The marketing and sale of
timeshare estates shall be governed by the real estate laws set forth in Title 12,
Article 61, C.R.S., as may be amended from time to time. The applicant and
licensed marketing entity shall present to the City a plan for marketing the
timeshare development.
1. The following marketing and sales practices for a timeshare development shall
not be permitted:
a. The solicitation of prospective purchasers of timeshare units on any street,
mall, or other public property or facility; and
b. Any unethical sales and marketing practices which would tend to mislead
potential purchasers.
2. Giving of gifts to encourage potential purchasers to attend a sales presentation
or to visit a timeshare development is permitted, provided the gift reflects the
local Aspen economy. For example, gifts for travel to or accommodations in
Aspen, restaurants in Aspen, and local attractions (ski passes, concert tickets,
rafting trips, etc.) are permitted. Gifts that have no relationship to the local
Aspen economy are not permitted. The following gifts are also not permitted:
a. Any gift for which an accurate description is not given;
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Exhibit 3, Page 9
b. Any gift package for which notice is not given to the prospective purchaser
that the purchaser will be required to attend a sales presentation as a
condition of receiving the gifts; and
c. Any gift package for which the printed announcement of the requirement to
attend a sales presentation is in smaller type face than the information on
the gift being offered.
The marketing efforts shall comply with all requirements of this section if and when units
are converted into timeshares.
G. Adequacy of Maintenance and Management Plan. The applicant shall provide
documentation and guarantees that the timeshare lodge development will be
appropriately managed and maintained in a manner that will be both stable and
continuous. This shall include an identification of when and how maintenance will
be provided, and shall also address the following requirements:
1. A fair procedure shall be established for the estate owners to review and
approve any fee increases which may be made throughout the life of the
timeshare development, to provide assurance and protection to timeshare
owners that management/assessment fees will be applied and used
appropriately.
2. The applicant shall also demonstrate that there will be a reserve fund to ensure
that the proposed timeshare development will be properly maintained
throughout its lifetime.
The requirements of this standard will be incorporated in the documents and instruments to
be submitted to staff for administrative review and acceptance prior to any actual
conversions to timeshare use taking place.
H. Compliance with State Statutes. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed
timeshare lodge development will comply with all applicable requirements of Title
12, Article 61, C.R.S.; Title 38, Article 33, C.R.S.; and Title 38, Article 33.3, C.R.S.;
including the requirements concerning the five (S) day period for rescission of a
sales contract, and the procedures for holding deposits or down payments in
escrow.
The applicant will comply with all statutory requirements governing timeshare projects.
Such compliance will be spelled out in the timeshare instruments to be submitted to staff for
administrative review and acceptance prior to any actual conversions to timeshare use
taking place.
I. Approval By Condominium Owners. If the development that is proposed to be
timeshared is a condominium, the applicant shall submit written proof that the
condominium declaration allows timesharing, that one hundred (100) percent of
the owners of the condominium units have approved the timeshare development,
including any improvements to the common elements that the applicant may
propose, that all mortgagees of the condominium have approved the proposed
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Exhibit 3, Page 10
timeshare development, and that all condominium units in the timeshare
development will be included in the same sales and marketingprogram.
If/when condominium units are to be converted to timeshares, all necessary approvals from
the owners or owners' association(s)will be duly obtained.
J. Prohibited Practices and Uses. Without in any way limiting any requirement
contained in this Chapter, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly engage in any
of the following practices:
I. The creation, operation or sale of a right-to-use interest or any other timeshare
concept which is not specifically allowed and approved pursuant to the
requirements of this section. Right-to-use timeshare concepts (e.g. lease-holds
and vacation clubs) are considered inappropriate in Aspen and are not
permitted.
2. Misrepresentation of the facts contained in any application for timeshare
approval, timeshare development instruments, or disclosure statement.
3. Failure to comply with any representations contained in any application for
timesharing or misrepresenting the substance of any such application to
another who may be a prospective purchaser of a timeshare interest.
4. Manage, operate, use, offer for sale or sell a timeshare estate or interest therein
in violation of any requirement of this Chapter or any approval granted
pursuant hereto, or cause or aid and abet another to violate any requirement of
this Chapter, or an approval granted pursuant to this Chapter.
The applicant has read and understood the prohibitions contained in this standard.
Section 26.590.080. Business License and Sales Tax Pa ents
A. Business license. It shall be unlawful for any timeshare development to
operate in the City without first obtaining a business license in accordance
with the standard procedures of the City.
B. Sales tax payments. Occupancy of any timeshare unit by anyone who pays a
rental fee for the use of the unit(other than the owner thereq) shall be subject
to the City's sales tax the same as if such occupancy were of a hotel or lodge
unit. Any timeshare development, as a condition of its approval, shall be
required to obtain an Aspen sales tax/lodging tax license, which shall
establish how this tax shall be collected and paid to the City. The manager of
the association shall be responsible for the timely collection of the City sales
tax for the City for rentals made through the association or a reservation
system. The manager shall note individual estate owners that they are
responsible for the payment of sales tax to the City for units rented on a
private basis.
The applicant will comply with these requirements if and when the residential units are
converted into timeshares.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Exhibit 3, Page 11
k
Section 26.590.090. Timeshare Documents
Certain timeshare documents are required to be submitted to the City,including a Disclosure
Statement and Timeshare Development Instruments. Drafts of these documents will be
provided to the City sometime in the future, prior to any units actually being converted into
timeshare estates.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Exhibit 3, Page 12
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD (Mixed Lodging Residential Proiect)
Exhibit 4—Conditional Use Review
The proposed development includes a restaurant/bar that, because it will be open to the
general public, is more than simply ancillary/accessory to the lodge operation. Given the
provisions of the underlying Lodge (L) Zone District, this restaurant/bar use must be
specifically approved as a conditional use. Note that the same conditional use was
recently approved by the City for the Lift One Lodge development located immediately
across South Aspen Street from the subject property.
The standards applicable to all conditional uses from Section 26.425.040 of the Code are
provided below in italicized print and each is followed by a response.
A. The conditional use is consistent with the intent of the Zone District in
which it is proposed to be located and complies with all other applicable
requirements of this Title; and
The proposed conditional use (restaurant/bar) is consistent with the Lodge Zone District
and is listed as a permitted conditional use. The purpose of the Lodge (L) Zone District
is "to encourage construction, renovation and operation of lodges, tourist-oriented multi-
family buildings, high occupancy timeshare facilities and ancillary uses compatible with
lodging to support and enhance the City's resort economy." Most lodges provide
restaurant service that is open to the general public. Inclusion of a restaurant/bar space is
a typical amenity of a hotel in this area. It is expected to serve guests of the lodge as well
as the general public, especially during ski season. This amenity of the lodge will
enhance the viability of the lodge and Aspen's resort economy.
B. The conditional use is compatible with the mix of development in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of density, height, bulk,
architecture, landscaping, and open space, as well as with any applicable
adopted regulatory master plan.
A restaurantibar is compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of
the parcel. The base of lift 1 has been used for lodging operations since the inception of
skiing in Aspen. Many of these facilities have had restaurants/bars. The restaurant and
bar will enhance the mix of uses in the neighborhood and compliment the existing
lodging, multi-family housing and recreation activities in the neighborhood. The
restaurantibar uses, themselves, have little affect on the density, height, bulk,
architecture, landscaping and open space of the project as a whole; however, the outdoor
dining/patio areas associated with the conditional use serve to enliven and compliment
not only the project and its architecture but also the character of the neighborhood.
C. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and
surrounding land uses and enhances the mixture of complimentary uses
and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development; and
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Exhibit 4, Page 1
Please refer to the response provided for the previous standard.
D. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed
conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts,
impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service
delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and
The restaurant/bar will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties. The
lodge within which the restaurant/bar is to be located is designed to accommodate service
needs and deliveries from within the subgrade parking and screened loading areas. This
will minimize or eliminate any adverse effects of the restaurant use. The restaurant will
be required to have modern venting and is not expected to create any undue smoke,
odors,vibration or other adverse impacts on surrounding properties.
E. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional
use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste,
parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and
medical services, drainage systems and schools; and
The project can be accommodated with existing public infrastructure. Some services are
being upgraded by the applicant to address direct needs. No disproportionate public
service burdens are expected. No additional public facilities or services will be necessary
to serve the conditional use.
F. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional
use; and
The employee housing demands for the restaurant have been factored into the overall
project's housing mitigation requirement. Please see the responses relating to affordable
housing in the main body of the application as well as GMQS Exhibit 8B.
G. The Community Development Director may recommend and the Planning
and Zoning Commission may impose such conditions on a conditional use
that are necessary to maintain the integrity of the City's Zone Districts and
to ensure the conditional use complies with this Chapter and this Title; is
compatible with surrounding land uses; and is served by adequate public
facilities. This includes, but is not limited to, imposing conditions on size,
bulk, location, open space, landscaping, buffering, lighting, signage, off-
street parking and other similar design features, the construction of public
facilities to serve the conditional use and limitations on the operating
characteristics, hours of operation and duration of the conditional use.
The applicant understands and accepts that certain conditions may be imposed by the
City with regard to the conditional use proposed.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Exhibit 4,Page 2
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD (Mixed Lodging Residential Project)
Exhibit 5—8040 Greenline Review
Since the subject property is located within 150 horizontal feet of the 8,040 foot
elevation, and the proposed development does not meet the standards for an exemption as
outlined in Code Section 26.435.030(B), this application is subject to 8040 Greenline
Review. The property has already been subject to 8040 Greenline Review (the vested
approvals for thirty-one (3 1) townhomes received 8040 Greenline Review approval);
thus, it follows that the newly proposed development also complies with the standards for
8040 Greenline Review enumerated in Section 26.430.030(C), as more specifically
demonstrated below.
Moreover, issuance of a building permit for the development will already require
Engineering Department review and approval which, in turn, will require reduced
impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff per the City's adopted Stormwater
Management Plan, mitigation of any potential avalanche and debris flow hazards,
acceptable connection to and service by necessary utilities, and the minimization of
disturbance to existing terrain and natural land features. In addition, compliance with
Environmental Health Department requirements coupled with the proposed parking and
transportation demand management measures described above will assure minimization
of air pollution. The proposed plan is not affected by any adopted regulatory plans of the
Open Space and Trails Board.
The 8040 Greenline Review standards from Section 26.435.030(C) of the Code are
provided below in italicized print and each is followed by a response. The proposed
development must comply with all of the standards.
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for
development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including
mine subsidence and the possibility of mud/low, rock falls and avalanche
dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the
applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause
them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City.
The property has already been deemed suitable for development as approvals currently
exist for the development of 31 townhomes. It is understood that the proposed
development can and will be engineered prior to building permit issuance to comply with
all applicable requirements relative to stormwater drainage management, mitigation of
geologic conditions, and the similar without adversely affecting future development of
the surrounding area or resulting in unnecessary public costs.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the
natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of
water pollution.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Exhibit 5, Page 1
n
AW
The proposed development will have no adverse affect on any of the items listed in the
above standard. Again, it is understood that the proposed development can and will be
engineered prior to building permit issuance to comply with all applicable requirements
relative to stormwater drainage management, mitigation of geologic conditions, and the
similar without adversely affecting future development of the surrounding area or
resulting in unnecessary public costs.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the
air quality in the City.
There will be no adverse affect on air quality. All of the City's air-quality related
requirements will be complied with, and the applicant has proposed significant parking
and transportation demand management measures that will substantially reduce any
remaining potential air quality impacts.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is
compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development
is to be located.
As mentioned above, the property already contains approval for 31 town homes. The
City has expressed a desire to see a lodge component included for this property. The
proposed development now includes a lodge and 35 free-market residential units. The
current proposal is innovatively designed to take better advantage of the rising
topography of the site than was the case with any previously studied or approved
development plan for the site; as a result,the amount of energy spent on excavation, soils
removal, and site retaining necessary to accommodate this development plan is far less
intensive that had been thought practicable until now and associated construction impacts
will decrease markedly.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the
terrain, vegetation and natural land features.
The development will comply with this standard. Please refer to the responses provided
above.
6 The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads,
limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as
a scenic resource.
The newly proposed development contains more open space and better strategically
located open space than the already approved townhome project and will preserve the
mountain as a scenic resource. Please also refer to the responses provided above.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed
to blend into the open character of the mountain.
The architecture and layouts are modeled after the basic bulk, massing and scale of
development that was approved by COWOP 2 for lodge and residential development
thereon. That said, the exact architecture, massing, scale and layout from the COWOP 2
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Exhibit 5,Page 2
plan could not be adhered to as the use mix has changed substantially. Nevertheless, the
current proposal provides an overall reduction in mass, bulk and scale from the COWOP
2 plan, and an overall increase in open area. Please also refer to the main body of the
application as well as the responses provided above.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the
proposed development.
All utilities and sufficient water pressure are available to service the proposed
development. Any necessary upgrades will be completed by the applicant.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said
roads can be properly maintained.
The existing roads are adequate to serve the proposed development and any upgrades or
improvements required as a result of the proposed development will be completed by the
applicant.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to
ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
Adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment is provided in the
proposed development.
11. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board are
implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical.
(Ord. No. 55-2000, § 7)
The site of the proposed development is not affected by any adopted regulatory plans of
the Open Space and Trails Board.
South Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD Exhibit 5, Page 3